General Conference April 2014

[Anonymous]

Elder Zwick – :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Likewise, sins in and of themselves do not make us loveless. We all sin, therefore we would all be loveless.

Yes, absolutely. Any message contradicting the pure love of God is a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. In saying that I am not justifying an “easy gospel” I am saying love is central to the being and purpose of God & Christ the way the scriptures proclaim. If we try to make anything else more central than the Love of God I think we need to guard ourselves against becoming lost to the philosophies of men.

I am not implying in any way you have said anything wrong DJ. I’m saying I fear people listening to conference may forget that God is all about love.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, just to point it out, Elder Callister was released as a GA and called into the Sunday School Presidency.

There might be a reason behind that move that most members miss entirely – the extreme backlash against his infamous speech recently.

I find it hard to believe that TRC would be released based on an article that published in the Church’s own Ensign Magazine. That’s pretty sore punishment. He didn’t say anything that BKP wouldn’t have approved of. People like us would love for that to have been the case, because it would signal that hardliners are getting pushed out of the Church hierarchy. Based on Elder Andersen’s talk this morning, I doubt seriously that that is the case.

The release isn’t that shocking when you step back for a second… literally… TRC was a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, not the First. Second Quorum calls are not lifetime calls. He served in the Presidency of the Seventy, but now is being released from the Presidency, and having served as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy for six years, it is about time for his release from that quorum. Robert C Oaks was a member of the Second Q70, called to be in the Presidency, later released from the Presidency, then later still released from the Second Q70, and is no longer a GA. The only difference between Oaks and Callister is that Callister didn’t return to the Second Q70 first. Also, note that TRC is 68. He was the oldest member of the Presidency of the Seventy by several years, and also very near the age (70) where Seventy are generally retired anyway.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I thought he was in the 1st Q70 – thus, my reaction.

Thanks for that clarification, OON.

[Anonymous]

Edited: Sorry, I didn’t read earlier posts carefully. I see Sunday School Gen. Pres. as a pretty meaty and influential calling these days.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I was actually kind of looking forward to GC this time around, but he made me do a 180.

I’m right there with you on that one. His talk really took the wind out of my sails. FWIW I don’t think there’s any underlying anger behind the raised voice and finger pointing. From what I’ve seen it’s just JRH’s way of letting people know he is really serious about something. I think that method speaks to many people, like he is trying to awaken the believe the words of others gift of the spirit – if he says it like that, in that tone, it carries more weight with many people because it’s an apostle that’s saying it, you know it’s true.

JRH was one of my favorites. He and RGS came to meet with us when I was on my mission. RGS played the bad cop, you felt like salvation was a lost cause after he was done; JRH played the good cop, you felt like salvation was possible again. A real tear down, build up meeting. That left a lasting impression on me, that JRH was the good cop. He also had a talk on the atonement several years ago that solidified that position. It’s a bit surprising (for me) to see him in such a stern role.

All that said the largest issue I had was that the talk pretty much sets people up for finding ways in which they are persecuted. I’ve been caught up in persecution complexes in the past, maybe even currently, and I see much of that talk as throwing gas on the fire. Christ was all about unity, but the talk had a real us vs. them vibe.

I missed the afternoon conference, far too nice a day to spend it indoors glued to the TV. I figure I’ve got 6 months to catch up on the talks I miss. Sounds like E. Zwick had a good one.

[Anonymous]

I missed most of the first session but am currently watching the second… I feel like I’ve heard this talks and stories before. Seriously all of them just feel like a re-hash of what’s been talked about before. I guess we need repetition? But I find it to be quite droll. Also there seems to be quite an emphasis on following the commandments and avoid sin. Which I have a problem with I feel we focus to much on the “commandments” and not enough on mercy but that’s my own soap box.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Likewise, sins in and of themselves do not make us loveless. We all sin, therefore we would all be loveless.

Yes, absolutely. Any message contradicting the pure love of God is a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. In saying that I am not justifying an “easy gospel” I am saying love is central to the being and purpose of God & Christ the way the scriptures proclaim. If we try to make anything else more central than the Love of God I think we need to guard ourselves against becoming lost to the philosophies of men.

I am not implying in any way you have said anything wrong DJ. I’m saying I fear people listening to conference may forget that God is all about love.

I couldn’t agree more, Orson, and the very most central theme of the gospel is love – “On this hang all the law and the prophets” and so forth.

I will read the talk again, but what I heard was Elder Holland trying to make a connection with love and strict obedience to the letter of the law that I don’t see.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Wow, I thought he was in the 1st Q70 – thus, my reaction.

Thanks for that clarification, OON.

Me, too. I assumed that since he was a member of the presidency of the seventy that he was a member of the first quorum. So, OON, what you said does make sense, thank you. (I think the bloggernacle will still buzz about it being a punishment, though.)

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Edited: Sorry, I didn’t read earlier posts carefully. I see Sunday School Gen. Pres. as a pretty meaty and influential calling these days.

Really? I don’t see it as much more than a figurehead position. Please enlighten me.

[Anonymous]

Jeffery R. Holland said:

Quote:

It is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods and smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds. Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes – and this seems to be the greatest irony of all – these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?

This might be a dumb question but what does he mean by this? I’m probably missing a huge chunk that would help me be less concerned. Is he saying that God is someone who is not easy-going and laid back with His commandments? We should see God for what He actually is than what we think He is. Is this kind of what Elder Holland is saying?

[Anonymous]

My problem Don’tKnow, is I don’t know how to relate to that quote. I assume he meant it is a common thing to hear in these days, but I can’t relate anything I’ve heard in the world to people wanting a God that doesn’t rock or row the boat. What does that mean?

[Anonymous]

I know a lot of people who view God that way and a lot of people who don’t view God that way. I would say that most Mormons (the vast majority of them) don’t view God that way.

I don’t like “us vs. them” talks, generally, and I don’t like talks that are focused on what others do and don’t believe. I will read the talk, but I can relate to and understand that quote without liking it in that setting.

[Anonymous]

I’m kind of curious as to why Elder Oaks is giving his ‘women will never hold the priesthood’ talk… in priesthood session. Preaching to the choir, no?

I continue to be frustrated by the FP declaring men and women as equal partners in one breath, assigning the man to preside in the next. Those are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

I was surprised by Elder Oak’s talk, even though I probably shouldn’t have been. It seemed like a smack down to me. Minutes after telling the women to shove off, he then addresses them. A little weird, but if anyone was going to do it, he seems like the right choice. He didn’t address the points I most wonder about doctrinally (unless I missed it), which are why only men can have certain callings that don’t require priesthood to fulfill, and what is the eternal role of women. And did he basically say women do not get priesthood in the temple? I really wonder about that one. I know a lot of TBM women believe they do.

[Author]

Posts