What would you like to hear addressed in General Conference?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The RS broadcast is a similarly big deal for the women but the boys don’t cook anything nor ask what the ladies learned.

Perhaps because they didn’t learn anything. RS session always seems incredibly light on content to me.

“Supernal” is just one of these words that absolutely nobody says outside of general conference. “Adjective. Of or relating to the sky or the heavens; celestial. Of exceptional quality or extent.” I just dislike it because it’s ostentatious to use a word like this that nobody ever says.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never had a problem with the Saturday priesthhood session concept.

A little dad/son time is a good idea. And I have no problem with some all male activities.

I also think some all female activists are okay.

Both religion and secular…it’s okay to segregate based on gender sometimes…there is a time and place and season for all things.

But, I understand the frustration some women feel…And I probably will never seriously consider coming back to activity unless females are recognized with the priesthood and serve in all leadership positions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Hawwk makes such supernal comments!!! 😆

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I’ve never had a problem with the Saturday priesthhood session concept.

A little dad/son time is a good idea. And I have no problem with some all male activities.

I also think some all female activists are okay.

Both religion and secular…it’s okay to segregate based on gender sometimes…there is a time and place and season for all things.

But, I understand the frustration some women feel…And I probably will never seriously consider coming back to activity unless females are recognized with the priesthood and serve in all leadership positions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I can’t relate to the frustration of women, either, but I can understand they are frustrated. I don’t have a problem with men getting together to socialize, or whatever, either, nor do I have a problem with women doing the same. In our ward & stake the women do such things much more than the men do (monthly RS meetings, etc.). This past weekend the sisters had a dinner before the conference session. We men used to have ice cream sundaes before our priesthood session but we haven’t done that in a couple years. I actually think the men should get together and “fellowship” more in social settings (Elder’s Quorum Moving, Inc. doesn’t count).

[Anonymous]

Personally I would like to hear about something that is undeniably real for once such as the possibility that many members will have their spouse suddenly lose their testimony and maybe they will never change their minds about it. It would be nice to hear Church leaders actually encourage members to react in a somewhat reasonable and Christ-like way in cases like this rather than freak out in a judgmental way. They already had an Ensign article about this around a year ago but it would probably get much more credibility and attention from a higher percentage of active members if it was specifically addressed in General Conference by one of the Church Presidents or Apostles.

Never mind what is supposedly going to happen in the afterlife (we don’t really know that for sure); this is an issue that is already resulting in unnecessary suffering for many Church members right now. On top of that, it makes the Church look bad almost as if they condone fanaticism and have adopted a scorched-earth policy with regard to anyone that rejects any of the core LDS doctrines. To be honest, I think this is where some of the cult accusations from bitter ex-Mormons are coming from; basically they felt like they were mistreated by the Church and/or they resent the way other members reacted to finding out they didn’t believe in the Church anymore. So Church leaders should step up and set the record straight to make it clear that they care about disaffected members and ex-Mormons and want them to be treated as well as possible by the remaining faithful members regardless of what they believe (if they honestly feel that way).

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

. On top of that, it makes the Church look bad almost as if they condone fanaticism and have adopted a scorched-earth policy with regard to anyone that rejects any of the core LDS doctrines.

I laughed really, really hard at the scorched-earth policy DA. I never looked at it that way, but the idea that we will all be burned at the second coming if we don’t pay tithing follows that reasoning.

I’m not sure they condone fanaticism though. Christianity in general does garner high levels of sacrifice due to the example Christ set, and some people take it to the extreme, but I don’t think it’s necessarily peculiar to the LDS church.

[Anonymous]

I would LOVE to hear in any meeting specific things that are Mormon practices that are not doctrine.

Examples could be:

Women wear dresses to church.

Men wear white shirts.

Face cards are bad.

Caffiene is bad.

Crosses are bad.

Fast sunday – While fasting is doctine, the practice of fasting once a month is a rather recent policy.

Birth control is bad.

Homosexuality is a choice.

We can’t talk about any temple stuff.

Garments must be worn 24/7 except in the case of swimming, sports, or sex. 😳

Only one pair of earings for the ladies.

Women can’t pass the sacrament, or pray in GC, or be SS pres.

All talks must conclude in the name of JC.

The list could go on and on and on. I don’t need a list. I would be really happy with only 2 or 3 well researched points.

I think the problem with addressing this is that for each point there are people that are convinced that it is part of the gospel. It may shake their faith to learn that the gospel is much simpler then they had thought. Many people have “pet” commandments. What happens when you find that your favorite commandment (the one that you do really well and hold up to yourself and others as a mark of your faithfullness) is really just a “good idea” in a sea of good ideas.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that priesthood session is now broadcast on BYU TV for the first time.

I still plan to try to take my son to the church building so we can go get ice cream afterwards. Just to carry on the tradition.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I think the problem with addressing this is that for each point there are people that are convinced that it is part of the gospel. It may shake their faith to learn that the gospel is much simpler then they had thought. Many people have “pet” commandments. What happens when you find that your favorite commandment (the one that you do really well and hold up to yourself and others as a mark of your faithfullness) is really just a “good idea” in a sea of good ideas.

I agree Roy. That’s what I mean when I talk about shaking members’ trees. For instance, I had an interaction fairly recently where the WoW was the topic. One of the guys involved in the discussion mentioned caffeine, and I pointed out that caffeine isn’t in there and the church recently reiterated that. His response was that when he was a missionary they taught it as part of the WoW, and he thought the church just made that statement so the media couldn’t ding Mitt Romney for drinking Coke – but that it is part of the “spirit of the law” and as far as he was concerned, it’s in there. I didn’t argue further because that’s not my style, but to me the statement was pretty clear and could only be made clearer by addressing it in GC (but that won’t happen because it would shake too many trees). Imagine what he would think if Pres. Monson walked up to the podium drinking a Coke and spoke on the topic of caffeine! There’s some shaken faith for you! And what about the missionaries in South America who regularly drink Coke? FWIW, I keep the WoW and I do avoid caffeine, although I will drink Pepsi and Dr. Pepper and I sometimes do so when I need to be awake.

At any rate, I pretty much agree with your list, and the gospel itself is much, much simpler than this and not dependent upon these things.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I have heard that priesthood session is now broadcast on BYU TV for the first time.

I still plan to try to take my son to the church building so we can go get ice cream afterwards. Just to carry on the tradition.

Our ward stopped doing ice cream a couple years ago, but it didn’t matter to me since I didn’t go anyway. I’m looking forward to watching it at home with my own bowl of ice cream, actually. It’s much more comfortable for me to get up in the middle of a talk I’m having difficulty with and “go to the bathroom” at home than it is at church.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

I would like them to tell about their new website http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ and address what they website says about how it is not choice and how to treat gays in the church. And that they want every Priesthood and RS leader to review this website. People just don’t know and gays are still being treated badly in the church.

Bridget, I’m really glad you posted this.

I was very hopeful when the church released this website last year, and although I’m not completely happy with it, it’s a good start. I can’t describe how much it crushed me when not a single word was breathed about it during the April conference. Not one. It made me feel that the Brethren don’t really care about this issue–that they’re just putting the site out there for PR reasons. This one thing has done more to solidify my disaffection than any historical detail I’ve ever encountered. If they fail to mention it this week, I don’t know what I’m going to do.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

. On top of that, it makes the Church look bad almost as if they condone fanaticism and have adopted a scorched-earth policy with regard to anyone that rejects any of the core LDS doctrines.

I laughed really, really hard at the scorched-earth policy DA. I never looked at it that way, but the idea that we will all be burned at the second coming if we don’t pay tithing follows that reasoning…I’m not sure they condone fanaticism though. Christianity in general does garner high levels of sacrifice due to the example Christ set, and some people take it to the extreme, but I don’t think it’s necessarily peculiar to the LDS church.

Personally I don’t believe Church leaders knowingly and intentionally encourage fanaticism and maybe the term fanaticism sounds overly dramatic but it looks like some of them justify intolerant attitudes and unusual commitment to various details of Mormonism mostly because they are convinced that whatever causes they have adopted are supposedly so important that “the ends justify the means.” My main point is how would we know that they don’t condone fanaticism? What have they said or done recently to clearly demonstrate otherwise? When we see that the automatic reaction of many Church members to finding out that their spouse has lost faith in the Church is to seriously consider divorce, threaten divorce, and/or even follow through with divorce in the worst cases to me that reflects very poorly on the Church especially when we don’t see the Church Presidents and Apostles do much to discourage this kind of reaction. So in terms of the end results it’s already not much different than if they actually wanted members to react this way. And regardless of intentions the way the Church currently leaves behind large numbers of people that now have a negative overall impression of Mormonism and often religion in general as well as the way it sometimes strains people’s relationships in a divisive way really does remind me of the scorched-earth policy some armies had where they would destroy almost everything in sight that they didn’t have any immediate use for.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

A little dad/son time is a good idea. And I have no problem with some all male activities.

I also think some all female activists are okay.

Both religion and secular…it’s okay to segregate based on gender sometimes…there is a time and place and season for all things.

Yes, I agree. I’ve heard comments over the years complaining about the all-male priesthood meeting. I count it as one of the highlights of the Church and THE highlight of GC. I understand why women feel left out, but the answer is to provide an analog, rather than to disparage (not talking about anyone here).

Many years ago, my ward had an annual father/son campout. It was quite popular and enjoyable. One woman, who had four daughters complained loudly about how unfair that was. It was the permanent end to those father/son campouts. It’s probably been, I don’t know… 15 years since the last one. It wasn’t replaced with anything, just done away with.

[Anonymous]

turinturambar wrote:

bridget_night wrote:

I would like them to tell about their new website http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ and address what they website says about how it is not choice and how to treat gays in the church. And that they want every Priesthood and RS leader to review this website. People just don’t know and gays are still being treated badly in the church.

Bridget, I’m really glad you posted this.

I was very hopeful when the church released this website last year, and although I’m not completely happy with it, it’s a good start. I can’t describe how much it crushed me when not a single word was breathed about it during the April conference. Not one. It made me feel that the Brethren don’t really care about this issue–that they’re just putting the site out there for PR reasons. This one thing has done more to solidify my disaffection than any historical detail I’ve ever encountered. If they fail to mention it this week, I don’t know what I’m going to do.

turinturambar – This was a reminder to me of how wrapped up I get in my own issues. The anticipation and hope I had for a meaty, “real,” fact-facing, loving talk for doubters wasn’t fulfilled in recent conferences, but I forget that my priorities aren’t universal . I’ll be thinking of your post this weekend.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

cwald wrote:

A little dad/son time is a good idea. And I have no problem with some all male activities.

I also think some all female activists are okay.

Both religion and secular…it’s okay to segregate based on gender sometimes…there is a time and place and season for all things.

Yes, I agree. I’ve heard comments over the years complaining about the all-male priesthood meeting. I count it as one of the highlights of the Church and THE highlight of GC. I understand why women feel left out, but the answer is to provide an analog, rather than to disparage (not talking about anyone here).

Many years ago, my ward had an annual father/son campout. It was quite popular and enjoyable. One woman, who had four daughters complained loudly about how unfair that was. It was the permanent end to those father/son campouts. It’s probably been, I don’t know… 15 years since the last one. It wasn’t replaced with anything, just done away with.

I agree. Last month we had our visiting teaching conference during third hour. It was fantastic being together as women. The men covered in Primary and YM/YW so we could do that. I’d be upset for us to just wave it away as a useless activity. Male-bonding and female-bonding are important in our church, and I don’t know why we are so dismissive or sometimes careless of it. Or, rather, I sort of know why, but I think it’s a mistake.

[Author]

Posts