- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I figured that rather than wait for the thread I’d just go ahead and create it. I’ve had a question about GC in general, I’ve asked before but I think it fell through the cracks. When did the church start the current format of GC? Two Saturday sessions with a priesthood session that follows and two Sunday sessions? I’m assuming it wasn’t that way since the foundation of the church. Just curious about the history of the format and why it is the way it is.
Even when fully orthodox I didn’t always look forward to GC weekend with the same zeal as others. I hate to admit it, but many times I viewed GC as “the lost weekend.” I’d toil at work all week, be tethered to a TV all weekend, just enough time between sessions to make sure you can’t make any plans or get things done, and then I’d find myself right back at work feeling like I needed to take a few vacation days to unwind. It was like slogging through 12 consecutive working days to get to another weekend.
I admit, part of that was me being selfish, I wanted my “me” time and there was none to be had over the GC weekend. Another part is that I’m
extremelyOCD with time. If I got out of one session I knew that the next started in two hours, which was well below the time threshold that I require to convince myself that it’s ok not to focus on the next thing on the schedule. Watch a session, religiously watch the clock until the next, weekend gone in a poof, the stress of time management during it all wore me out. :crazy: That also got me thinking. I can imagine conference being
longerin the past and what we have now represents the shortened version. Still in some ways I see it in a similar light as the 3 hour block. Sometimes people think more=better. What is accomplished in 10 hours of meetings that couldn’t be handled in say… 6? A general priesthood session and two Sunday sessions. Yeah, yeah, you only have to watch as much as you want. No one is forcing you to watch any of it, in fact most people probably don’t. Still.
[/rant]
Anyway, here’s to hoping this conference is a good one. Time to watch for the first time after crawling back from my FC. I’m hoping that this year the good stands out and the bad fades quickly from my consciousness.
I spent last GC weekend watching an entire season of Breaking Bad. It was the first time I ever missed it. I’m actually looking forward to it this year, more than I have in a while. I’m hoping to see it through new eyes, and like you, nibbler, focus on what’s uplifting and just chuckle at the drivel. In my most TBM days I didn’t miss a session, even driving the 20 miles to the church and spending the day there to watch each session via satellite. I have to agree, Nibbler, those were lost weekends and even in my most TBM days I felt that. Later, in a different place and married with a family, we got satellite TV just because they carried BYUTV and we could watch conference at home where we gathered the children to watch each session. Prior to that we traded off going to sessions and staying home with the kids except for Sunday morning. There was some advantage to BYUTV, in that we could do some things between sessions and even do things like cooking and light work and hear the conference. But it was still lost. Now, we still get GC at home but don’t fret about conflicts with other activities – my son is planning to go see Divergent with is friends tomorrow afternoon, for instance (and with the blessing of my TBM wife). I like it because if the speaker starts to go someplace I don’t particularly care to hear about I can just get up and leave. I was actually in the midst of tuning out Pres. Uchtdorf in the beginning of his talk because it seemed like he was telling everyone why they should be members and what the great benefits of the church are when he caught my attention with the part about if it being so great why people leave. I almost got up to do something else, but I still would have heard him. I also do like that priesthood session is now broadcast. I don’t know when the current format started. I can actually imagine them being longer in the old days, but I agree, I would go for less time. There’s really nothing new there. Maybe have a Saturday session and a Sunday session of a couple hours each and do priesthood at a different time like women’s conference.
I do want to follow the line of thought and spirit of the message, but I was confused at times with Elder Holland’s message. I imagine the people that listened to Jesus found his message to be sweeter than what they got from the Pharisees, so I’m not sure where the disconnect is between what EH was saying and what I was hearing. Orson wrote:I do want to follow the line of thought and spirit of the message, but I was confused at times with Elder Holland’s message. I imagine the people that listened to Jesus found his message to be sweeter than what they got from the Pharisees, so I’m not sure where the disconnect is between what EH was saying and what I was hearing.
Ditto. His talk had some really good, fundamental gospel points (love, following Christ) but they were mixed in with fire and brimstone hard line stuff that really put me off. He seemed to be saying that you can only get and give love if you follow Christ in the church prescribed manner and that you pretty much had to be free of sin.
And yet Sin = lacking in Love. Neil L. Anderson’s talk has made me reach for the mute button. Chasm between the worlld and the church standards growing wider and people slipping away from the church. Also SSA nonsense and now telling us the only safety is in listening to the words of prophets. Really!!!!! Was it safe to describe mixed-race marriage as “repugnant?” Nope. There is no safety in listening to the bias and culturally influenced opinions of a group of aging Americans.
I’m done with this. Let me know when Elder Uchtdorf is back on.
Orson wrote:And yet Sin = lacking in Love.
Does it?
mackay11 wrote:Neil L. Anderson’s talk has made me reach for the mute button. Chasm between the worlld and the church standards growing wider and people slipping away from the church. Also SSA nonsense and now telling us the only safety is in listening to the words of prophets.
Really!!!!! Was it safe to describe mixed-race marriage as “repugnant?” Nope. There is no safety in listening to the bias and culturally influenced opinions of a group of aging Americans.
I’m done with this. Let me know when Elder Uchtdorf is back on.
Anderson’s talk sent me to another room as well. He very much contradicted himself on the whole tolerance thing – we should be tolerant, but he’s obviously not. Maybe we only have to tolerate what we agree with but everybody else has to tolerate everything?
mackay11 wrote:Neil L. Anderson’s talk has made me reach for the mute button.
I think he did make a great point that we are not to disparage those with whom we disagree. The example was the girl did not argue. I appreciate that he said it was two faithful church member that had a different opinions. I know most members will not see this message but I appreciate that it is there to pull out.
DarkJedi wrote:Orson wrote:And yet Sin = lacking in Love.
Does it?
From my readings of Jesus, yes – Love is the law. Love is the foundation and core of righteousness. Transgression can always be tied to lacking love. If some people teach transgression in a different way they must be getting something wrong.
[edit:] Don’t hold to past ideas of transgression and force “Love” as a defining foundation. Rather take Love first, and let the definition of transgression flow from the lack thereof.
Jesus’ love = righteousness and tedious adherence to the commandments Elder Holland = Yikes!
Orson wrote:I think he did make a great point that we are not to disparage those with whom we disagree. The example was the girl did not argue. I appreciate that he said it was two faithful church member that had a different opinions. I know most members will not see this message but I appreciate that it is there to pull out.
Yes, it was a talk of two halves and I worry that the first half will be the predominant takeaway. The fear is that the talk will be used as a reference to attack contrary viewpoints. E.g. those two members you referenced… well now everyone has a talk from an apostle to use against their differing opinion.
Holland: Hard to say what I felt. I saw the talk as something that is just going to fuel the saint’s persecution complex. It painted a very black and white picture. Defend with compassion, but defend will probably be the buzz phrase from that talk. I didn’t like the talk.
😥 Rasband – Mostly about service. We’d do well to serve more.
Amado – A retelling of the narrative of Jesus. Probably the best talk of the session though it didn’t vary much from being a synopsis of the gospels. He got emotional, he really felt what he was saying. I did like how he pointed out that while Jesus shared a message that was largely against the politics and religious leaders at the time that he still spent his life blessing others.
Reeves – The porn talk, and not even during priesthood session.
:Anderson – Already touched on. His talk will be the reference for the church’s position on SSM/SSA for some time to come. I hope members remember the half of the talk that reminded people to respect others beliefs. One standout during the girl on facebook story was the part where he mentioned that there were members of the church that were saying get with the times. The message that I got out of that was that members should toe the line a bit better with respect to the church’s teachings on SSA… and here is what the position is.
Eyring – Remain faithful because of the sacrifices of your ancestors, mix in a bit of missionary work.
The closing hymn was nice.
For the first time in years, I was looking forward to watching GC. I forgot that I have young kids. I don’t think I heard more than a handful of complete sentences together the entire time. Sigh. I’m looking forward more to priesthood session when I won’t have the kids milling around me. Orson wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Orson wrote:And yet Sin = lacking in Love.
Does it?
From my readings of Jesus, yes – Love is the law. Love is the foundation and core of righteousness. Transgression can always be tied to lacking love. If some people teach transgression in a different way they must be getting something wrong.
[edit:] Don’t hold to past ideas of transgression and force “Love” as a defining foundation. Rather take Love first, and let the definition of transgression flow from the lack thereof.
I do understand and agree that each commandment falls under the general heading of love God or love your neighbor (and sometimes both), but from the other side, God does not love us less if we sin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.