G.C. play-by-play

This thread is for comments or questions we may have as General Conference rolls on around us. Let me get the ball rolling: Elder Haight’s comments, nostalgic and whimsical as they were, were still more interesting to me than Elder Oaks’ Opus on the last days. Thoughts? Post ‘em up!!

Comments

  1. “not to simply recycle the same gripes continually. “

    Nate, that is what comes of hanging around some of the dues paying crowd (and yes, there is much more to Sunstone than that, and yes, they need a voice too). You have to join in the recycling in order to progress in the crowd. So they do. But after twenty or thirty years it does get a bit boring

    Which is too bad. Would be nice to have people who are interested in true critical thought rather than just being critical?

    There are lots of interesting topics, some of which the Church has embraced.

    For example, just what is a Church and what role should it fill (vs. the family and the community or the government)?

    What are the core programs that make a Church successful in meeting the needs of a Church? Huge statistical studies (though the GA who said we didn’t need to take notes from his prepared visual aids, it would all be published shortly … argh, well, I took notes as fast as I could keep up just to help me think about the points).

    What does it mean that the apostles feel that the female general board members are general authorities?

    That topic takes in scouting, seminary and hosts of other things, all of which have their own implications.

    Anyway, I’m surprised by how little commenting I’m seeing on conference so far.

  2. “without surrendering any element of our doctrine” — possibly responding to trends of watering down doctrines to fit in with evangelicals?

  3. …finding it hard to stay awake… must focus…I’m just not seeing the tightness of logic like in the morning session.

    Thinking of Sister Beck’s talk earlier today has suddenly reinvigorated me. I can’t wait to see what Kristine, Karen, maybe Melissa have to say. What a strange mix of a fantastic and a terrible talk.

  4. Aaron – good one. But obviously you’ve never made out with anyone during Priesthood session, otherwise you wouldn’t question the wisdom of my comment.

    OK, it’s back on!! First up – Pres. Monson & sustainings. I’m predicting big, BIG changes!

  5. Aaron,

    Actually, “an” was used before “h” words for quite some time, until recently. There numerous examples in the Bible of such usage.

    For example:

    Ex. 6:8
    Dan. 10:10
    Josh. 22:14

    Perhaps, though, the English didn’t pronounce the H’s in these instances. Anyhow, maybe the people who “commit this sin” just read their scriptures lots. ;-)

  6. Aaron, there’s a reason every windows pc comes with Solitaire. As a right-wing conspiracy theorist, it’s clear to me that Bill Gates is trying to keep mormons from ever having the Spirit on the information superhighway, by putting digital face cards in all his software bundles.

    Conference has indeed taught me much.

  7. Aaron, what is it with you? Is it just that God likes to pick on you? I swear, I have heard more wacky stories from you than anyone else in the Bloggernacle. Maybe you just tell them really well? I laugh every time and wonder who you are to be so misplaced in this life. Why can’t you be in MY ward? I need some controversy / wacky stories / wacky friends (or maybe I don’t).

  8. Aaron–don’t you know that no matter what the topic–it all comes back to homosexuality?

  9. Am about to start watching a “Tivo’d” version of the Morning Session at a friend’s house. Am jealous of those of you who’ve already started watching it, but hey, I did get to sleep in, and you didn’t!

    Somebody tell me about the good parts in advance, and I’ll be able to impress my friends. Maybe they’ll think I’m psychic (or at least really spiritually in tune…)!

    Aaron B

  10. Amazingly, Nate’s post seems to have displaced Conference as the “topic of the day.” So here’s my two cents worth.

    I didn’t think Nate’s remarks were particularly directed at the Mo weblog community. We don’t get “ostentatiously worked up” about things, we just kick them around. Furthermore, Nate’s “real problem with these people is that they are boring and insulting.” The small Mo weblog community is not generally boring and is almost never insulting.

    I think the “liberal Mormons” that he is describing are those who, by and large, have distanced themselves from institutional Mormonism while remaining interested (sometimes obsessed) with cultural and historical Mormonism. In other words, he is describing “ex-Mormons,” used (if this is still possible) as a descriptive term rather than as an epithet. Or perhaps those who view the Church as merely a church rather than as “the Church.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  11. And can you change my link back to Jamba Juice?

  12. And then there was the Prophet. He is so touching when he speaks of his wife. I think of Sumer the same way. Speaking to us in that gentle, loving way teaches me more than all of the other doctrine I’ve heard all day.

  13. Kristine says:

    Anybody wanna do a tally of passive vs. active verbs in Pres. Monson’s talk?

  14. Apparently a family is to be governed under a split coalition.

  15. Arwyn, you’re no aberration — just ask Kristine (who will doubtlessly chime in once she’s back).

  16. Basically, some sisters were coming home late, and got off the train in a weird part of town. A woman showed up out of nowhere and offered to walk them to where they were going. As they were walking, they came upon a group of unsavory characters, and walked right past them, unseen, and had the impression that their presence was veiled. When they got where they were going…. the female guide was gone!

    A good miracle story, IMHO.

  17. Bob,

    I’ve often wondered about this issue myself. The fact is that I go through life mentally cataloguing all my experiences into narrative form, so that I can later share them as good stories.

    For example, I had experiences on my mission where any other elder would have probably avoided certain situations or people, but I stuck around, thinking to myself “I’ll be able to tell someone about this someday and get a good laugh out of it.” It’s just all in how you see the world.

    Aaron B

  18. Bob, how dare you find one of the Brethen annoying. We here at Steve felt enriched. We are adjusting the balance of power in our home accordingly.

  19. Did you hear the reference to “voting with their feet?” A shout-out to Ann’s comment in the previous thread! Ann, your voice HAS been heard!!

  20. Don’t adjust too quickly, wait for this Sister to finish speaking.

  21. Elder Scott speaks sooo slowly. “nu tri cious ve ge ta bles.” But when he pronounces the name of that place in Bolivia, he suddenly speeds up.

    ergghhh…. plus it doesn’t help that I am the lone blogger in the ‘nacle.

  22. Good luck man, but you can’t TiVO the Spirit.

    You could probably freak people out by saying, when Pres. Faust gets up, “I sure hope he talks about his crystal radio set. I get so tired of him talking about carrier pigeons.” Or, “I’m looking for a woman with a mother’s heart” for the sister-speaker.

  23. Kristine says:

    Gotta go–I’m taking the kids to the chapel in hopes that actually seeing President Hinckley will hold their attention for a few minutes.

    Oh man, I love the bass line of Guide Us, O Thou Great Jehovah on a BIG rockin’ organ!!

    [oh, how clever, they're getting the token woman to make the women feel bad! Anybody know if Julie Beck is married to a brother of John Beck (as in Martha's husband)?]

  24. Hey does anyone remember a First Presidency Message by President Hinckley a few years back (’99 maybe) where he quoted Brigham Young saying something about not relying wholly upon his words; that we should pray about them and question them ourselves?

    I’ve been looking for it forever.

  25. Hey- nice site! I really like it.

    I linked to you over at my blog, and am trying to gather links to as many LDS bloggers as possible. So let me know if there are any more I should know about! :)

  26. Hi Arwyn, you lurker! if only you had a techie’s heart instead of that mother’s heart, you’d have it all figured out already.

    Nah, the only thing to do, I think, is to keep on refreshing, sadly. Wish I had a better idea.

    So Elder Packer’s not afraid of the future. That’s good, I guess….

  27. Holland: “we stay on the boat”, despite squalls, etc. “One cannot be faithful in the Gospel without striving to be faithful in the Church which is its earthly manifestation.” A very interesting take, I think, on committed membership. Does that also mean, don’t rock the boat?

  28. I agree that Nate Oman can as boring and insulting as the next guy, and that he is frequently mistaken and ought to be criticized more harshly. On the otherhand, his post — while a bit snarky and out there — was not with out a core of truth to it. Over drawn portriats may not be accurate but that doesn’t mean that they don’t contain a kernal of truth. The point is to have FUN and INTERESTING discussions, not to simply recycle the same gripes continually. I honestly did not mean to direct my comments at this or any other blog. I have been kibbitzing with folks about Mormonism since BYU, and it is largely from my experiences there and since that I was drawing.

  29. I am currently sloshing through the mudslide of life.

  30. I don’t go to conference, ever, because I always come home angry and depressed. But I do like hearing about it. Steve, will you please explain the context of “vote with your feet,” if you’d be so kind.

  31. I have never felt as motivated to go to General Conference as I do today, because if I don’t go, I won’t have anything to contribute on this thread!

    I suspected all along that this whole blog thing was just a conspiracy to make me go to more of General Conference. Now I’m sure of it!

    Aaron B

  32. I just am now seeing the GC play-by-play and am totally bummed out that I didn’t get to play along. Dag nabbit! I say we make this a semi-annual event.

  33. Kristine says:

    I keep writing things and then deleting them because they’re too snarky. I’m just not nice enough for this!

  34. I like how this guy reverts to an nineteenth century diction when he reads quotes from early church history.

  35. I posted a comment on my blog, if anyone’s interested, on how President Packer would establish a stand on the vaccination issue, but no leader so far has taken a stand on gay marriages this conference or last conference.

  36. I thought it was Elder Oaks who talked about the last days. ???

  37. I was asked if I really thought Nate’s post was “nice”. Absolutely–even though I feel his comments hit close to home. I might have also added “physician, heal theyself” as Nate can be as boring and insulting as anyone, but I sympathize with the points he is making . He seems to want to raise the level of discussion and he doesn’t want to engage in an endless conversation about how the church has failed someone personally or that a certain historical fact doesn’t jive with what the church teaches. I think that for Nate there must be a reason–a theory or thesis–behind a discussion of a problem. It’s not good enough to say that X is a problem or Y is a historical fact, but he wants you to then add a thoughtful, well-researched response to X or Y.

    It’s debateable that what he considers carping someone else might consider interesting and enlightening–but that shouldn’t be surprising since he has gone further and deeper down this road than the average dilletante who finds blogging/list serves as a nice outlet to sunday school.

    Finally–I’ve put enough words in Nate’s mouth that I’ll now state my own view–it often IS boring and uninteresting to listen to people work out their personal issues with the church in the public space and if you want to do that–then exmormon.org is a pretty good place for that. The conversation never changes and Mormons are all idiot sheep on that board, but it serves its purpose.

    I like to talk to Mormons, former Mormons and never Mormons about the church, problems in the church, historical matters–even the gospel, but at the end of the day, I really believe in this stuff and I love the church (although I’m NOT always comfortable there)–even as an imperfect organization. When I perceive that someone simply has an ax to grind–whether that perception is right or wrong–I’m not really interested in talking to them. I’ve only seen that once on bcc.

    I’m Mat Parke and I approved this post–but bcc didn’t.

  38. I’d like to add that many times as a missionary I also felt invisible; unfortunately, this occured most often as I was knocking on doors. (reference to the story told re: sis. missionaries being protected).

  39. I’d like to blog more, Steve, but I can’t get my friends to stop playing Solitaire long enough to let me get a word in edgewise.

    Alas, the Spirit obviously cannot dwell here, given the presence of face cards!

    Aaron B

  40. I’m just playing with you, Aaron, don’t worry. Besides, I read you about live attendance — normally I don’t listen to Saturday, I just read it later, but the prospect of as-it-happens bloggin’ makes it fun.

    What are we going to do during Priesthood? Anyone got a schmancy PDA they can use?

  41. I’m the head.

  42. In my mind, Elder Eyring is the most clearly-spoken of the G.A.s. His thoughts are fairly complex, but he winds us through them effectively. Great job, Hal!

    K: I hear you about snarkiness. May I suggest that you stick with posting your honest impressions? You’re not very snarky, by nature.

  43. In order for Mormon liberals to have more interesting discussions, the church is going to have to come up with some more interesting problems. I’m TIRED of complaining about GBH’s response to the MMM, but until he does something more interesting that I don’t like, what am I SUPPOSED to complain about? The role of women in the church? Overdone (and if we weren’t all PMSing all the time, we wouldn’t care that much). What they SHOULD be doing with their money? “Render therefore to Caesar…”

    Until the Church comes up with more interesting problems, we liberals are stuck singing the same old songs. The doctrinal soundness of replacing the auxiliary presidencies with regular guys vs. GA’s just doesn’t resonate with me as a viable topic for discussion, y’know?

  44. It’s certainly a double standard. But I’ve heard women speak in public and get a point across — indeed, and do it with the Spirit — without trying to employ that cadence. Maybe the one is simply better suited to a male voice? Or maybe they need to stop the Primary-level sweetness.

    Or maybe more women respond better to that, and I’m an aberration. ;)

    I really enjoyed President Hinckley’s talk, as well.

  45. It’s interesting that you respond so differently to men and women speaking with essentially the same cadence. I think you’re right, that women can’t use that Primary-level sweetness without gutting their gravitas and ruining the weight of their words. But it’s a double-standard, right?

    Pres. Hinckley is giving a great talk, I must say, even though I’m really not sure where he’s going with it.

  46. It’s official — no SSM. “Marriage is …between a man and a woman.” But some Seventy is saying it, I think — so some of us can still try to kick against the pricks, I think.

  47. Jordan–there are no other decent sites to link to. Especially not timesandseasons.org. OK–maybe orson’s telescope, although we are hoping to put them out of business so they will join up.

  48. Kim,

    (1) I wonder whether the absence of the specific phrases “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage,” per se, at Conference has to do with a desire to avoid the media circus that might accompany the use of such terms, given how hot the issue is right now.

    (2) The subject of “vaccinations” in official Church discourse actually has a little known but interesting history (although not interesting enough for me to write anymore about it at present).

    (3) Thanks for your review of English grammatical history. However, this doesn’t mean I have to like it! (And I’m still going inactive!) :)

    (3) Your Widtsoe quote is probably going to play a prominent role in a post of mine that’s coming down the pipeline soon. Stay tuned…

    Aaron B

  49. Kim, I guess you don’t you think that was a very strong statement made in the Sunday p.m. talk …that defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Well, me neither, but it’s as close as we’ve come. Thanks for bringing that post over.

    I guess the lesson here is that Elder Packer believes innoculation to be a hot button issue. Or, apparently using the ‘proper roots’ of the word, he believes putting things in your eye is important.

    As for “you know who”: mother, don’t make fun of me in front of my friends.

  50. Kristine,

    Too many to count.

  51. Kristine,

    we didn’t notice it until just now.

    We’re going to start shooting pigeons, carrier or not.

  52. Kristine,

    You can admit it here… Elder Perry was pretty annoying. He beat one of your pet peeves to a bloody pulp. It’s nice of you to give him a standard GA benefit of the doubt, though.

  53. Kristine,

    Just doesn’t seem as fun after-the-fact. Two things stick out in my mind the day after, though (in no particular order). First, Liriel Domiciano rocked! By the way, I can’t ever remember hearing a vocal solo at GC. Are violin or cello solos far behind? (Probably, unfortunately.) Second, President Hinckley rocks! It was touching to hear him talk about Sis. Hinckley. A wonderful model to emulate.

  54. Kristine, are you a woman with a mother’s heart? ‘Cause Mathew is.

  55. Kristine, LOL re: pres. Monson’s probabilities. My wife (a scientist) agrees. Perhaps it is the extraordinary level of widows and orphans that has formed him into the powerhouse he is today. If only we had more widows and orphans, our leadership would be unbeatable.

  56. Kristine–

    He’s quoting your favorite proclamation. Let’s hear it.

    Mat

  57. Kristine–are you self-censoring as a result of NBO’s comments?

  58. Kristine–I sincerely doubt it. I look forward to each of your posts. Actually I have been really impressed with the quality of discussion that I have seen–both on this board and at T&S. The discussion following Nate’s thread was especially interesting–well written and well thought out. I know that I’m sort of the black sheep on this site for not proofing my posts and comments (Steve harangue’s me constantly about spell check)–but I love good, clear writing such as yours.

    I have started to spell check by cutting and pasting my comments into whatever document I happen to be working on. I just know that one of these days I am going to forget to delete it and in the middle of an offering circular or purchase agreement is going to appear a paragraph explaining why Moroni needn’t grace every temple.

  59. Kristine says:

    Mat, no. Was he talking about me?

  60. Mathew, fair enough — point taken. And I like Pres. Monson’s talks. But no teaching tool is effective if used exclusively…

  61. Kristine says:

    Mathew, I’ll get around to posting my response to Nate’s thing on liberal Mormons soon. In a nutshell, I think the essential problem is that Nate is smarter than 99.95% of the population and therefore bound to be annoyed by the stupidity of people around him in almost any context.

  62. Kristine says:

    Maybe the choir will do Tom Lehrer next–“Spring is here… and we’re poisoning pigeons in the park”

    Oh yeah, you guys are too young and hip to know Tom Lehrer, aren’t you?

  63. Kristine says:

    My trouble with Pres. Monson’s talk is that I’m a scientist’s kid, and I’m constantly trying to figure out the odds of him actually having known so many widows and terminally ill children :)

  64. Nate’s smart, but everyone should stop bowing at his feet. The fact is he is just more willing than most to waste time blogging than others. This makes him intimidating, I suppose. That post on T&S was simply bizarre. Mat, did you really think that was a “nice post”?

  65. Kristine says:

    Nate, it *was* interesting. I told you I liked it! I also think you got the main points right, and it’s useful that you wrenched the discussion out of the standard “liberals are faithless; conservatives are stupid” paradigm. And all of us over here are feeling just as smug about not being *those* liberal Mormons as you are; I don’t think anybody’s feeling defensive ;) (Well, I’m not, anyway, and I can’t think of anyone else more prone to that kind of thing…)

  66. Never mind. I found it. It was President Faust in Sep 1998. For those who want to see it.

    “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security.…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).

  67. Kristine says:

    No, it was actually interesting–I haven’t seen so clearly that the concern about families is so deeply rooted in worry about FATHERS before. Often, the burden for failing families, etc. is laid at the feet of mothers, and that was an interesting twist.

  68. No, we’ve heard of Tom Lehrer. You’re not such an old fogey.

    Some good ideas here, interesting choices of the most important messages. Debt is again mentioned…

  69. Not sure what Pulbic Displays of Affection (PDA) have to do with Priesthood.

    Aaron B

  70. Kristine says:

    OH NO!!! They’re trying to make “We Are Sowing” an Earnest Serious Hymn. The 19th-century gospel songs are the hardest thing to deal with in the hymnbook. They should always be congregational, and they should NOT be done slowly and seriously (or with tenor descants, or excursions into minor modes, ferhevvinssakes).

    Ugh!

  71. Oh, and Steve, I don’t think it was any more official than when it came out in the Proclamation. Since he just quoted from it. ;-)

  72. Kristine says:

    Oh, goody–the proclamation and President Benson’s talk in the same talk!

  73. OK — here we go!! Sunday morning session. Mathew & Steve are co-reporting. For the record, Mathew came in late.

    Is it just me, or has the MoTab sounded particularly dirgeful?

  74. OK, look’s like we’re back in action soon here — last chance for the BIG revelations on SSM, etc. Let me give a prediction: veiled references but that’s it.

  75. OK, so no real big changes.

    There’s no WAY I’m going to start showing up early for my meetings. Maybe if I move to the southernmost stake in Chile.

  76. Kristine says:

    OK, so now I know the Spirit was with me today–the talk I missed while driving to church was Elder Packer’s :) I also missed most of Sis. Beck’s so I can’t be as caustic and nasty as I otherwise would be. I’m sure I’ll be able to snark appropriately once the transcripts are up!

  77. Okay, as per Steve’s request, here it is for the stupid and lazy.

    President Boyd K. Packer, as part of his talk this afternoon, extolled the virtues of vaccination (or as he erroneously referred to it, immunisation). It made me wonder.

    Why would a leader of the Church take a stand on a volatile topic as vaccinations at General Conference, and yet none of the leaders have taken a stand in this or last conference on what seem to be the greater moral issue of gay marriages? What sort of message does that give to members of the Church?

    Surely, the Church is not lukewarm or indifferent toward the issue. Surely, the Church does not consider the issue of vaccinations to be more noteworthy than that of gay marriages.

    Well, maybe someone will say something this afternoon. Of course, there is always next conference.

  78. One of my sisters can’t stand the diction employed across the pulpit at GC either–but nothing to be done I guess.

  79. Prediction: Elder Eyring cries.

  80. Put it up here too Kim — many of us are too lazy/stupid.

  81. Quoting Bernard de Clairvaux! Oh, it’s from the hymn… well, at least it’s medieval.

    Another thing this talk has in common with Bernard de Clairvaux: the speaker has a voice resonating and dramatic enough to launch the Crusades.

  82. Randy, I think we can arrange that. But I gotta tell ya, it’s an exhausting one-man show for the most part.

  83. Kristine says:

    Randy, I thought my dad was the only person who said “dag nabbit.” It makes me happy to see it in print.

    And hey, you can still do your comments even if they’re memorex instead of live.

  84. Sam, Kristine, etc.,

    I find myself in the rather odd position of wanting to defend Nate’s “liberal Mormon” thread on T&S. This may seem particularly odd, given my belief that it was at least in part directed at me (Nate tried to back down from his admission of this, but at least some of his post is undeniably a reference to interchanges he and I have had).

    The phenomenon Nate is identifying with certain kinds of “liberal Mormons” is real. I can say this because I know first-hand what he is talking about, having seen it in others and (to some extent) in myself. Some confusion has taken place (think of Randy’s, Brayden’s and Steve’s comments) based upon Nate’s use of the phrase “liberal Mormons,” but I think Nate qualifies his narrow use of the term fairly well.

    That said, I do have problems with some of his descriptions and conclusions, some of which I’ve mentioned over there (and some of which I haven’t).

    Aaron B

  85. Sister Beck used the phrase “an heritage” in her talk. Grammar question: Isn’t the whole point of putting an “n” at the end of the indefinite article “a” to make the transitition between two vowel sounds less awkward? That is, we say “an” before a noun that begins with a vowel, but not a consonant. I understand that the “h” sound is sometimes silent in English, so it makes sense to use “an” before words like “herb,” since they begin with vowel sounds. But why use them before words like “heritage” (or “historical”), where the “h” isn’t silent? I’ve always found this very annoying.

    That’s it — I’m going inactive.

    Aaron B

  86. Kristine says:

    Stephen,
    what makes you think that the apostles think board members are “general authorities”?

  87. You know who says:

    Stephen, when you were young we really needed long prayers and if I had known you were sitting at home picking apart everyone at Conference I’d have to start making them even longer!

  88. Steve E.,

    Don’t overinterpret my comments. It’s not like I “never” attend General Conference. I almost always attend some of it — just not the bulk of it. I figure I can always read it later. But this real-time blogging stuff just makes live attendance mandatory!

    Aaron B

  89. Steve is calling a cabinet to set family policy.

  90. Steve says there will be no split coation–he will stage a coup if necessary.

  91. Steve–

    Where would President Monson get the utterly bizarre idea that parable and anecdote make effective teaching tools?

  92. Steve–I was talking to someone about an indenture during the sister missionary story–can you give me a recap? I’m interested because it sounds like it parallels the old sisters protected from the murderer by the guy with the sword story.

  93. Steve–it looks like the first presidency is safe anyway. I predict that your prediction is way off.

  94. Kristine says:

    Still, it’s hard to get really annoyed with Elder Perry–every time he says “ahrder,” and “ahrganization,” he seems so human and charming.

  95. Sumer says–next time you make the family meal, you can preside.

  96. Thanks Bob. We try to keep the snarkiness to a minimum. It’s too easy to just gripe all the time.

  97. Thanks for the compliment, Mathew, tentative though it may be. But like I told Steve already, you want my telescope, you’ll have to pry it from my COLD DEAD HANDS.

    BTW, I went to the temple Fri. night and baptized a new convert Sat. morning, so by the time conference started, I just didn’t have the snarkiness in me to participate in the play-by-play. :)

  98. That last talk made special emphasis of the Atonement taking place in Gethsemane. Why does our geographical bifurcation between the Garden and the Cross matter so much, anyways? It seems strange, when the thing that really matters is that the Atonement DID in fact happen.

  99. That’d be me from Bowdoin — listening to the session over the ‘net and finding the commentary here amusing as I listen to how I should have a mother’s heart and rejoice in my divine mission of motherhood, etc.

    If you can suggest an easier way to see the new comments without continually refreshing the blog, btw, I’d be grateful…

  100. That’s awesome, Aaron. Just goes to show how much it’s on everyone’s minds. A little formal pronouncement would be interesting…

  101. That’s what I was thinking, too – a little overly thunderous. I can imagine the guy thundering out his shopping list: “eggs, milk, flour, AND perhaps some chocolate.”

    Next guy: hrm. He sure sounds old… anybody with video give me the lowdown?

  102. The general diction isn’t a problem…I don’t mind when Pres. Hinkley speaks that way, or any of the Apostles, or any of the men. Maybe it’s conditioning.

  103. The talk itself wasn’t bad…but the tone that the “token women” take always strikes me as horribly condescending. I imagine it’s simply that they’re trying to emulate the official GA intonation, but it strikes me as wrong and insincere. That may just be me and my reaction — but even if their message is wonderful and uplifting and sweet and honestly really good, I…have a hard time with it.

  104. The thought that we should be the same people within the walls of our homes as we are at Church is possibly the most profound thing I have heard all day. A tremendous concept.

  105. The voting with your feet came up (corrections, please, if I’m mistaken, y’all) in a situation where a sister was planning a church program that others thought was going to be too burdensome, and they warned her that the members would object by voting with their feet. The speaker went on to say that they did indeed vote with their feet – by staying and participating.

  106. Kristine says:

    There’s that ambiguity Julie was pointing out last week on the blog-which-shall-not-be-named: fathers preside, but husband and wife are “co-presidents.” Huh?

  107. Kristine says:

    They sound good now! Note that they’re not doing a hymn. Has anyone noticed the Spirit fleeing?

  108. To be fair, the “token woman” and her talk were the best I’ve heard in G.C. The switching of genders in the scriptures, the discussion of single or childless women, it was definitely above-average in some respects.

  109. What was with Sister Beck’s outfit? Are Mormon women finally entering a post-floral print, post-lace fashion phase?

    There is a God!

    Aaron B

  110. When you’re listening to the prayer, are you supposed to be praying along too? I’ve never been sure. Sumer, my sweet, wonderful wife, is reading the NY Times magazine.

  111. Who’s on from Bowdoin College? just curious.

  112. whoa…. loooonnggg prayer. When I was a kid my mom would pray for a long time, and my teenage sister would say, “sheesh mom, why didn’t you bless the trees in the backyard too?”

  113. words were spoken; anecdotes were recounted; the conference, adjourned.

    The passive voice is loved by both me and Pres. Monson.

  114. Yeah! BCC as reactivation tool! Welcome back after all these years, Aaron.

  115. You gotta love this ….

    I am watching G.C. with my wife and four friends. None of the friends would consider themselves “liberal” or “intellectual.” During L. Tom Perry’s talk, one of them blurted out:

    “I just have to confess that I just don’t care all that much about opposing gay marriage. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.”

    Another friend disagreed. We then had a twenty minute conversation about the pros and cons of gay marriage, thereby missing almost all of Perry’s talk, and most of the next one as well.

    And I SWEAR I was in no way responsible for initiating or perpetuating the discussion.

    Fun stuff!

    Aaron B

  116. You guys (and girls) are just too much fun. I suppose BCC is a place where you can speak your mind a little more openly? I really don’t find much “snarkiness” here. But rather, a down-to-earth sort of we-know-we’re-smart-but-we-don’t-let-it-get-to-us feel.

    BTW- Kristine is right. Nate is smarter than most everyone around him. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make mistakes. His post was interesting enough; I just don’t like the way we tend to talk about THOSE Mormons whether they be “ultra conservative” or “liberal”. Can we use different words please? Something that doesn’t imply that you have to be one or the other?

    I wrote more at T&S about this. Nate’s one of my favorite T&S authors, but I don’t want to kid myself into thinking this latest post is prolific.

  117. you guys, has pres. Monson ever given a straight-up doctrinal talk? For the life of me I can’t remember one.

    Michelle, you might be right about Oaks, not Holland. I wasn’t paying attention when they announced the names. Curse not having a video feed!!

    Why did Pres. Monson ordain the old deacon a teacher, then a Priest? Is it necessary to pass through all 3? When male converts get the Priesthood, don’t we just ordain them Priests right off the bat?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,485 other followers