October 2016 General Conference

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

it shows they understand the severity of the issue

I get what you are saying Ray but I would change the wording to say “they get that some severe issue is happening.” I don’t think “they” understand. I have come to believe that those who never experience this really have no understanding. Its like men who have never delivered a baby giving advice to a woman in labor. I think a few have more compassion or are trying to get to a compassionate spot, but the majority still think it’s a choice and we just need to work harder.

For the record I do appreciate Elder Ballard and Elder Uchtdorf’s efforts in this area.

I agree. I think they realize there’s an issue, but they don’t understand it and they don’t know what to do about it. I appreciate that they recognize there’s an issue and I agree that they are sincere in helping – but again, they just don’t know how. It actually bugged me when Elder Rasband used the “Heavenly Father are you really there?” thing and his first response was “God loves you.” If I’m not sure God’s really there or that there is a God, how does the idea that He loves me help anything. I tried to come up with an analogy to match it, but I haven’t come up with one. I also noted that he said something like it was what he would tell his friend, not what he did tell his friend – indicating to me that either he didn’t actually want to say some of these things to his friend or that he did and it didn’t go well. But whatever, I was fine with the idea that I believe he was sincere and I had to go check the ham toward the end anyway. (The ham was really good.)

Overall, the last session didn’t do much for me but there are enough nuggets in the others that Conference was OK.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I understand the firecracker incident as one requiring only: I’m very sorry I did that. I won’t do it again. Not one that rides a roller coaster of emotion from great depths to highest heights.

?

I appreciated that he shared that a future Q12 could be pretty stupid and thoughtless. True it’s not a serious sin but I bet his mom and dad let him have it at home and at the time he might have felt it was as bad as adultery. I like it when the Q12 paint themselves as even occasionally human. We have some degree of hero worship in our culture.

He other point I appreciated was that the bishop didn’t lecture him or shame him. He was loving and kind. I recently argued with a Bishop who wanted to throw the book at a pair of youth who messed up not really even that much, but he talked about postponing missions and disciplinary councils to teach an example to other youth in the ward.

My problem with conference is that I’m constantly thinking “wouldn’t it be nice if brother so and so heard this talk and understood it.” Overall I thought conference was about average, maybe slightly above, but I have to admit I enjoyed some time on the exercise machine during one session and a nice hour long nap the other session.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I remind myself how much happier I am post-scrupulosity.

Thanks Ann, same for me. Way happier than I can know prophets are not infallible and that I get to chose more for myself than I ever imagined.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

Ann wrote:

I remind myself how much happier I am post-scrupulosity.

Thanks Ann, same for me. Way happier than I can know prophets are not infallible and that I get to chose more for myself than I ever imagined.

Agreed. The Seventy talking about callings got to me, too, but I just thought about how free I am knowing how it really works and that I’m a volunteer. I chuckled out loud when he said Monson didn’t show any signs of slowing down. Really? Have you looked at the guy?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Roadrunner wrote:

Ann wrote:

I remind myself how much happier I am post-scrupulosity.

Thanks Ann, same for me. Way happier than I can know prophets are not infallible and that I get to chose more for myself than I ever imagined.

Agreed. The Seventy talking about callings got to me, too, but I just thought about how free I am knowing how it really works and that I’m a volunteer. I chuckled out loud when he said Monson didn’t show any signs of slowing down. Really? Have you looked at the guy?

During TSM’s talk in Priesthood session my son asked me why he was even speaking. If he were my grandfather I’d probably want him home watching conference with the family.

[Anonymous]

I also thought the example of the firecracker as sin was a stretch (and said so to my wife and daughter), but I then realized it must have felt that way to a twelve-year-old boy who was in such a small branch. He probably felt guilty, and I can’t quibble with whether or not he felt it too deeply. I have a daughter who would have reacted the exact same way, and I’m not about to criticize her for that.

I loved the Bishop’s response, which, I think, was the central point. I hope every local leader in the Church heard it loudly and clearly.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

I also thought the example of the firecracker as sin was a stretch (and said so to my wife and daughter), but I then realized it must have felt that way to a twelve-year-old boy who was in such a small branch. He probably felt guilty, and I can’t quibble with whether or not he felt it too deeply. I have a daughter who would have reacted the exact same way, and I’m not about to criticize her for that.

I loved the Bishop’s response, which, I think, was the central point. I hope every local leader in the Church heard it loudly and clearly.

I definitely don’t criticize him for his youthful emotion and I have a story exactly like it. The problem is that I know where that approach eventually landed me. I think I had just reached my tipping point and it was one talk too many that encouraged minute self-examination and recrimination, guilt, remorse, etc. And I might be overly sensitive to it.

I do like that he could tell a true story about him being treated well by his leader.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

I also thought the example of the firecracker as sin was a stretch (and said so to my wife and daughter), but I then realized it must have felt that way to a twelve-year-old boy who was in such a small branch. He probably felt guilty, and I can’t quibble with whether or not he felt it too deeply. I have a daughter who would have reacted the exact same way, and I’m not about to criticize her for that.

I loved the Bishop’s response, which, I think, was the central point. I hope every local leader in the Church heard it loudly and clearly.

Agreed. Not all mess-ups/mistakes we make are sins. But I agree on the bishop’s response. Who knows if the bishop even thought of it as a sin. He may have known this deacon was quite obedient and he would be thinking this mistake was a sin and the young man needed to realize he was loved, not judged.

[Anonymous]

Dang you guys were busy on this thread! I was occupied this weekend a bit, but I have listened to all the talks.

On the talk of “God’s love is conditional”, I have to say I can’t agree with it. There is an interesting blog over at BCC on this https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/

I had to respond to it and I just feel like sharing my comment

I look at things like this tattooed cussing pastor interviewed in the podcast titled “Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber On ‘Finding God In All The Wrong People” Sept 30 @ ” class=”bbcode_url”>I look at things like this tattooed cussing pastor interviewed in the podcast titled “Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber On ‘Finding God In All The Wrong People” Sept 30 @ ” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444908/fresh-air and think, “Now there is someone bringing people unto Christ – people that REALLY need it.” It feels to me that she unconditionally loves.

I like the analogy that Patrick Mason put forward in his FAIR Mormon presentation where he says that the LDS church overloaded the “truth cart” with too many things. My cart broke and I am just now beginning to put a few things in my repaired belief cart. The first thing I could tolerate putting in there was a unconditionally loving God. Otherwise I felt I might as well stay an atheist if I felt like Frank in Levi Peterson’s book “The Backslider” where he initially thinks of God as “That SOB in the sky with his rifle scope cross-hairs aimed right at me waiting for me to slip up so he can pull the trigger” (my recalling of the words, not a direct quote). I feel too doomed with that type of God.

So as I push my tattered faith cart down the uphill road, I listened to his talk and feel I can’t put it in the cart. At least not now – maybe forever. And in doing so I don’t feel any of God’s gun sites on me – instead I feel a God looking at my heart. That motivates me.

And I don’t feel bad or angry for looking at the talk, contemplating it, then putting it back on the side of the road and pushing onward.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

And I don’t feel bad or angry for looking at the talk, contemplating it, then putting it back on the side of the road and pushing onward.

This was my comment:

Quote:

I have received personal revelation that God loves me and that his love for me is not affected by my accomplishments or lack thereof. I believe (as I have been taught in LDS teachings) that God knows and loves us perfectly and has prepared a future estate for us that will a blessing for each of us to inhabit.

It worries me that we are so keen on limiting God’s love.

It reminds me of a successful business man that had two sons. The first son was a chip of the old block. He excelled in academics, took business classes, took on important management roles in the company, and eventually succeeded his father in being CEO.

The second son was more artistically inclined. He graduated with passing but unremarkable grades. He went on to study under some talented artists and practiced his technique in many different mediums. He tried to sell his works but that did not pan out so well. He eventually became a teacher of art at a local high school or community college. He is living a fulfilling life doing what brings him joy.

Would we really want to suggest that the father loves the second son any less? Do we really want to define “the ultimate expression of God’s love” as who gets to be CEO?

I want to believe in a god that is big enough to love his children and deal with them differently according to their individual needs and situations.

[Anonymous]

As often is the case, there were two talks about God and his love that showed different views of individual leaders.

I know that drives some people nuts, but I want differing views in the leadership, specifically because it illustrates that differing views among the membership are okay. In this case, I can focus on one and set aside the other – and the person sitting in front of me in church can do the same thing but focus on the talk I set aside.

Seriously, I LOVE the fact that not all the talks contain similar messages and that some simply don’t move me – or even that some teach things with which I disagree.

None of us want uniformity and homogeneity in the Church, so we shouldn’t pine for it in these talks.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

As often is the case, there were two talks about God and his love that showed different views of individual leaders.

I know that drives some people nuts, but I want differing views in the leadership, specifically because it illustrates that differing views among the membership are okay. In this case, I can focus on one and set aside the other – and the person sitting in front of me in church can do the same thing but focus on the talk I set aside.

Seriously, I LOVE the fact that not all the talks contain similar messages and that some simply don’t move me – or even that some teach things with which I disagree.

None of us want uniformity and homogeneity in the Church, so we shouldn’t pine for it in these talks.

Thanks Curt. Even though I push back on some things you say – I do appreciate the interaction and helping me think a bit. You offer a good balance here.

So now the pushback

I agree with much of what you say, but it is hard when it feels like “the other side” not just has a different view, but this view makes them view you as less than. It “feels” like one side wants to look down the other side. I know I just wish that people would be more, “Oh – you think God’s love is unconditional? OK. I see things different, but I am sure that must be working for you.” instead of “Didn’t you listen to conference where God said it very clearly that he does not love unconditionally?”

I know why this is a sensitive issue for me is that now that I have let my wife know of my level of (dis) belief, I am really struggling with how often I go to church. I am struggling with how much of this can I stand before I get frustrated? I know it shows I still have a lot of me in stage 4. I am not anywhere near being an angry exmo (I am not generally angry and don’t consider my self ex) but I still have buttons that don’t need to be pressed too hard before I either have to leave, bite my tongue, or say something. I am usually not too good at the last option.

[Anonymous]

I get it, LH – but, just to consider, how is wanting to silence the talks with which we disagree different than those who want to silence the talks with which we agree?

I really do get the emotion – but I think it is important to recognize the “natural (wo)man” reaction and strive to overcome it, even if so many don’t appear to even be trying and certainly aren’t reciprocating. In this case, the Golden Rule can be powerful.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

I get it, LH – but, just to consider, how is wanting to silence the talks with which we disagree different than those who want to silence the talks with which we agree?

I did realize that fact when I was writing this (and meant to comment on that). But I don’t think I want to silence others, just not have them say, “my way is the only way and you are WRONG and if you don’t agree, then I would rather you not be here.” We have GREAT discussions here and not everyone agrees, but by and large we are respectful. We have athiests here that give and receive more respect for differing opinions than on a topic such as the limits of God’s love.

Old Timer wrote:

I really do get the emotion – but I think it is important to recognize the “natural (wo)man” reaction and strive to overcome it, even if so many don’t appear to even be trying and certainly aren’t reciprocating. In this case, the Golden Rule can be powerful.

I am sure you do – and many do. And I do tend to vent here more than in real life. I hope I don’t burn bridges by doing so sometimes. I don’t like to argue with others that don’t want to explore other’s ideas a bit.

[Anonymous]

Amen to all of that, friend.

[Author]

Posts