Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
The talks are not vetted beforehand. Occasionally, changes are made afterward – prior to being recorded in print.
Do you have a source?
From what I understand, whoever is chosen to speak chooses what they want to talk about. I would guess that they give a transcript ahead of time to help translators perform better. Does anyone else know? I loved conference. But I also feel like I have moved past a faith crisis and am well into a faith refinement phase. (though I sometimes visit the crisis terrain) Here are the talks that spoke best to me.
Jorg Klebingat – Sat afternoon, How to gain spiritual confidence. I really felt like this will help me grow where I want to grow.
Dieter F. Uctdorf – Priesthood session – open my eyes to where I am in my obedience, I loved the dandelion story.
All the talks about sustaining the prophet and President Monson pointing us to Jesus as our example. Somehow this contrast stood out to me. And my mind went to how Jesus always points to the Father. It feels so right that any person focused on such as the prophet or Jesus, that they should refocus our attention on another or correct principles. Rather than make it about hero worship. Even though we should worship God. The fact that God is humble or correct in directing our attention where it should be rather than empty hero idols; this is a reason why God is worthy of our worship.
I wonder how the Father handles empty hero worship when He receives it. Maybe he points us back to Jesus, since He is supposed to be our example. I am not sure how that works. I just thought it was interesting that President Monson didn’t even acknowledge all the talks about sustaining him and that he focused on our Exemplar.
Also the fact that, from what I gather, no topics are assigned to the speakers in GC. They choose the topic with no input from anyone else.
Daeruin wrote:I really liked Uchtdorf’s talk in the priesthood meeting. I hope it will combat some of the judgmentalism we see in the church.
I liked it too.
bridget_night wrote:Just read that Br. Oaks has a gay grandson….wonder if that will start him rethinking things.
Where did you hear that?
As you can probably tell, I visit here on again, off again. Faith refinement describes my experience better than faith crisis or faith transition. I enjoyed hearing your story.
Old-Timer wrote:Just to make an important point, these essays ARE part of our current “correlation” in the Church. They aren’t in manuals yet, but they are being published as part of a movement that has been going on for a few years now to update and correct historical information published by the Church. Once the overall work is done, I am fairly certain the new information will be incorporated into new manuals.
+1
A great message. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7536487.The_Great_Kamryn I agree that the whole truth may be somewhere in the middle between both sides of the story. The tactics may be the only problem here. I like the way Neylan puts it
“we can see her discipline as a specific caution against tactics that promote different doctrine (on any subject) than what is being taught from the pulpit in our day, and then recruiting others to rally around that new doctrine too. If we take this second approach, Kelly’s disciplinary council is not a condemnation of the conversation about women but a caution for those of us involved in it to choose a different strategy.”
http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2014/06/how-the-conversation-about-women-can-go-on.html I think it is also important to note that no one but the council and Kate Kelly have the stewardship and thus the discernment to know the whole story. So any comment anyone makes is much speculation.
nibbler wrote:Who is to say that god hasn’t inspired the OW group to bring about his purposes?
In the case of what Kate Kelly has done, the bishop has said that it is not what she should have done. Even opposition to the church of God can be part of the Lord’s purposes though.
I don’t think she had a SilentDawning wrote:swift excommunication
If you believe the letter from her bishop, and I do, then there has been a process over many months to try and resolve this.
SGoodman wrote:I’m really somewhat surprised, not by the excommunication, but by the reactions I read here. There is no doubt that this constitutes negative PR for the Church but I hear this criticism levied as though this were a PR decision. It isn’t. This decision was made without any consideration for the public relations aspect and the Church will just have to deal with whatever publicity comes its’ way. If the Church is what it claims to be then negative PR isn’t going to sink it.
I’m also very surprised at how many people are willing to pass judgement. I’ve heard lots of Mormons insist that Kate doesn’t belong in the Church, that she should have been excommunicated long ago, that she should go start her own Church. And this from people who have never even met the woman. I’ve heard an equal number who have taken it upon themselves to judge and concluded that Kate Kelly has done nothing wrong and they condemn the Church for all sorts of things. I’ve heard the terms “boundary maintenance”, “cleaning house”, and “suppression of critical thinking”.
None of us is in a position to know enough to pass judgement, and even if we felt we had all the facts, none of us has the
authorityto pass judgement. Mark Harrison is her Bishop and the responsibility is his. I pray he got it right, and if he didn’t, I pray that God protects and comforts those he may have wounded. Though I don’t have all the facts and I have no authority to pass judgement, here are the judgements I choose to make:
Kate Kelly is sincere in her belief that women lack equality in the Church, that ordination has been unfairly denied them, and that this must change.
Whatever unnamed General Authority approached her Bishop (Mark Harrison) and pushed for a disciplinary council did so thinking he was doing the right thing (probably, in his view, protecting the Church).
Mark Harrison (remember this is my own judgement based on zero authority and insufficient information) acquiesced to the council out of respect for the authority of the one who asked him but insisted that the judgement of the council would be determined by the Spirit through revelation. The excommunication was as much a surprise to him as it was to everyone else.
I have heard criticism of Thomas S Monson for not resolving the entire issue. “Since he’s the prophet he could easily settle the whole matter once and for all. Just give us a revelation Yes or No.” Pres Monson doesn’t have the power to dictate to God what revelations He must hand down and when. Also, there are roughly 4000 disciplinary counsels per month. Though this one is particularly high profile, Pres. Monson can’t allow himself to become personally involved in them.
(still more of my own judgements)
Kate Kelly is absolutely correct that women lack equality. I think that the Church agrees with her as evidenced by the tiny incremental changes that we’ve seen over the past year. What Kate didn’t understand is that campaigning for change is a secular model and we don’t follow that model. For those activities she was excommunicated.
I agree
amateurparent wrote:Years ago, our RS passed out a letter to all the sisters. It was from our area president, and it was on official church letterhead. He had given it to each stake president and told them to pass it on to each ward. It was to be given to all the sisters. The letter talked about the evils of birth control and how important it was for us to all have as many children as biologically possible.
I brought it home and passed it on to my DH. He promptly mailed it to church headquarters in SLC. A few weeks later, it was announced in church that the previous letter had not been authorized and was completely incorrect. Our stake president then very diplomately approached us and wanted to know WHO we were connected with in SLC. The answer .. No one. But HQ did let the local administrators know who sent the letter to SLC.
What I learned from the experience was that area presidencies take fliers just like any one else. And they can be wrong.
Sometimes, I think God looks down at us, sighs, and thinks, “Is that all I get to work with?” Our leadership is all too human sometimes. Let’s hope they pray fervently and often for guidance.
I agree
The reason why the church HQ does not address the accusations given it may be simply, “We Are Doing a Great Work and Cannot Come Down”
