- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was a little excited inside when Rasband said “believing the Book of Mormon is the word of God isn’t enough”… That was then crushed by him saying it needed to be true to every fiber of your being and something you want to be involved in every aspect of your soul… Bleh. I wish the BoM wasn’t on such a high pedestal in the church. It’s a great book with a lot of precious teachings in it that are found nowhere else, but I personally prefer the gospels in the NT. It’s hard to beat the life of Jesus himself, even if it’s through the lens of 4 mortal men- 2 of which never knew him personally- and has a buttload more translation errors. I’d love to read the apocryphal Gospels someday. I bet the Gospel according to Thomas is pretty interesting and I’ve heard that the Gospel according to Peter mentions that Jesus was married and/or says a thing or two about his wife.
Good speed for the opening song of the Men’s General Session. (what I am calling it now) I wonder how many of the sons are there because their fathers wanted a chance to sing.
After reading Ray’s comment I decided to go back and watch DHO’s talk and it didn’t really upset me. I think it’s because I’m more out than in these days and because I think that’s just what everyone else on the stand believes even though they may not say it. Other GA’s may make it a little more soft around the edges but the church will never want a happy same sex couple in church upsetting what they see as the only true and living image of what a family is supposed to look like. While I’ve got my complainy pants on, I really didn’t like the way RMN was talking about grieving families needing a padded room to receive bad news. It was very much “we’re better than them because we’ve got the plan of salvation.” You would think a retired doctor would have more compassion than that. Old Timer wrote:
Good speed for the opening song of the Men’s General Session. (what I am calling it now)I wonder how many of the sons are there because their fathers wanted a chance to sing.
The second one (Secret Prayer) was on the slow, funerally side. I get that is was probably supposed to be being sung contemplatively, but it didn’t do it for me, it just made me wish it’s go faster and be over. In the interest if complete transparency, it’s not my favorite hymn but I don’t especially dislike it under normal circumstances.
I’m going to try to be more positive though (however Renlund is boring me – were I at the church the deacons would already be asleep).
I might be unrighteously judgmental when I say this, but I have seen a change in Elder Nelson after his marriage. His wife is hardcore conservative, and I think it has rubbed off on him. I like Elder Runland and many of his talks. This one is not doing it for me. I don’t dislike it as much as it just not connecting with me. However, I really do like the policy that does not annotate anything when someone rejoins the Church – that wipes away the time spent outside membership.
Old Timer wrote:
I like Elder Runland and many of his talks. This one is not doing it for me. I don’t dislike it as much as it just not connecting with me.However, I really do like the policy that does not annotate anything when someone rejoins the Church – that wipes away the time spent outside membership.
I agree, it wasn’t a bad talk for most but it just didn’t do it for me and his delivery was not up to par.
I also like the policy that does not annotate the local record and everything Elder Renlund said was correct as far as I know. But make no mistake, the excommunication (or other formal discipline) is not erased from the record in Salt Lake that only certain individuals can access.
I don’t think Elder Evans’ talk will resonate with many here. He seems sincere but his statement that “it’s your responsibility to get answers to your questions” and to get those answers requires keeping commandments etc. etc. etc….some may see it as buck passing. Personally, it would be nice to know what his questions were and what answers he received. I have heard many speak in this way without offering specific examples. Perhaps sharing a few more details would help some with their own struggles. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m going to give Maynes a miss and go get a snack. nibbler wrote:
ConfusedMolly wrote:
Why??? Just why??? Elder Oak’s talk has me FUMING. We know where the church stands in regards to SSM. Can we just drop it?!?! It is HURTFUL.
I’m kind of jaded on the subject. Birds tweet. Dogs bark. DHO talks about religious freedom and how terrible gay marriage is. We can drop it, I’m not sure DHO can.
Anti Gay is the religion of DHO. It has been this way his entire life from what I can tell. So why would he suddenly change at his age.It might be easy to misunderstand Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk at first, but I like that he is teaching a principle without trying to apply it to any specific “doctrine” except following Jesus. In essence, he is saying that turning to Jesus is the best way to deal with struggles – NOT to turn to anyone else. He isn’t teaching rules; he is talking about eliminating darkness and replacing it with light. He also just said explicitly that the light of Christ is available to everyone. No restrictions.
I’m liking Uchtdorf, as usual. I agree with Ray, it is basic follow Christ doctrinal talk. I like how he talks about the light being hope. Christ did bring hope above all else. I love Pres. Eyring. I didn’t like this talk. He stressed that leaders at all levels are imperfect and make mistakes, but it was too close to a “do what you are told” message for me.
I also didn’t like his story about a young man who knew what he had to do but went to his Bishop anyway. In that specific situation, it truly might have been important for Bishop Eyring to have that experience, but I don’t like it all as a general rule. Bishops are busy enough that they shouldn’t have people going to them for confirmation of what they already know they should do. It is too close to being commanded in all things for me to like.
Man PH session was a letdown. Meh. They can’t all be good. And I feel Uchtdorf’s analogy breaks down (what analogy doesn’t) because I believe darkness serves a function. Half of the earth is in light, half is in shadow. I get the feeling that it would be disastrous for life on this planet if one half of the earth was
alwaysin light and the other alwaysin shadow or if the wholething was in nothing but light all the time. If you move fast enough and in the wrong direction you could inadvertently stay on the ‘dark’ side of earth all the time. Who can say, maybe one strategy is to stay put and wait for the light to encompass you again. Maybe in the meantime sit in the darkness and learn to appreciate what role it plays in the cosmic dance.
And we have faith and hope in the light of a new dawn because we’ve seen it countless times. The earth is on autopilot (ukie-pun) in that regard. Some people have
trialsthat are so sore and so frequent in their lives that they have come to expect them like the sunrise. The talk wasn’t about that but that’s where my thoughts went.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.