- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mom3 wrote:
You called it Dark Jedi. Your conference radar was spot on this time.
DJ’s nickname might have to be Yoda.
Like Curt said, this was a good conference. It gives me hope that additional bigger changes might come in the future. Also good because it led to some good discussions with my two daughters ages 18 and 20 and my wife and parents. Plus Easter, no church, and some R&R makes it a good weekend.
Old Timer wrote:
Overall, this has been my favorite conference in a LONG time – and I missed both Gong and Soares, because I was taking a friend in the ward to a long interview with the Bishop between sessions.That friendship is a perfect example of why I am so excited about the change in HT/VT. I have been her HT, but our interactions have never included a formal lesson – and I have learned more about transgender issues from her than could have been possible in any other way, and I am beyond grateful for that insight.
Yeah. I like what they are doing. Changing, adapting, apparently listening. Still seeking after the same goals but in better, improved ways. I liked how they have the YW doing ministering. Great job! I never thought of that. I like it because it expands the reach of the church by including more people in ministering. It elevates the role of women.
Still confused about how they can call ministering a “priesthood responsibility” when it’s really everyone’s responsibility. But I am finding the distinction between priesthood activities and non-priesthood activities is getting smaller and smaller.
I could do without all the claims that it’s revelation and such, as it makes me wonder why it came so late after home teaching has been failing for as long as I’ve been a member — a source of conflict between brethren and leaders and families alike. Not to criticize, but I kept waiting for them to say “let’s do our best with this new approach to ministering, and plan for further adjustments as we learn about this new process”….But that never came — instead came the claims that it was all revelation. Thus locking them into a few more decades of problematic programming if this doesn’t work as planned.
Amazing isn’t it — what is considered apostasy in one era is revelation in another!In many cases, apostasy is simply a matter of dates.New temples will be built in India and Russia. Wow. I loved the reactions of members in attendance as temples were announced in the areas where they live. It made me smile and actually laugh.
Haha, SD, I was just thinking that in my next talk I could actually say something about how home teaching was broken and not be considered an apostate. My next talk is about coming closer to Christ through ministering to others, a topic assigned last December. Finally, Cook addressed the elephant in the room with cases of rape! I wish he had been more direct and called a spade a spade, but it’s something. I have a nephew on a mission in Russia – this is a stunner. They can’t even proselyte there. Wow. SilentDawning wrote:
Are they reading STayLDS for ideas on how to revamp the church?
I have thought about this lately. While I think many would shy away and dismiss this an an anti-mormon forum without looking. But I’d imagine at least a GA or two would see this as a helpful resource.
Not that I think they inact policy based on what we say, or change their beliefs. But I do think it would help them to understand how we feel.
Old Timer wrote:
New temples will be built in India and Russia. Wow.I loved the reactions of members in attendance as temples were announced in the areas where they live. It made me smile and actually laugh.
Stunning although they will have to be aware of religious extremists in both countries.
I do hope in the case of Russia that it might go some way to quietening down relations between the US and Russia. There has been far too much war mongering going on in that direction.
Beefster wrote:
Finally, Cook addressed the elephant in the room with cases of rape! I wish he had been more direct and called a spade a spade, but it’s something.
I agree. I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that? If the victim didn’t consent it’s not immorality on her or his part. But to be honest I was only half listening to him because I didn’t want him to spoil my high (mostly brought on by Uchtdorf at that point) so I may have not really been taking his comments in context.
DarkJedi wrote:
Beefster wrote:
Finally, Cook addressed the elephant in the room with cases of rape! I wish he had been more direct and called a spade a spade, but it’s something.
I agree. I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that? If the victim didn’t consent it’s not immorality on her or his part. But to be honest I was only half listening to him because I didn’t want him to spoil my high (mostly brought on by Uchtdorf at that point) so I may have not really been taking his comments in context.
If someone rapes you, surely it is immorality on their part? I don’t like the phrase personally.
SamBee wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Beefster wrote:
Finally, Cook addressed the elephant in the room with cases of rape! I wish he had been more direct and called a spade a spade, but it’s something.
I agree. I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that? If the victim didn’t consent it’s not immorality on her or his part. But to be honest I was only half listening to him because I didn’t want him to spoil my high (mostly brought on by Uchtdorf at that point) so I may have not really been taking his comments in context.
If someone rapes you, surely it is immorality on their part? I don’t like the phrase personally.
It seems that the focus on the personal purity of the perpetrator has caused them to invent a phrase that would make the victim both invisible and more likely to self-blame. It also doesn’t acknowledge the violence of rape. “Oh, gee, I’d better go repent because now
I’m immoral.” Or maybe they’re trying to include all forms of sexual abuse and violence? I don’t like this phrase at all. Why not use existing terminology? It’s great that we’re talking about it, but do we have to get so weird about it?
SamBee wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Beefster wrote:
Finally, Cook addressed the elephant in the room with cases of rape! I wish he had been more direct and called a spade a spade, but it’s something.
I agree. I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that? If the victim didn’t consent it’s not immorality on her or his part. But to be honest I was only half listening to him because I didn’t want him to spoil my high (mostly brought on by Uchtdorf at that point) so I may have not really been taking his comments in context.
If someone rapes you, surely it is immorality on their part? I don’t like the phrase personally.
Immorality on the part of the rapist, definitely. It could be argued the rapist consents – he’s the perpetrator. He agrees to what he’s doing, immoral or not. The victim, however, cannot consent and still be a victim. Is that what “nonconsensual” means? I’m just not getting the terminology and think it’s a poor term. If he had called it nonconsensual sex I’d be fine with it. But it seem like he’s saying the victim is immoral because she was raped and that’s just not right.
(Note: I work in a secure detention facility and I’m very aware of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Essentially no prisoner can consent to sex with anyone, making them all nonconsensual. However I recognize that in some cases this could be nonconsensual immorality because despite the fact they can’t legally consent, they can still consent otherwise. That’s a legal argument, not a moral argument. And I should also note that not all rapists under PREA are male and not all victims are female, especially true since I work in a male facility.)
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that?
Elder Cook has something against culturally accepted phrases when he deems them counter-Gospel. I was in a meeting with him once when he instructed us all to not use the phrase “coming out.” It was to be called “self declaration.”
Yeah, “non-consensual immorality” is the one part that jarred the most for me in the entire conference. I just think people try to create words when they aren’t comfortable with existing words – or when they see a distinction not addressed with existing words – or are trying to cover lots of slightly varying situations with one phrase. This one was a real clunker for me, and I wish he hadn’t used it.
Roadrunner wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m still scratching my head at “nonconsensual immorality.” What the heck is that?
Elder Cook has something against culturally accepted phrases when he deems them counter-Gospel. I was in a meeting with him once when he instructed us all to not use the phrase “coming out.” It was to be called “self declaration.”
Can’t call a gay person a gay person, but “struggling with same sex attraction.” Can’t use a term pre-1940’s for “necking” and “petting”. Can’t say masturbation but we have to talk about little factories. Can’t say rape is rape, but “nonconsecsual immorality”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.