General Conference April 2014

[Anonymous]

Having been able to listen to it, I think, frankly, it is because the men badly need to hear some of the things he is saying about the nature of the Priesthood and how women actually do have the power and authority of the Priesthood currently.

This wasn’t a “women will never have the Priesthood” address, as tempting as it is to write it off that way. Really, that’s not what he said. He said quite clearly that women actually do “have the Priesthood” and have power and authority in the Priesthood. We might not like some of what he said, but it actually was, without a doubt in my mind, a very good description of the overall situation in the Church right now and one of the most “progressive” talks about women and the Priesthood from the General Conference pulpit I have heard in my lifetime – and I’m not saying it’s the most simply because I don’t trust my memory. I was very, very surprised by quite a bit of the talk – in a good way. I see it as an important step forward in the evolution of our collective thought about this topic, even as I believe we still have a long way to go still.

When I do my reviews of each of the talks, I will explain better, with supporting quotes.

[Anonymous]

journeygirl wrote:

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.

And why address women in a session we aren’t invited to?

Quote:

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.

This is a huge beef of mine. As far as I know the D&C doesn’t say only a man (priesthood holder) can be ward clerk.

Also, what were the exact words the Lord used when revealing that only men ever can or ever will hold the PH? Oaks really spoke with a lot of certainty on that point, that is how it is because the Lord says so, but I’d like to know the language He used. I don’t think that’s because of a lack of faith on my part. I think if we are going to claim direct revelation from God, then the membership of the Church should be privy to revelation that applies to them.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you here, Ray. At first I wondered why he was giving this talk in priesthood session, but as I listened I realized it was the priesthood he was addressing because it’s the priesthood (men) who need to hear the message. I don’t think it was a women will never hold the priesthood talk, either. Surprising coming from Elder Oaks, actually.

This one is probably going to need its own thread at some point.

[Anonymous]

Overall I thought the priesthood session was better than the morning session. I’ll try not to give a synopsis, just offering up what stuck with me:

Oaks: I have to agree with the above comments. Quite a bit of emphasis was placed on women and men being equal but the elephant in the room is the fact that the men have the keys and direct the women in all things. That said, with the way he defined it 99% of the membership, both men and women, are in that same boat, being directed by men with priesthood keys. I can’t remember the exact wording, he was very careful with it, something like people taking on responsibilities under the direction of the keys sounding a lot like priesthood to him, regardless of gender.

I did like that he addressed the issue head on though. It shows that church leaders are willing to listen to the concerns of members on the “fringe” if you will. Other thoughts, priesthood is a responsibility, not a right. I got the impression that he was speaking to people (women) shouldn’t clamor for priesthood solely for the desire to wield decision making power, the priesthood is just a responsibility to serve. I could have missed the point though.

Hallstrom: I liked the bits about moving forward without worrying about our past, no challenge is insurmountable, and a base message of never giving up on our goals (that’s my personal interpretation, some might hear church goals but I heard my goals). This seems like a good talk to reference for any of us that have a son that doesn’t feel like receiving the priesthood but the church applies pressure because socially it’s time. SilentDawning, was that you? That small comment he made in that talk might be a good arrow in your quiver. I can’t remember how it was phrased now though.

Ridd: Kinda reminded me of a cross between Kenneth on 30 Rock and Marshall Langman on Parks and Rec. He shared one success story where a young man repented and came around to putting off a marriage outside the temple so he could serve a mission. Other highlights: technology came about to HtW, cellphone etiquette, choice generation.

Uchtdorf: The interesting thing he said that was new to me is that the restoration is still ongoing. I guess I fell in the trap of assuming that one of JS’s missions was to carry out a complete restoration of all things. It makes sense though, we’re not there yet after all.

When talking about priorities he mentioned that there are two. god and your neighbor. Nothing, “not even church service” should should get in the way of that. :thumbup:

In overcoming addiction he allowed room for counselors and other programs. I liked how he talked about avoiding addicting things without trying to use fear as the sole motivator.

Eyring: I liked this talk as well. I liked how his heroes in the church were heroes because of their service to others. Like the military guy that took the time to teach him to shoot basketball. I like how he mentioned that when we pray we should think of specific people and specific things about their example that had helped us. I think that can help, meditate on a specific “what” that I want out of life.

Paraphrasing, but when we seek credit for service we miss the point. The talk got me thinking about more ways I can serve in secret (outside the scope of a calling) and why exactly it is that the kudos can take away from the true benefits of service. It got me to reflect on what the true blessings of service are.

Monson: I liked this talk as well. The talk created an interior conflict, so it got me thinking, really thinking, like how am I going to use my agency now that I’ve heard this talk thinking. I could prattle on but in short do I have courage to stand up for what I believe or do I sit in the corner in church every Sunday with my mouth shut? Now I assume one angle behind his meaning was standing up for the church in the face of adversity but for me I felt like it was the church culture that was suppressing my courage.

If you are where you ought not to be GET OUT!!! Leave church then? :silent:

I believe there was a line in there… courage not compromise. How am I compromising myself when in the church? Now I’ve resolved to help people be the best version of them, so largely I am true to myself when in church. I’m happy when the church is happy so to speak. Still the talk awakened that agency within me. Standing up and speaking up for what is true and right, even in the face of fear and all that…

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

And why address women in a session we aren’t invited to?

I don’t remember whether I brought this up in that other long-winded post or not but in the beginning of his talk I got the impression that he was saying that he was grateful that the priesthood session was now being broadcast in such a way as to allow women that had the desire to watch the session the opportunity to watch it. I think in part he was deliberately addressing the women that he knew were watching the session???

journeygirl wrote:

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.

Actually I think he said something like the service that women provide in the temple is eternally binding and that “sounded like the priesthood to [him].”

I could be misremembering.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The interesting thing he said that was new to me is that the restoration is still ongoing.

I have been saying that for a long time, including here, so I’m really glad to hear it said over the GC pulpit.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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.

I guess I’m assuming that he and his presidency will have a lot of input into curriculum change, or lack thereof. My gut reaction to the call was to picture him as a staunch maintainer of the status quo. But truth be told I really don’t know the first thing about it.

[Anonymous]

Priesthood session ended my day on a good note.

[Anonymous]

I did like priesthood session overall, and frankly that’s usually the case – it tends to be my favorite session. I did think the whole “choice generation” thing had been debunked, however.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t see the earlier sessions, but I saw the priesthood session. Very good actually! Like, nibbler, I was very impressed with how Oaks mentioned women in the church having priesthood power and with how Uckdorf mentioned that the restoration is still happening! The whole session was very enlightening! I even got a friend of mine who’s inactive, who used to be at stage 3, to come along and the talks really spoke to him.

[Anonymous]

DontKnow wrote:

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?

Wait… what? He really said that? Oh dear. This looks like being a tough weekend.

So, by implication. We have:

A demanding god

An uncomfortable god

A rough god who rocks the boat and rows

A god who smacks us round the head and makes us cry

What planet is he on?

If last October was the weekend that helped me ‘stay’ LDS I’m wondering what this weekend will be?

[Anonymous]

Here it is in black and white (an apt phrase!):

Quote:

“Sadly enough, my young friends, 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 the greatest irony of all — these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600290/Elder-Jeffrey-R-Holland-The-Cost-2-and-Blessings-2-of-Discipleship.html

This is horrific. I’m sorry for the over-reaction. But it truly is.

I really hope a bad Saturday means we’ll have a good Sunday.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Here it is in black and white (an apt phrase!):

Quote:

“Sadly enough, my young friends, 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 the greatest irony of all — these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600290/Elder-Jeffrey-R-Holland-The-Cost-2-and-Blessings-2-of-Discipleship.html

This is horrific. I’m sorry for the over-reaction. But it truly is.

I really hope a bad Saturday means we’ll have a good Sunday.

Saturday wasn’t totally bad, although I didn’t like Holland’s talk, either. The afternoon and priesthood sessions were both much better than the first session.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

Here it is in black and white (an apt phrase!):

Quote:

“Sadly enough, my young friends, 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 the greatest irony of all — these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600290/Elder-Jeffrey-R-Holland-The-Cost-2-and-Blessings-2-of-Discipleship.html

This is horrific. I’m sorry for the over-reaction. But it truly is.

I really hope a bad Saturday means we’ll have a good Sunday.

Saturday wasn’t totally bad, although I didn’t like Holland’s talk, either. The afternoon and priesthood sessions were both much better than the first session.

It’s funny, because of the time difference I always see P’hood as the first session of the Sunday. I appreciated Elder Uchtdorf’s talk and Pres. Monson’s talk was strangely empowering, in ways he probably didn’t intend!

[Anonymous]

For me they’re actually all afternoon or evening sessions. I can’t thin of a better way to name them, though, unless they are just numbered.

[Author]

Posts