Sunday AM General Conference Session

I understand war framing, but it is not my favorite. It is interesting to see those who take a battle stance when it isn’t my own.

I do like, however, the statement that how we teach our children is up to us. I also like the phrasing of sin-resistant and repentant better than the “not even once” stance of Sister Nelson, for example.

I’m down with helping children keep promises. That’s a fine skill.

Conceptually, this is a good talk. It’s just the framing I don’t like.

Agreed. It’s bad for those who have done what they believe is a good job parenting but their children have “gone astray.” I’m not sure of her family status but she comes of as one without an adult child who had struggled.

I like the statement to look up during difficult times.

I like the statement to look up during difficult times.

And appreciating what you have in the moment. The world is beautiful. Drink in the rain.

Can I go back to Pres. Monson? I’m thinking about one of my kids. She’s hearing that “a testimony” is about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and priesthood authority. She’s not hearing, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Exemplar? Then this is the church for you.”

I felt that too. I don’t like the”if joseph was a prophet the rest is true” concept because the opposite then can also be true – if he isn’t then the other things are false. It’s not so black and white or all or nothing.

ETA the gospel is not about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.

32 generations? 😯

I don’t like the soft coercion in “weak link” analogies. Should I sit my children down and explain that if they don’t make the right choices, they’ll disappoint me, my wife, their grandparents, their great grandparents, etc.?

Look up, not around, to learn what to do. Seems to apply to worrying about disappointing ancestors as well.

Nor do I like the repeated “where will you go?” question. This is where I don’t appreciate literal belief. The soft-coercion and conflation of church and gospel is real.