- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
I skipped conference.
😳 😳 😳 Am I allowed to say this?I didn’t go to any sessions or watch them on the ‘puter either this time. I usually like to go to the priesthood session. I enjoy reading the coverage from various folks on the internet, and will probably read up on the more commented talks.
Brian Johnston wrote:SamBee wrote:I skipped conference.
😳 😳 😳 Am I allowed to say this?I didn’t go to any sessions or watch them on the ‘puter either this time. I usually like to go to the priesthood session. I enjoy reading the coverage from various folks on the internet, and will probably read up on the more commented talks.
I’m one for skipping conferences (of either kind), and to be honest there was a book festival I wanted to visit so I went away for a few days.
I’ll keep reading suggestions.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Also, I don’t believe some of the major differences between what is considered normal and acceptable behavior by the majority of the free world versus what the Church teaches has really changed that much in at least 40-50 years.
I am growing weary of hearing how the world is such an awful place and how the 50’s (I assume) were the pinnacle of moral civilized society. It wouldn’t take long for me to come up with a nice list of fundamentally important things that are vastly improved since that time. I would have thought the church would be extra sensitive to some of those issues. For me this is another valuable data point that shows that much, if not all, of what we hear from general authorities is very subjective and from a point of view which may or may not have much value in today’s society. This is probably not a surpeise to many of you, but to me it wasn’t always obvious.
Quote:For example, there were comments about how the world is supposedly becoming increasingly immoral, that members that don’t want to have children as soon as they are married lack faith to obey the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth….
Where did you hear these comments..particularly the one about couples having kids fast?
I hate to say this, but part of my lost innocence is my belief that this idea of getting married, popping kids immediately, where possible, having an entire flock of them is more for the overall growth and good of the Church than it is for the married couple. I don’t think I ever bought into this when I was younger, and my life’s trials have made it so it was rather difficult to do this anyway….and the egocentricism of the Church has confirmed this to me a number of times.
Sure there are spiritual reasons for having children, but not everyone is capable of large populations of kids in their homes. Not all marriages can withstand it, and it can be very hard on people both emotionally and financially. I’m happy with my two kids, thank you very much.
doug wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:Also, I don’t believe some of the major differences between what is considered normal and acceptable behavior by the majority of the free world versus what the Church teaches has really changed that much in at least 40-50 years.
I am growing weary of hearing how the world is such an awful place and how the 50’s (I assume) were the pinnacle of moral civilized society. It wouldn’t take long for me to come up with a nice list of fundamentally important things that are vastly improved since that time. I would have thought the church would be extra sensitive to some of those issues. For me this is another valuable data point that shows that much, if not all, of what we hear from general authorities is very subjective and from a point of view which may or may not have much value in today’s society. This is probably not a surpeise to many of you, but to me it wasn’t always obvious.
Exactly, some top Church leaders really need to realize that it’s not the 1950s anymore and that some of their advice that probably made more sense back then is just not very realistic to expect out of people nowadays. I think some of this is mostly the product of idealized feelings of nostalgia where people remember happy times from their childhood and associate it with things like white shirts and ties, short hair, large families, etc. but the reality is that it was probably never quite like that, they just didn’t have the same level of awareness about some of the problems and harsh realities of life until later on. If every generation was really so much worse than the last then I don’t know how we could have ever managed to survive and thrive as long as we have while seeing constant improvements in technology, life expectency, etc.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:For example, there were comments about how the world is supposedly becoming increasingly immoral, that members that don’t want to have children as soon as they are married lack faith to obey the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth….
Where did you hear these comments..particularly the one about couples having kids fast?…I hate to say this, but part of my lost innocence is my belief that this idea of getting married, popping kids immediately, where possible, having an entire flock of them is more for the overall growth and good of the Church than it is for the married couple. I don’t think I ever bought into this when I was younger, and my life’s trials have made it so it was rather difficult to do this anyway…
Thomas S. Monson talked about the world becoming increasingly immoral (Saturday morning) and was basically ridiculing some popular slogans and catch-phrases. Elder Neil L. Andersen talked about having children as obedience to the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth that has never officially been revoked and this general idea was the main point of his entire talk. He did say it was a personal choice couples should pray about and decide for themselves but he also gave examples like Spencer W. Kimball asking one Church member “where is your faith?” because he wanted to finish school before having children. I thought it was very irresponsible and half-baked advice when they don’t have to deal with the long term consequences of decisions like this so it’s easy for them to say and just assume that God will magically make everything work out alright.
I should probably stop ranting, but another thing that jumped out at me was how often the speaker would look us straight in the eye (figuratively) and make outright promises about things in the afterlife — things which can never be confirmed or denied. This seems a little disingenuous. Well, a lot disingenuous, actually. I guess we do this a lot in the church, but it just seems wrong somehow. http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/04/boyd-k-packer-and-prophetic-despair/ This made me feel better BKP talk. I was also impressed when he said that the youth today should not think that they will see the 2nd coming soon but should plan raising their children, seeing their children and even their great-grand children. WOOT! I won’t have to march back to Missouri after all!
Yeah, he still digs at the gays but this overview by Kristine puts a much better spin on his talk.
doug wrote:cwald wrote:Urchdorf. Good message. it’s what I would expect a New Testament prophet to say to the world.
Couldn’t stay away, could ya?
No, I couldn’t. Conference brings out the worst in me.
Forgive me for saying so, but I can’t help thinking of the proverb about the dog returning to his vomit. doug wrote:Forgive me for saying so, but I can’t help thinking of the proverb about the dog returning to his vomit.
Dog? Vomit? Way harsh, dude.
doug wrote:I should probably stop ranting, but another thing that jumped out at me was how often the speaker would look us straight in the eye (figuratively) and make outright promises about things in the afterlife — things which can never be confirmed or denied. This seems a little disingenuous. Well, a lot disingenuous, actually. I guess we do this a lot in the church, but it just seems wrong somehow.
As a missionary, we were told to promise blessings when teaching investigators. I do think there are practical blessings of being a member of the Church, and some promises are spelled out specifically in the scriptures in the form of covenants. But I agree that we have to be careful we don’t promise things that we shouldn’t. Most of the promises are somewhat ambiguous, although there are specific ones like avoiding punishment, which is never a big thriller either however.
Regarding Dog and Vomit — yeah, that’s a bit harsh. I do think that some of the speakers represented a reminder of Stage 3 from the perspective of Stage 4 though. So, for me, it was like a forced return to Stage 3.
I had one such conversation with my daughter today. It was totally Stage 3 thinking and it was OK. I supported her in it. I realized that in speaking to her, all I had to do was reframe my role from “participating believer” to “consultant”. My comments about her Stage 3 desires and plans were given from the perspective of “if I look at the gospel through the lens of this Stage 3 person, what advice would I give that is consistent with their lens”? Same way an industry consultant would give advice tailored to the culture and values of a client organization. He doesn’t have to implicitly or explicitly agree with those values, but he can craft solutions and make supportive comments that help the people in that organization make decisions that are consistent with their view of the world.
It was an angst-reducer.
doug wrote:Forgive me for saying so, but I can’t help thinking of the proverb about the dog returning to his vomit.
I don’t know if it would generally be quite so simple to get the LDS Church out of your system and move on even if you wanted to because of the way it often becomes part of your identity, attaches itself to your family, and mixes some of the best and worst elements of religious experience (depending on your perspective) in such an extreme way. To be honest, I’m not sure why I was so interested to hear what they had to say at this conference; I guess I think they are reaching a crossroad where some of their old expectations are starting to break down and fail (the number of missionaries and activity rates have decreased) and I wonder how they will react. For example, we see the Church opening many new temples which I interpret as an attempt to save face and feel like they are making progress when that is not necessarily the case. One thing that stood out is that I don’t remember hearing any mention of tithing but I didn’t listen to the priesthood session. Maybe it’s just a coincidence or I missed some comments but I like to hope it is some kind of trend until the next conference.
Okay, just to clear things up a little, my reference to dog vomit was related to cwald returning here, since that’s how I imagined those concerned that it will impair his spiritual well-being reacting to it (see 2Peter2:21-22). For some reason I thought it was a funny, though possibly irreverent, irony. Sorry I didn’t make that clear … perhaps I should check my sense of humor at the door.
Quote:I don’t know if it would generally be quite so simple to get the LDS Church out of your system and move on even if you wanted to because of the way it often becomes part of your identity, attaches itself to your family, and mixes some of the best and worst elements of religious experience (depending on your perspective) in such an extreme way. To be honest, I’m not sure why I was so interested to hear what they had to say at this conference; I guess I think they are reaching a crossroad where some of their old expectations are starting to break down and fail (the number of missionaries and activity rates have decreased) and I wonder how they will react.
These are my hopes as well. When I heard the new convert rates were declining a few years ago, I was actually a little thrilled. We are so stuck in our old way of doing things, that it’s hard to get any kind of positive change, even if it is morally neutral. At least, this was the experience when I was a leader in my current Ward. When activity rates fall, new converts stop joining in the same droves in spite of our best efforts, and efforts to get the members to intensify their efforts fails, they may think about looking inside.
Sadly, the approach often used is to drill down on the members to change or give more. There are times I would like to see the Church change the way it does things to make active involvement sustainable. I find it is not sustainable after you’ve done it for decades on end. Enduring to the end has meant “suffering until the end” due to how boring the service is, how repetitive the experience is, how frustrating leadership can be, and how strong the expectations are that individuals give everything up for the organization as a whole.
They had the vision of this at different times, but it’s only when organizational goals are threatened that really sweeping change seems to happen. For example, I read michael Quinn’s Extensions of Power chapter on finances in the Church. Found that there was ongoing frustration with the members who would not pay tithing. There were threats of excommunication and discipline, but these were not carried out on a wide scale…then, Lorenzo Snow made the tithing requirement less onerous, limiting it to 10% of some annual increase value, rather than a percent of your current wealth. This made the number of tithe-payers jump significantly. And that rule has existed roughly that way since — with tithing defined as a percent of some annual increase figure and not of a person’s equity too.
If they really listened to people like us, I wonder what changes they might make from a policy/organizational standpoint to make the Church’s implementation of the gospel a more positive experience for new members, and us veterans?
doug wrote:Okay, just to clear things up a little, my reference to dog vomit was related to cwald returning
here, since that’s how I imagined those concerned that it will impair his spiritual well-being reacting to it (see 2Peter2:21-22). For some reason I thought it was a funny, though possibly irreverent, irony…Sorry I didn’t make that clear … perhaps I should check my sense of humor at the door. I would have never guessed that’s what you meant; to me it sounded like you were saying something to the effect that if you already know that talking about the Church and listening to conference makes you upset then why torture yourself? I see it as almost an itch that needs to be scratched sometimes to help come to terms with it. Also, I liked seeing cwald come back to make a few comments and don’t blame him for paying some attention to what the Church is up to lately so I didn’t know what to think about this reference (Proverbs 26:11). Oh well, I guess like Ray says it’s easy for people to see the same exact thing very differently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.