Getting worked up over GC

[Anonymous]

Thanks for pointing out that there is another point of view, Mac. I realized, of course, that there was – the TBMs were not at all upset with his talk and I have seen online praises of that which he said. I did not and do not like it. Between me and the other comments I saw there are doubtless many others who see it quite differently than anyone else. “Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Mackay. That is an important aspect to remember – and I love it that you see it as him showing he is human.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

you heard the worst and missed the best

Yikes, unfortunately, I think that’s true. Holland’s talk was not uplifting, and Andersen’s was tough, too. Sunday was better on the whole, and even PH wasn’t bad. That first Saturday morning session was the stinker, sorry to say.

We should provide a service of giving people a recommendation after GC of the 3-5 talks people on StayLDS should read, listen to or watch, and the 3 or so they should absolutely avoid. Here’s a crack at it for this one (I admit I missed a few talks):

AVOID: Holland (Sat AM), Andersen (Sat AM)

READ: Reeves (Sat AM) – read don’t watch!, Zwick (Sat PM), Oaks (PH), Eyring (Sat AM), Oscarson (Gen Women’s Mtg)

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

you heard the worst and missed the best

Yikes, unfortunately, I think that’s true. Holland’s talk was not uplifting, and Andersen’s was tough, too. Sunday was better on the whole, and even PH wasn’t bad. That first Saturday morning session was the stinker, sorry to say.

We should provide a service of giving people a recommendation after GC of the 3-5 talks people on StayLDS should read, listen to or watch, and the 3 or so they should absolutely avoid. Here’s a crack at it for this one (I admit I missed a few talks):

AVOID: Holland (Sat AM), Andersen (Sat AM)

READ: Reeves (Sat AM) – read don’t watch!, Zwick (Sat PM), Oaks (PH), Eyring (Sat AM), Oscarson (Gen Women’s Mtg)

I’m intrigued that you’re recommending the E. Oaks “responsibilities not rights” talk. Or am I misrepresenting it.

I’d add:

Avoid: that one about “it’s all true or it’s all a fraud” (a 70, name escapes me, during sunday afternoon)

Watch/read: Uchtdorf (p’hood), Bednar (sunday morning… Except maybe skip the last paragraph about 6th April)

[Anonymous]

I think any of the FP talks were OK, and I especially liked Pres. Monson’s Sunday morning address on love and his reference to loving even those who don’t agree with us in his closing remarks. I second the recommendations on Elder Oaks, Sr. Reeves, and Elder Zwick and likewise recommend avoiding Elders Holland and Anderson. The others were mundane for the most part, although some had little bits of things that might rile a few here (references to April 6 being Christ’s birthday, the chosen generation, etc.). I also did not here all of the talks, but if I only heard and avoided those mentioned above I would have been satisfied with conference.

Side note: the Jehovah’s Witnesses canvassed the neighborhood today handing out flyers about a meeting discussing April 14 as Christ’s day of death. My wife said “I wonder where they came up with that?” to which I replied, “Probably the same way we come up with April 6 – supposition.”

[Anonymous]

mackay11 – I can see why you are questioning my recommendation of E. Oaks’ talk, but here’s how I see it. There is no consistent party line on just how women use the priesthood, and so this is sort of breaking new ground, although I find his explanation opens more questions than it answers. Reading between the lines, though, I believe we are going to see more inclusion of women in decision making councils and more respect for female input and authority. By emphasizing that women have authority, he’s actually making a stronger case for respecting them than if he had said “power, but not authority.” I suspect he knows that very well. Having said that, I do find his talk very troubling in light of the temple, but he doesn’t address that. He just simply doesn’t rule out the idea that women are eternally subordinate to men and ineligible for exaltation. I wish he had clarified that, but he didn’t. It needs to be clarified.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

mackay11 – I can see why you are questioning my recommendation of E. Oaks’ talk, but here’s how I see it. There is no consistent party line on just how women use the priesthood, and so this is sort of breaking new ground, although I find his explanation opens more questions than it answers. Reading between the lines, though, I believe we are going to see more inclusion of women in decision making councils and more respect for female input and authority. By emphasizing that women have authority, he’s actually making a stronger case for respecting them than if he had said “power, but not authority.” I suspect he knows that very well. Having said that, I do find his talk very troubling in light of the temple, but he doesn’t address that. He just simply doesn’t rule out the idea that women are eternally subordinate to men and ineligible for exaltation. I wish he had clarified that, but he didn’t. It needs to be clarified.

It’s a fair point. It was, at least, entering the discussion.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

mackay11 – I can see why you are questioning my recommendation of E. Oaks’ talk, but here’s how I see it. There is no consistent party line on just how women use the priesthood, and so this is sort of breaking new ground, although I find his explanation opens more questions than it answers. Reading between the lines, though, I believe we are going to see more inclusion of women in decision making councils and more respect for female input and authority. By emphasizing that women have authority, he’s actually making a stronger case for respecting them than if he had said “power, but not authority.” I suspect he knows that very well. Having said that, I do find his talk very troubling in light of the temple, but he doesn’t address that. He just simply doesn’t rule out the idea that women are eternally subordinate to men and ineligible for exaltation. I wish he had clarified that, but he didn’t. It needs to be clarified.

I agree with you harwkgrrrl. I’m sure he used his legal mind to word things to exactly match what he meant and I’m sure he only addressed that which he intended. I have said this elsewhere on the forum, but I believe his talk was not intended for women, I think it was intended for men, hence it was given in priesthood session.

[Author]

Posts