Jump to content

Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I don't know where you live or what your financial situation is, but if you get desperate and can't find somewhere to rent, you could always ride through trailer parks and look for empty trailers.

There are 6 of us.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder why they are moving it back into the Conference center when the conference will still be virtual only for October?

I think it will be in the Conference Center Theater, where it has been the last few times. That is different from the big hall or arena or whatever it’s called. The theater is where smaller meetings are held and theatrical productions are presented. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder why they are moving it back into the Conference center when the conference will still be virtual only for October?

Maybe they will be bringing back the choir?  

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

The first General Priesthood meeting I saw live was in 1964 in the BYU Smith Fieldhouse. A freshman in my first month, I went alone and sat high up in the bleachers. I had never seen so many LDS men and boys in one place. We watched the session on a huge screen hanging at mid-court. When President McKay entered the Tabernacle, all the brethren stood and began to sing “We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet.” At first the singing was robust, but I noticed that it began to grow softer. The Spirit entered that huge room and all around me brethren stood in silence, some in tears. At that moment I received a powerful testimony that David O. McKay was a true prophet of God.  

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, looks like a knock-off to me. Else why create a new brand name?

Because someone else owned the trademark...but I am guessing from the limited wiki info, it is an undocumented assertion.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it will be in the Conference Center Theater, where it has been the last few times. That is different from the big hall or arena or whatever it’s called. 

The article said it will move to the Conference Center Auditorium which is the big main place where conference is normally held.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a good friend who is in the choir. He hasn't said anything. 

I don’t think they’ll be having the choir yet. As I said, it will be in the theater, not the main hall. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The article said it will move to the Conference Center Auditorium which is the big main place where conference is normally held.

Oh. Maybe I’m wrong. 
 

Added later:  But didn’t the article say they won’t yet be admitting the general public for the in-person meeting? If so, what would be the point of moving it back into that immense space?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because someone else owned the trademark...but I am guessing from the limited wiki info, it is an undocumented assertion.

But if others are selling the product and marketing it as Spudnuts, this company can’t really sell it under another name and lay claim to it being the original. Or maybe they can. At any rate, I’m not sure I trust them. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh. Maybe I’m wrong. 
 

Added later:  But didn’t the article say they won’t yet be admitting the general public for the in-person meeting? If so, what would be the point of moving it back into that immense space?

That’s what JAH is wondering. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Point taken. 
 

But can you see that these changes might well have come about via revelation and might indeed have been the wisest course at the time, even if you don’t like them or don’t like that “internal pressure” might have been the catalyst for them? 
 

As I said, I believe the Lord sometimes chooses His battles according to prudence — or rather, that He inspires His servants to. 

Sure.  You're talking permissive revelation.  God giving us the revelation we desire or deserve, not the one he wants for us.  I am positive that happens frequently, and is both a blessing and a curse upon us.

Like one of my favorites:

D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if others are selling the product and marketing it as Spudnuts, this company can’t really sell it under another name and lay claim to it being the original. Or maybe they can. At any rate, I’m not sure I trust them. 

As @Calmindicated, trademark dispute is the apparent culprit here.

Little-known fact: you can't really copyright or trademark a recipe. If you invent a new process to create your food you might be able to secure a food patent, but most companies don't even bother with that.

However, what you can do is trademark a name: like Spudnut. That is apparently what happened here.

The Potadonut guy claimed to have bought the original Spudnut recipe which was used in retail stores, but that landed him in some hot water (oil?) over use of the trademarked name. You can find a few of these lawsuits online still.

I assume the owner ultimately decided to just avoid the hassle of continued litigation and registered his own trademark to sell his recipe under. You'll note that the only references to Spudnuts on the website are from customer reviews who say that the product tastes "just like the original Spudnuts."

Customer opinions are protected speech though, so that's how he is getting around the trademark issue. He isn't using the protected mark himself in any of his advertising, but if a customer says that's what it tastes like, then that's fair game. It would be kind of like if Ore-Ida were to sell a brand of "restaurant fries" and all of the customer reviews said that they taste just like McDonald's fries.

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Rain said:

Poor guy.  Does that mean he sings everything?

No, he’s not shy about talking. He did a very long response to the CES Letter and is now running for mayor somewhere in Utah. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If they could give the priesthood to women they would.

But they literally can't, so they don't pretend.

Why can't they? They gave it to those of African descent.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why can't they? They gave it to those of African descent.

You want the current policy answer or the my doctrinal opinion answer?
Not that you'd accept either so it's not particularly pertinent either way.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.  IMO it depends on the purpose of the meeting called.

But I agree - I'd love to hear from Mary, or Emma.  Or Eliza R. Snow, Mary Fielding Smith, Mary Magdalene, or Martha.  But I'd also love to hear from Peter, James, and John.

wouldn't we all. 

If I were given one choice, for a single meeting, there is zero question what I would choose.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

wouldn't we all. 

If I were given one choice, for a single meeting, there is zero question what I would choose.  

Sermon on the Mount

This one right?  Same for me.  Closely followed by

image.jpeg.1eec1c3d30b5375f52db905be754d4a5.jpeg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...