General Conference Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

This is the end, beautiful friends.


  1. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Lots of apostles left to speak this afternoon.

  2. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Is that Uchtdorf’s best imitations of Sarah Palin Glasses??

  3. ****************************



    * President Packer (“The Test”)
    * Elder Nelson (“Celestial Marriage”)
    * President Oswald (of the Sunday School, “Gospel Teaching–Our
    Most Important Calling”)
    * Elder Gavarret (of the Seventy, “Returning Home”)
    * Elder Godoy (of the Seventy, “Testimony as a Process”)
    * Elder Cook (“Hope Ya Know, We Had a Hard Time”)
    * President Monson (“Closing Remarks”)

  4. Now I’m looking forward to Pres Monson uttering the words, “…under the direction of Mack Wilberg, with Ray Manzarek on the organ.”

  5. Is everyone getting the online feed? I’m having issues.

  6. I can’t get it online via any of the options.

  7. Ok, I finally got it. Try using the old Windows Media Player.

  8. I’ve only been able to get it with the audio file.

  9. Bummer. I have been looking forward to it.

  10. Did anyone else here him call god the father Jehovah in the opening prayer?


    lol… TWoP for conference.

  12. Ever read DC 107?

  13. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Looks like Elder Nelson has been given the assignment to address the SSM issue.

  14. Will Nelson be giving the SSM talk then? I thought for sure it would be Packer.

  15. jbc- i heard it, but think it might have been a mistake. however, it actually fits in with an older LDS usage of Jehovah.

  16. The convention of using Jehovah exclusively for the Son was finalized with Talmage.

  17. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    So Hodges — Give it to us straight….where do you get your info?

  18. Indeed. I think it was a mistake, prompted by the song. Fits with the old usage, and the usage of most western religions – doesn’t fit with the modern temple.
    Everyone gets mixed up sometimes. Made me go ‘huh?’ though.

  19. media

  20. or maybe he’s thinking like Abinadi, namely that Jesus is “the very Eternal Father.”

  21. Ben Pratt says:

    President Packer is wearing a mic like Elder Wirthlin did yesterday. Perhaps he considered speaking from his chair, also?

  22. incognito says:

    Man I love that song. Takes me back to one of the most overwhelming moments of my life – the 150th anniversary celebration of the arrival of the pioneers in Utah when I, as a missionary in the MTC, was able to be part of the surprise grand finale. The swell of the Spirit as 4000 missionaries entered Cougar Stadium (I don’t think it was LaVell Edwards Stadium yet, but I could be wrong) singing Called to Serve and then singing the last verse of Faith in Every Footstep with the tabernacle choir was absolutely stunning.

    Ah, memories

  23. It is also interesting that they chose patriotism as the theme, given the fact that Utah belonged to Mexico at the time… LOL.

  24. Is that Ben in Western WA? If so, I’m your Aunt Meemah in AZ.

  25. #20 – I think it was just a mistake – because in the same sentence, he said “Thy son”

  26. actually not, jbc.

  27. NoCoolName_Tom says:

    It’s always seemed to me, from my readings, that the Pioneers rejected the United States as a nation because it did not live up to the sacred founding documents and ideals. They were not proud to be “Americans”; they saw themselves as the few real Americans left.

  28. Got the feed! Yippee!

  29. Utah belonged to Mexico at the time

    Were the pioneers illegal immigrants into Mexico?

  30. 23: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed early in 1848 — Utah did not belong to Mexico at the time of the 1849 celebration.

  31. Men are to lead the country, women are to preach the gospel. Intersting…

  32. Cougar Stadium was renamed LaVelle Edwards Stadium 11/18/2000.

  33. 29: For the pioneers to have been “illegal,” there would have had to have been a law against their immigration. There was not.

  34. is there a MMM reference coming?

  35. That “Jehovah” mistake made me open my eyes too!
    I’m curious why they have to tape a microphone on their cheek if they have a regular microphone in front of them anyway. Even Elder Wirthlin did when he was sitting down. But I’m really curious why President Packer would have one on his cheek right now.

  36. #21: Actually, the mic might address a voice projection issue.

  37. Obey, honor, and sustain the law, but change the Calif. constitution. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

  38. #26 – Do tell BHodges – I thought Mexico gave up the land with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848

  39. Ohh, Buchanan’s blunder, i like it.

  40. and pres. packer was talking about the celebration on 1849.

  41. Ahh – good call. The celebration was after the treaty. I stand corrected.

    I think they use the face mike when their voices are a little quite or weak.

  42. SCREAM!!! If I hear it called “Buchanan’s Blunder” one more time I’m … I’m … Well, I don’t know what I will do, but it won’t be pretty. That’s is the most lowbrow, anti-historical, denigrating term that can possibly be applied to the Utah War, and BKP uses it over and over and over again.

  43. Buck, FYI, you need to remember that the law as decided by the citizens of California was changed by 4 judges who overstepped their bounds. Obey Honor and sustain the law, but give due reverence to God and His prophet. Let’s save this until Elder Nelson gives his talk though.

  44. any bets on a lahonti reference this session?

  45. Ammending the constitution in a legal and lawful way seems to fit perfectly with that principle.

  46. Men are to lead the country, women are to preach the gospel.

    Wait, I missed this one.

  47. NoCoolName_Tom says:

    Wasn’t the term coined by the eastern media upon Buchanan’s failed re-election bid?

  48. Ardis: do you have a paper on why it is a misnomer? I’d be interested.

  49. apostolic endorsement of flag pins

  50. Steve M, “The boys carried the dec of Ind, the women carried the scriptures, and old men were honored” but assumingly not listened to?

  51. Ben Pratt says:

    Hi Aunt Meemah! I forgot that was you! Ha!

  52. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Marital shoplifters. That’s great!!

  53. Ardis, I’d be interested too in a link.

  54. 47: NO!! It is and was used only by Utahns/Mormons who don’t have a clue how serious the war was, what a threat it was to us as a people, and how many people died because of it. It’s cute and clever, and absolutely wrong.

    48: Almost anything by William P. MacKinnon, much of it online, will explain the naming problem.

  55. Okay, here’s the talk for the California members. Knew it was coming.

  56. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Did packer have a flag pin?

  57. NoCoolName_Tom says:

    Oh, ok. I’ll stop using it then. :-)

  58. Here’s the big one…

  59. I don’t think it’s fair for Elder Nelson to call Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo polygamous activites “shoplifting.”

  60. (My guess is that BHodges somehow works with Church translation, so he’s got copies in advance as he does translation. Or he knows someone…)

  61. Hooo boy. Here we go…

    Gay marriage is marital shoplifting. Civil marriages are blue light specials at K-Mart, and Temple marriages are quality purchases.

  62. Choice?

  63. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Costanza — It is what it is.

  64. “Shoplifters” . . . ouch!

  65. From one of Bill’s papers:

    On 19 June 1858 a newly arrived newspaper reporter for the New York Herald looked around Salt Lake City as Brigham Young and President Buchanan’s two peace commissioners completed their work a week before Brevet Brig. Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston and his Utah Expedition marched through town. He wrote, “Thus was peace made – thus was ended the ‘Mormon war’, which … may thus be summarily historized: – Killed, none; wounded, none; fooled, everybody.” Starting with that ill-informed newspaper dispatch by a greenhorn, there has been a tendency to trivialize (and forget) the conflict as of no consequence and without bloodshed – hence the use of labels like “Buchanan’s Blunder,” “the Echo Canyon War,” “the Mormon Rebellion,” “the Utah Expedition,” “the Mormon War,” and the label lamentably most persistent in the culture of Utahns and Latter-day Saints, “Johnston’s Army.” It was not a trivial episode. Yes, there were no pitched battles, and there as no congressional declaration of war. But it was hardly a “bloodless” confrontation. Leaving aside deaths by accident, disease, and drunken gunplay sustained by the U.S. Army’s Utah Expedition and, to a lesser extent, Utah’s territorial militia (Nauvoo Legion), the Utah War’s atrocities alone produced nearly as many deaths among noncombatants and unarmed military prisoners as the 157 that earned Utah’s eastern neighbor the enduring nickname “Bleeding Kansas.” Only one of the Utah War’s atrocities, the 11 September 1857 Mountain Meadows massacre, was the greatest incident of organized mass murder against unarmed civilians in American history until the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. The25 February 1858 attack on the LDS mission at Fort Limhi resulted in two deaths, with five more people wounded. Back to our New York Herald correspondent for a moment. Lemuel Fillmore found out how bloody the Utah War could be a few days after he filed his dispatch when he almost lost his life in a knife fight with a rival reporter for the New York Times in a Provo hotel. Five years later Fillmore did die in the smoking ruins of Lawrence, Kansas, at the hands of a former Utah Expedition teamster – William C. Quantrill – during the most notorious atrocity of the Civil War.

  66. AZ also has a marriage amendment on the ballot.

  67. They do steal the virtue of those they act with, as well as their own.

  68. Seth R.: Correction: Vegas shotgun weddings are the blue light special. Civil marriages are akin to purchasing on eBay from a seller with no rating.

  69. Kaimi, that ain’t half of it.

    He equated everyone else’s marriages as “bargain sales” that will not last long.

    He’s going to get hammered for this one.

  70. Gender Essentialism…now this is a fun topic, especially for those in California dealing with Prop 8.

  71. Can’t we talk about temple marriage without referring to others’ marriages in such crude terms?

  72. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Arizona will most likely pass theirs with a large majority. California, you can’t be so sure about.

  73. Well we did need one controversial talk this conference…

  74. I thought we talked about not being critical of others earlier?

  75. AZ also has a marriage amendment on the ballot.

    Yes, a member of my stake presidency came and gave a sacrament talk telling us to vote “yes.”

  76. Probably will not pass.

  77. I also wouldn’t say that the man without the woman is “nothing.”

    I mean, he’s certainly something. Right?

  78. Note to whom it may concern:
    Principles can be taught to adults without the use of simplistic anlogies. No pickles. No shoplifting. They aren’t helpful.

  79. Um, how exactly are is he being critical here?

  80. A reiteration that spouses are not reunited at all after death if they are not married in the temple… Does this strike anyone as incongruous with many statements that people meet up with their (non-covenant-bound) friends?

  81. Seth R. Not in terms of Eternal life or exaltation. That’s fairly clearly taught.

  82. A. Spriggs says:

    slam on wishful obituaries as “hopeful wishes”…

  83. Harsh.

  84. Controversial talks were heard.

  85. Costanza,
    Is Elder Nelson only speaking to children? Did I miss him dismiss all the children, and young adults from the room?

  86. Meeting up with and being married are not the same thing.

  87. @80: I hope to be reunited with my wife in a way I do not want to meet up with my friends.

  88. Hey, he just applied the sop that is given to single women (“No blessing will be withheld …”) to singles regardless of gender.

  89. Does this strike anyone as incongruous with many statements that people meet up with their (non-covenant-bound) friends?


  90. #86- obviously. But being “reunited” doesn’t necessarily mean being reunited as married partners.

  91. Yep.

  92. 88 Ardis, he didn’t linger on it very long, though, did he?

  93. Not cool, Eddie.

  94. 88, YEAH Ardis. I’m finally as good as the single women as well.

  95. My husband and I will never harmonize in a musical sense, no matter how hard each of us tries. It’s hard when one partner is tone deaf.

  96. continuing #90 Many Protestants don’t believe that couples are married in heaven, however, they do expect to see their spouse in heaven. IMO, that’s what many “he is now reunited with his wife of 53 years…” are referencing… And I believe that they would see each other under our current doctrine, no?

  97. He doesn’t need to linger on it. Regardless of DavidG’s sudden promotion {g}, I like this broadening!

  98. Hey, since Ray won’t be here, shouldn’t one of us be assigned to quote short sound bites then remark, “Wow,” or “Profound,” or “That really hit me?”

  99. I for one am glad he’s not dancing around the eternal perspective. Straight talk.

    Hey, is that a McCain endorsement?

  100. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Or, “just sayin’ “

  101. What does {g} mean?

  102. in Ray's absence says:

    That was a great talk!

  103. Tempers were kindled. Feelings were hurt.

  104. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Why would Ray have wanted to go to the chapel to view it with his kids, when he can watch it in his living room? That just makes no sense to me.

  105. {g} – grin – smiley in words (usually in angle brackets, but that doesn’t work with html)

  106. Why is it necessary to give a detailed explanation of how to play jump-rope?

  107. Everyone hush up! DavidG is an intruder. He doesn’t know recognize the secret code words

  108. Not cool Eddie.

  109. So I guess as a gay person I’m a marital shoplifter because I have no celestial money?

  110. I always knew BCC=3 Nephi 3:7 {g}

  111. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    So he was saying, “as we turned the rope,” yet I didn’t see him in that video clip.

  112. Now it’s jump rope. I guess you’re right David. The kids must be back.

  113. 106: ‘Cause some of us are klutzes who need the explanation. Not all of us play piano (or jumprope, or basketball) by ear, even though jr. high school gym teachers seem to think it’s enough to throw the equipment out on the floor and tell us to start playing.

  114. seth: different cultures yeah

  115. OT question here…

    This method of speaking that Pres. Monson is fond of…it has a familiar pattern…

    (Noun) was/were (verb)

    Is this the passive tense? I know I should know this, but it’s been sticking in my head all day. Also, is that just his “style” of speaking, is that a style that was popular at a particular point of time?

  116. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    What are you talking about Tagore?

  117. Elder Nelson chose his words very carefully.

  118. Either that Buck, or you are the proud owner of some phoney miracle health supplements you bought off an infomercial at 3:00 AM.

    Not sure exactly which the talk was implying.

  119. brandt. Yes. Passive is very good German, but, supposedly, very bad English.

  120. Tagore has been following Eddie around from blog to blog making the same comment. I don’t get it either, but I don’t think it’s meant maliciously.

  121. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Costanza — there’s no kids in the Conference Center…at least not any under the age of 8. Just sayin’.

  122. Why does almost every speaker tilt his head to the right?

  123. Ardis. Thanks for explaining. I figure it’s always better to ask then to misunderstand.

  124. Eddie: Just joking. I thought your tithing comment yesterday was pretty harmless, but a couple of people told you it wasn’t cool. I figured I’d jump on that bandwagon.

  125. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Steven–I think it’s cause the teleprompter is crooked.

  126. What of Second Marriages says:

    Elder Nelson’s speech used terminology of ‘two individuals’ and ‘husband and wife’. I thought it ironic as he is a twice sealed widower as it generated some controversy with the anti-gay envangelicals.

  127. Steven, I find I tilt my head to the left in public speaking settings…..

  128. Grammar was corrected.

  129. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    lol Tagore. It’s all good.

    I was just wondering what I had done that had apparently caused someone to choose to be offended again.

  130. If I were designing teleprompters, I would install a device to change the tilt, and have some real fun during conference.

  131. Eddie, I think it happened after your first two contributions on the Saturday Morning thread got stomped on by people.

    I noticed anyway.

  132. Using people’s names is the first (?) principle in How to Win Friends and Influence People… didn’t know Carnegie was inspired :)

  133. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    Like I said, if they choose to be offended, so be it.

    That’s their choice.

  134. WoSM’s. Any reference for that? #126

    JimD. LOL

  135. Thanks DavidG…I’m just intrigued as to why Pres. Monson might do it so much…

    JimD…Confusions were Understood

  136. It has been several minutes but the bitter aftertaste of Elder Nelson’s talk remains.

  137. A Guy Named Eddie says:


    Did you choose to be offended by Elder Nelson’s talk?

  138. The jump rope analogy was shorter than Bednar’s pickle analogy, but the fact that they went to the trouble to make a jump rope video puts it on par with the pickles.

    Strangly enough, much scientific writing contains passive writing.
    A solution was prepared…The actor is unimportant. But I don’t think P. Monson is a scientist.

  140. I love Spanish names read with a German accent.

  141. Uchtdorf = non-tilter (German)

  142. Thomas S. Monson is sensitive about his large nose. He prefers not to be photo-ed or filmed in profile for this reason.

    A girl I was dating on BYU’s Daily Universe staff clued me in. They received a quick briefing from their superiors telling the staff to avoid trying to get a profile shot of Pres. Monson as per his own request.

    Very rarely do you see Pres. Monson in profile in Gen. Conf.

  143. I am just describing the taste and it’s not good.

  144. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    My wife thinks that the man in the choir, 2nd from the top row, right behind the conductor, looks like a relative of Pres. Uchtdorf.

  145. #115 No. Check out a discussion of passive voice myths here

  146. 140–at least he rolled the r’s

  147. There is issue that is rarely addressed in the conversation of what happens to people who die without a temple marriage, and that’s the fact that their temple work is going to be done eventually. I don’t see people saying “Oh, they didn’t get this taken care of in life — they don’t deserve it”. Instead, member relatives take care of things as soon as they can after people’s deaths. Certainly, that’s the case with nonmembers — though I’m not 100% certain about inactive members, but that’s my understanding. So the question then shifts from one of whether the ordinance took place on earth to whether that ordinance, which eventually will take place will have validity in the hereafter.

    I think the basic teachings of the church is that if somebody didn’t avail themselves of the ordinances on earth, then they probably won’t get the spiritual blessings in the future. But it’s also pretty clearly taught that the final call, once the ordinance is done on earth, is entirely up to the Lord, and we should be a bit careful about judging in any specific case.

    So, the issue of whether a given couple (member or nonmember) that were not married in the temple will have a celestial marriage in the next life seems to depend fundamentally on different factors than whether they were actually married in the temple in this life.

  148. Yes, Sanford, we get it — you want to pick a fight but nobody’s biting.

  149. Tagore,

    I recently relistened to Elder Bednar’s “Pickle” talk a decided I quite like it.

  150. I’d like to see a breakdown of GAs: tilters vs. non-tilters. (“And there were no manner of -ites….”)

  151. I would be interested to know if others had a sort of get level reaction to the talk but I don’t particularly want to argue about it.

  152. Sanford, agreed. I was just looking at my ward roster and it seems like very few of us meet his requirements. The rest of us lose out. Sad for us.

  153. @140: Carlos Godoy is Brazilian (though the surname is not Portuguese).

  154. bitter aftertaste? there was no new doctrine there. It was a straightforward presentation of some of our most important beliefs. Perhaps more straightforward than some are accustomed to–but then is not clarity necessary?

  155. Paul W: Maybe I should listen to it again. Did it have a pickling video clip? I forgot.

  156. Where is this guy from?

  157. Is right tilting code for “Vote for McCain”?

  158. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    In which conference was the pickle talk?

  159. Sanford, I thought the analogy was a bit tactless.

  160. #148. It seems like an observation, not an invitation to fight. Everyone has the right to have a bad taste after a talk. I just lost my appetite completely.

  161. Regarding the pickle talk, I listened at work while at a workstation right next to a highly-educated nonmember. She actually found it quite inspiring, and fun to listen to because of the “different” quality of the odd analogy.

  162. Guy is from Uruguay.

  163. Uraguay, Ariel.

  164. I don’t love the basic analogies, but conference should be for all members. Members of a wide variety of mental ability and experience watch, and I love that there are things that can be understood by all members – new member, long time members, sophisticated members, and those who are less so.

  165. Vote for Pedro!

  166. Not cool, Jacob J.

    /s/ Tagore

  167. Eddie: The pickle talk was April 2007.

  168. Well played Ardis.

  169. Ardis: lol!

  170. It was an audio only version.

  171. Nick Literski says:

    #68: Correction: Vegas shotgun weddings are the blue light special.

    What about Alaska shotgun weddings, for the political advantage of old men in Washington D.C.?

  172. #154 – I do prefer clarity. It seems that what is going on in California has not been addressed as directly outside of California so I was hoping the issue would be addressed. And of course an apostle has a charge to expound upon issues as he sees fit. But I think I have the right to assess how it feels. My feelings are not particularly profound but they are mine.

  173. It seems like the majority of 70 who have spoken have been foreign. Very cool.

  174. merrybits says:

    What ever happened to just preaching love and acceptance? All this marginalizing/categorizing people and their relationships gives me a stomachache.

  175. Ah, I was waiting for Godoy.

  176. Some actions we don’t love. Some sins we don’t accept.

  177. Merrybits. Don’t forget how loving and accepting Jesus was of the Pharisees and scribes. He fairly marginalized and categorized them. Does that also give you a stomachache?

  178. It seems like the majority of 70 who have spoken have been foreign. Very cool.

    Missed nelson and packer, nap. Oops.

  179. MCQ is channeling his inner gst.

  180. I do have to admit that I have a certain patiality to Elder Bednar. He was president of BYU-I during my time there (2000 – 2004). I once had an intersting interaction with him in and on our way out of a men’s room there. Also, I acuratly pedicted his calling to a group of LDS class mates at USU the night befor it happened. At the time the didn’t realy low who he was.

  181. #174. Exactly. I think this is what is so discouraging to people who don’t fit into the categories neatly. There doesn’t seem to be a place of acceptance for us.

  182. Ardis, I think it isn’t about loving actions or accepting sins. It’s about loving and accepting all people.

  183. The church can only accept those who are actively working on changing from the natural man to the righteousness that Christ provides. Part of this process is to accept the church’s teachings. I think it is unfair to expect the church to accept those who fight against the Church’s teachings.

  184. Brigham Young said new converts and differing dispositions/cultures among the Saints represent ingredients of the mortar which require the whole batch to be mixed and remixed:
    You who understand the process of preparing mortar know that it ought to lay a certain time before it is in the best condition for use. Now, suppose that our workmen should work over a portion and prepare it for use, and when it is rightly tempered, suppose someone should throw into the mixture a large quantity of unslacked lime, this would at once destroy its cementing quality, and you would have to work it all over and over again.
    This is precisely like what we have to do with this people; when a new batch is mixed with the lime and sand which were prepared ten days ago, before it is fit for use it has to be worked all over with the ingredients and proportions that were used to make the first. Some think this rather hard, but they have to be worked over because they are in the batch.

    see my post at my site yo

  185. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    FOr those that don’t recall the pickle analogy:

    Cucumbers and Pickles

    A pickle is a cucumber that has been transformed according to a specific recipe and series of steps. The first steps in the process of changing a cucumber into a pickle are preparing and cleaning. I remember many hours spent on the back porch of my home removing stems from and scrubbing dirt off of the cucumbers we had picked. My mom was very particular about the preparing and cleaning of the cucumbers. She had high standards of cleanliness and always inspected my work to make sure this important task was properly completed.

    The next steps in this process of change are immersing and saturating the cucumbers in salt brine for an extended period of time. To prepare the brine, my mom always used a recipe she learned from her mother—a recipe with special ingredients and precise procedures. Cucumbers can only become pickles if they are totally and completely immersed in the brine for the prescribed time period. The curing process gradually alters the composition of the cucumber and produces the transparent appearance and distinctive taste of a pickle. An occasional sprinkle of or dip in the brine cannot produce the necessary transformation. Rather, steady, sustained, and complete immersion is required for the desired change to occur.

    The final step in the process requires the sealing of the cured pickles in jars that have been sterilized and purified. The pickles are packed in canning jars, covered with boiling hot brine, and processed in a boiling-water-bath canner. All impurities must be removed from both the pickles and the bottles so the finished product can be protected and preserved. As this procedure is properly followed, the pickles can be stored and enjoyed for a long period of time.

    To summarize, a cucumber becomes a pickle as it is prepared and cleaned, immersed in and saturated with salt brine, and sealed in a sterilized container. This procedure requires time and cannot be hurried, and none of the essential steps can be ignored or avoided.

    From Elder Bednar, April 2007.

  186. love and acceptance alone do not get people to exaltation. those who blur this point are surely misunderstanding the gospel, or are decieved about its nature

  187. note that homespun parables are LDS tradition.

  188. Are there other 1st Generation member GA’s who have given conference talks recently?

  189. 82: What 83 and 186 said. Nobody can fairly expect apostles to stop teaching the gospel so that individuals will be comfortable in our sins.

  190. Fantastic talk: don’t expect 70’s to have “better” testimonies than you.

  191. true TMD.
    The only thing that get’s us to exaltation is Christ’s grace, which He chooses to grant to those who are obedient to Him.

  192. merrybits says:

    That’s exactly what I’m talking about Buck, thank you. To “get” people to exaltation, wouldn’t love and acceptance be a good place to start?

  193. TMD, neither the Church nor it’s members grant exaltation. I’m only asking for a place of safety to worship on Earth. I’m happy to give God the decisions about exaltation.

  194. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    So Hodges, does having a personal blog qualify you for a press credential to conference?

  195. Merrybits: usually Faith, Repentance, Baptism and receiving the HG is where the LDS start. Then we learn to love the sinner while hating the sin. But we won’t give up our beliefs to be accepted by others as “loving” or “accepting”

  196. The church is not only a place to worship; it’s a place to correct faults and replace weaknesses with strength. There is love here, if not celebration of sin.

  197. If only, eddie. ;)

  198. Buck. TMD has it much more correct. TMD never said the church grants exaltation, but it is the only authorized way to receive the required ordinances, and the only “true and living church”. If all you want is a place to worship, you can go to any Episcopilian church. If you want to worhsip the way Jesus has commanded all men to worship, you can come and follow the same rules that everyone else does.

  199. Ardis, being gay is not a sin, as General Authorities agree. If it is not a choice we make, don’t we deserve acceptance? It’s about the only thing we can ask for.

  200. Sorry, Ardis. I forgot to mention “Jesus has commanded all people to worship.”

  201. Women’s voices–I love them!

  202. This is late, but re: shoplifting—he was obviously just alluding to the shoplifting line from Jerry Maguire!

  203. I don’t fault you for being gay. If I fault you at all, it’s for your repeated expectation that the apostles stop teaching correct doctrine on marriage in order for you to feel comfortable.

  204. Acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. Having ssa is not a sin. Ardis never said it was.

  205. Well, Buck, if no one has told you they love you yet today, I want to do it. I love you. Visit my blog any time. You will always be safe there.

  206. I think it’s notable that Elder Cook quoted a Charles Dickens novel. Does that give use free license to quote non-Mormon sources if we’re teaching Sunday School or Elders’s Quorum?

  207. #175–lol, MCQ.

  208. Wow, so nice to hear stories of pioneer women in conference.

  209. merrybits says:

    DavidG, I don’t recall mentioning anything about giving up beliefs to be accepted by others.

  210. Salvation is offered freely to those who accept it; but exaltation requires the embrace of covenants, which we have through revelation to prophets. Exaltation is what He most wants for us, and the Restoration is about seeing that we have the chance to obtain it. The apostles must necessarily give witness about the nature of those covenants.

    And I’ve never seen anyone attacked in a sacrament meeting.

  211. NoCoolName_Tom says:

    Fly-whipper stew! MMmmm, now that’s good eatin’!

  212. distinction between “addiction” and “harmful propensities”; nice work Elder Cook!

  213. DavidG, I DO want to worship the way Jesus has commanded. That’s why I attend my ward regularly and do all I can. It’s a tough topic, I know, and this isn’t the place. Sin implies choice, so what about situations where there is no choice? I’ve love offline answers.

    Back to conference.

  214. “I’ve never seen anyone attacked in a sacrament meeting.”

    You’ve obviously never been to Riverview ward in eastern WA….. :) There are always a few people on (or past) the border of sanity that get up in testimony meeting, and they occasionally choose to severely chastise individuals in the congregation or on the stand.

  215. 189: Ardis, I agree that you can’t expect apostles to stop teaching the gospel, but even apostles pick their battles and time of the fight. I have a hunch that the Church’s battle over same sex marriage will do it damage in the long run and is a strategic misstep. I have been surprised at the level of resistance to the Bretheren and perhaps they should have spent their energy on other ills as they see them (not that they would have much interest in my opinion).

  216. oneheartandmind says:

    I kind of enjoy watching Elder Uchdorf’s face in the background :)

  217. Come boy eat your fly whipper and like it. When I was your age we all we had was an ear most winters and we were grateful to get it.

  218. If I have to choose between your hunch, Sanford, and any of the apostles’ decisions on what the church needs to hear in General Conference, I’m afraid there’s not much of a contest.

  219. Merrybits. From my viewpoint, when Apostles preach the proclaimation on the family, and I hear someone say. “That’s unfair and unaccepting and unloving.” I assume that these people are expecting me to give up my beliefs (in the proclamation on the family) so that I can be viewed as “loving”. If I am wrong, please let me know. If I was wrong, I will gladly retract, but it has simply been my experience that those who accuse the church of being “unaccepting” just want the church to change it’s beliefs to “accept them as they are”.

  220. I like seeing Pres. Uchdorf in the background too.

  221. We should all note here that Elder Nelson did not give the fire-and-brimstone Prop 8 talk everyone expected. I found some of the rhetoric tactless and a bit off-putting, but not for reasons having to do with SSM.

  222. Elder Cook’s brother is the stake high councilman assigned to our ward. If Elder Cook ever needs a stunt double …

  223. I think we ought to cannonize Th Proclamation on the Family. Anyone think it will ever happen?

  224. @18 — Fair enough. But I do like the focus group nature of these real time comments to see what people think and feel about what they hear.

  225. NoCoolName_Tom says:

    Up next is President Monson with “Closing Remarks”. You know, just to spoil it for everyone! ;-)

  226. DavidG, you don’t have to give up your beliefs to accept people. You don’t have to accept their beliefs or behavior or go bowling with them.

  227. Paul, that is in the job of the FP and Qo12. I will sustain it, but it’s their call.

  228. Now that’s an interesting mental picture, Ardis.

  229. PaulW, I used to think so, but now I think it’ll have to wait until all the excitement over SSM calms down a little.

  230. “participated in any way…”

    A tacit endorsement of blogging open threads.

  231. there he goes, tilting his head to the right!

  232. Brigham viewed some of his harsh preaching as separating the wheat from the chaff, to use another figure.

    I do not wish you to think that I chastise good men and good women; chastisements do not belong to them, but we have some unruly people here, those who know the law of God, but will not abide it. They have to be talked to; and we have to keep talking to them, and talking to them, until by and by they will forsake their evils, and turn round and become good people, or take up their line of march and leave us (JD 4:22-23).

    Those who desire only smooth things are likely to be disappointed or offended. To those who feel that Conference is a repeat of general moral platitudes and wish for new developments and exciting new doctrine from the pulpit at each General Conference, consider the words of Eugene England:

    Conference is a time for feeling more than for ideas…Those who go looking for dramatic new doctrine or new policy are apt to continue to be disappointed (I too have gone yearning, hoping to hear that announcement about the priesthood being extended to all). [This essay was written in 1973, five years before the priesthood was extended to all men regardless of race.] Those things will come in statements from the First Presidency day by day as the revelations come.

    Conference will continue to be a kind of rite, a shoring up of faith and confidence, of feelings of unity and achievement… Going to conference made it possible for me to feel more strongly than ever that the great soul-satisfying truths of the gospel and my experiences of love and growth in the Church are much more important than the things that give me trouble.

    Bear in mind the speakers are addressing the whole lump, with the new rougher bits as well as the older.

  233. Buck,
    I have a brother who constantly tries to evangelize me to believe that his “Lifestyle” is correct. I cannot do that. It makes it hard to talk to him when every time we talk he wants to talk about a Book written by Pearson that goes against church teachings. If there was anyone in current student ward who struggles (like that), I would fellowship them. But if they were trying to make me change my opinion (that the brethren are right) it would make it very difficult to felloship them.

  234. I love President Monson.

  235. What of Second Marriages says:

    134 :

    May have typed a bit fast previously. My impressions come from comments read in the media about Evangelicals response to Mitt Romney’s presidential run. Discomfort with Mormons, baggage with polygamy … and not the ties of conservative evangelicals (among others) with the anti-gay movement in CA.

  236. What of Second Marriages says:

    235 : that ‘now’ not ‘not’ in the last sentence

  237. Buck, if you are saying a remark welcoming those dealing with same sex attraction would have been welcome, I will not disagree. I doubt many here would.

  238. bookwormmama says:

    I missed the talk by BKP… can someone sum it up for me in a few words? Was he the one that covered the SSm issue?

  239. BTW, Pres. Monson tilts to the right. ;)

  240. bookwormmama says:

    Ack, sorry I meant I missed the talk by Elder Nelson….

  241. David (233), Actually (if he’s talking about Carol Lynn Pearson’s “No More Goodbyes) that book is great. Nothing against church teachings there. I highly recommend it.

  242. WoSM, 235. Maybe, but I think that’s a bit of an overstretch moving it specifically to Elder Nelson. Besides, we all know with what import we can think of blogger’s comments. {g}

  243. Dave,
    Nobody’s suggesting that the Church doesn’t teach that certain behaviors are sinful or have the right to teach that, but I wouldn’t overplay your hand. The only person insisting that fellowshipping sinners requires setting aside the teachings of prophets is you.

  244. His right is our left.

  245. Wow. Between Nelson’s article in the Ensign this month and his Conference talk, the socially progressive wing of the church may have a new bogeyman. Move over, Elder Packer!

  246. I feel like a I need to watch more plays in order to understand President Monson’s talks better. Off to the Theater…

  247. Monson’s talks just get better and better :)

  248. bookwormmama, BKP’s talk was about patriotism.

  249. A Guy Named Eddie says:

    No book. Russell M Nelson did it.

  250. bookwormmama, Just saw your later comment. :) Elder Nelson’s was about celestial marriage, and how it’s better than civil marriage or gay marriage.

  251. The SSM stuff is a special broadcast on Wed to Californians for the propl

  252. And, btw, Chelsea’s right about Pearson’s book. Difficult and provocative read, but not anti-church teachings.

  253. Is it just me, or was this song just sung at a recent conference?

  254. Fair Review doesn’t put NMG in a very good light. As a scientist, I have little patience for those who misrepesent science.
    “Dissension from Church Doctrine, Attacks on Church Leaders”
    “In a more recent interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman, there was a reiteration of Church doctrine: “Homosexual activity is and will always remain before the Lord and abominable sin.”23

    In response to Church leaders and Church doctrine, Pearson declares: “I am reluctant to accept the precision of some as to what God considers an abomination (p. 9).”

  255. Peter LLC says:


    usually Faith, Repentance, Baptism and receiving the HG is where the LDS start.

    and white shirts is right about where they leave off…

  256. This song is beautiful… but yes, it was sung earlier. Hey and it’s good to see some color in the choir. I wonder if they’ll ever let Gladys Knight guess conduct.

  257. Agreed. Monson’s talks this conference have been wonderful. I especially liked this morning’s.

  258. Stating that one holds an opinion that might or might not oppose a position held by Church leaders is not at all the same as teaching others to disavow the teachings of Church leaders. Or are you really suggesting that the statement you quoted here renders her book anti-Church and unfit to read?

  259. Peter LLC.
    Not if they believe they are doing what the church leadership has asked them to do. Then they are still within the covenant.

    Those who like to point fingers and mock them, however, are certainly leaving off.

  260. It’s always odd to me when people condemn books they haven’t read. Don’t read them. Fine. Just don’t provide commentary on a book you won’t read.

  261. A Guy Named Eddie says:


    How can you sit there and say “What if it isn’t a choice??”

    It seems apparent that you made the choice to go to canada so that you could get marrie.

  262. Because I have chosen not to read it doesn’t mean it’s unfit to read. But those who try and change the church and church membership to accept them and their lifestyles need to understand that this will not help them be fellowshipped.

  263. ok, this song was sung way too slow.. but I see it’s trying to fill in the time… they should have just had someone say a really, really, really long prayer…lol

  264. Left Field says:

    David G, I just pulled my copy off the shelf, and the paragraph from which you lifted your quotation makes no reference to church leaders or church doctrine. Perhaps you should quote the rest of the paragraph to provide some context.

  265. Put differently, DavidG.
    If someone here were suggesting that a Mormon history book were anti-Mormon because it contradicted statements made by Church leaders — including ones from recent press releases — you’d be pretty unimpressed.

  266. Those of us old enough to remember people being disfellowshipped for marrying blacks are not quite as rigid about change in the Church. Some things are certainly absolutes, but some interpretations are not.

  267. merrybits says:

    #237 SethR, thank you for saying what I, apparently, could not. We are all God’s children struggling with our own different issues. Some of these can be quite pronounced and painful. I believe thoughtful, heartfelt remarks from the leadership would would show Christlike love.

  268. David, It’s true that some of CLP’s views are outside of the mainstream. Yet she remains a faithful member of the church, and the book is written from a position of faith. I found it very helpful after my brother came out. The message of the book is to treat family members with love, even if their actions put them outside of the church’s teachings. Nothing revolutionary there, IMO, but it is a much needed message.

  269. Interesting line in the benediction, that we pray for stability in the world’s governments so that the Church can progress… I’m not sure I’ve heard it phrased quite that way before (not that I disagree).

  270. The message of the book is to treat family members with love, even if their actions put them outside of the church’s teachings.

    Unless you interpret Church teachings as requiring you to withdraw fellowship from sinning family members.

  271. people being disfellowshipped for marrying blacks

    Did that really happen?

  272. #261. Eddie, I did indeed make that choice. I’m saying that being gay is not a choice. Getting married in Canada was the closest I could get to a legitimate relationship. At least it’s legal. The Church offers nothing better for me.

  273. And the Winner is….

    Saturday Morning Open Thread: 233 comments
    Saturday Afternoon Open Thread: 152 comments
    Sunday Morning Open Thread: 322 comments
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread: 269 comments (and counting)

  274. Peter LLC says:


    Not if they believe they are doing what the church leadership has asked them to do. Then they are still within the covenant.

    [Note: I actually have no idea what you are talking about, but I’m not about to let that stop me from responding.]

    One cannot be saved in ignorance, no matter how sincerely one believes.

  275. I think we ought to cannonize The Proclamation on the Family. Anyone think it will ever happen?


  276. Latecomer says:

    # 241 – Thanks for the recommendation. I have placed a hold of Pearson’s book “No More Goodbye’s” at my local library.

  277. I believe thoughtful, heartfelt remarks from the leadership would would show Christlike love.

    I hope that in reviewing the talks you might find and feel this, because I think this conference was full of this kind of love and recognition of how hard life can be for all of us, in many different ways.

  278. Thanks folks! See you in 6 months –

  279. #271. Yes, Condor, though I doubt it was widespread in our lifetimes. As we have all seen, such decisions are local. My experience was in So California in 1961. I know it happened even later in some parts of the South, which should be expected. In the early ’70s in SoCal, anyone with sideburns or a moustache had to shave to get a temple recommend. It wasn’t doctrine, but it denied blessings in a most arbitrary manner.

  280. Unless you interpret Church teachings as requiring you to withdraw fellowship from sinning family members.

    Good point. I know that happens far too often, which is why her book is so needed IMO.

  281. buck, Do you have any documentation about people being disellowhsiped for inter-racial marriage?

    Brad, to be fair, I did not say that Pearson’s was an antiMormon book. I did say it was wrong, and that it advocated wrong things. But my point was it is hard to fellowhsip people who are fighting against the church, or encouraging you to read things critical of the church. I make no value statements about others who choose to read anything here.

    In any case, thanks for the civil, exchange.
    I really respect Ardis and her ‘ardent’ support of the Brethren, yet her civil tone gave me a good example of something to live up to. Good night.

  282. DavidG. It was in my ward in 1961.

  283. For Cynthia, and those who want to know what the “shoplifting” line was all about, see here.

  284. Peter LLC says:

    Civil tone. Indeed.

  285. My grandmother (Payson, UT) talked about women losing their membership for bobbing their hair in the early ’20s. It’s not doctrine, just local practice.

  286. 274.
    It is a fact that some apostles have requested and instructed priesthood to wear white shirts.
    It is a fact that obedience to priesthood leaders in such circumstances is good (e.i., it’s not illegal, immoral, etc.)
    It is judgemental to say that people aren’t following Christ when they are trying to be obedient. Highly hypocritical, when considering.


  287. Buck, non-anecdotal, documented, statistical work?

  288. David, I guess my perspective is that I don’t see people who are gay and living a gay lifestyle as “fighting” against the church. And honestly, NMG is not critical of the church. I felt she went out of her way to be as UNcritical as possible. I’d be interested to talk about it after you’ve read it. :)

  289. merrybits says:

    oooooh, Buck! Why that’s just scandalous! *clutches pearls* Have you read Bernice Bobs her Hair, by Fitzgerald? Awesome read about this very issue!

  290. David, only first person accounts. I was there. My grandmother was there. The Church doesn’t release court transcripts as far as I know.

  291. My grandmother (Payson, UT) talked about women losing their membership for bobbing their hair in the early ’20s. It’s not doctrine, just local practice.

    My mom is a professional family historian and she has found records of early church members in Britain who were excommunicated for having “untidy houses.” It’s a good thing I wasn’t around back then! :)

  292. I did say it was wrong, and that it advocated wrong things. But my point was it is hard to fellowhsip people who are fighting against the church, or encouraging you to read things critical of the church.

    Here you grant axiomatic status to the claim that Pearson’s statement (which did not mention Church leaders or Church teachings) about her personal reluctance to accept incritically certain ideas is in fact “advocating wrong things” and “critical of the Church.” Which, of course, it isn’t.

  293. merrybits says:

    Chelsea, please tell me it wasn’t just the women who where excommunicated…please…please…?

  294. bookwormmama says:

    Thank you Chelsea!! I will have to go back and watch…
    Also, as for Pearson’s book… I read it back when I was a teenager… my parents {very devout, conservative LDS members} had the book and I loved her poetry. I loved the book and my eyes were opened to the very real pain and anguish and the great need for love for those whose crosses to bear may not be something that they have any control over just as so many of us have in other ways. I found the book to be incredibly moving and full of gospel principles… Fair LDS may not paint Pearson’s book in a good light, but that’s too bad. They are missing out on a good lesson. We are asked not to judge another… and Carol Lynn Pearson does that tenfold, she who had the right to judge more than anyone. Her story is a beautiful one about Christlike love and forgiveness. I recommend ANYONE to read that book. Gays are not just people that are having sex… they are people like you and me, who have trials and tribulations as we all do. They are human. They have struggles. They love, they have joy, pain, and sorrow. They are people, who may not have any choice over their own feelings. {Feelings are not bad or good, they just are.} For them to live in our culture, our church, they do so at great risk to themselves and to their families… as there is much misunderstanding and judgement. I don’t know how much this Prop 8 thing will help the church. I am still not understanding how this Prop will help protect our religious rights. I do however see it backfiring and causing many gay members of the church to feel even more ostracized, less welcome, and more hopeless. We need to give love and understanding and a lot less judgment… much like Carol Lynn Pearson. Whew. Didn’t mean to write so much and didn’t know how fired up I was about this. I think we need to be more like the Savior who doesn’t throw the stone at the woman and less like the accusers who are casting the stones. Let God decide what is an abomination as Pearson suggests. Our job is to love. Yes, homosexual behavior is sinful according to the Gospel teachings. But being homosexual should not threaten an entire church in such a manner… and being homosexual does not mean that the person can not be loved. Do you stop loving your child because they do something sinful? Of course not. Same concept. Bottom line: EVERYONE sins. Not everyone’s sin is as obvious as others. And being openly gay or admitting homosexuality does not mean that they are committing homosexual sin. That is a conclusion often others assume without evidence. I just learned a dear dear friend of mine is homosexual. She is married and in a committed heterosexual relationship with a dear man whom she loves with her whole heart and they have three children. She is committed to them and their marriage. She made choices that were difficult at times, and often feels as if she is betraying and denying how she was created by being married to a man. She felt this way since she was a little girl. I do not judge her. I know that if peope can be created being more than one gender at a time, that some people can be created being homosexual… I don’t judge their path and I know that God will judge their heart as He knows their hearts. HE created them! Thankgoodness, that judgment is left to Him since He understands us all better than anyone else! Why we need to divide one another this way… I just don’t understand. I have a hard time understanding how the Lord could sanction a political move like the one in California to “protect marriage” as I don’t see how heterosexual marriage is in jeopardy. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not keep heterosexual couples from marrying. I look at this issue as I would interracial marriages… same kind of thing to me. This is all my opinion of course, subject to change.

  295. merrybits, The ones my mom told me about were both women whose husbands weren’t members. They used to ex people willy-nilly back then.

  296. Sorry my response was to Chelsea from way back when I asked a question about a talk I missed…

  297. bookwormmama, I think you are thinking of Goodbye, I Love You.

  298. Chelsea,
    If I lived back then, I would have been exed for sure… I freely admit that I am not the greatest housekeeper! I was not born to cook and clean… I was born to teach and sing!!

  299. Thank you, bookwormmama. I believe your view is actually more common in the Church than we give credit. Just not common enough.

  300. Jami, you’re right… sheesh I feel foolish…
    sorry about that

  301. I haven’t read No More Goodbyes… is that a sequel to Goodbye I love You? I need to get it and read it… Sorry for the confusion… but what I wrote about it still stands though and my opinion about the Prop 8 issue and all, but sorry if I confused anyone… it’s been a crazy day!

  302. I liked “Goodbye I Love You” too, bookwormmama. “No More Goodbyes” is her latest, in a way it’s a follow up to “GILY.” She tells the stories of many gay and lesbian church members and encourages members of the church to do a better job of being loving and understanding towards them, especially their family members. It’s great.

    Yeah, if it was still possible to be exed for a messy house my husband would have called the bishop on me long ago. :)

  303. No MOre Goodbyes isn’t the sequel. It is a collection of stories of people who have struggled with being gay and how their families and other dealt with the issue. It’s focus is on preventing suicides of gay members. It happens all to frequently. CLP calls for us to circle the wagons and help protect our gay family members, including those of our church family.

  304. Left Field says:

    To provide context for the quotation in comment #254, Pearson writes:

    I believe we can learn a great deal from scriptures of the past, but I believe we need to add to them the light of the present, especially the light that comes to each of us from our own godly hearts. I’m reluctant to accept the precision of some as to what God considers an abomination. I note, in the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, it was believed that God considered it an abomination to eat the meat of swine, or rabbit, or shellfish. For lunch today I had a bowl of delicious ham and lentil soup. And in the seventeenth chapter of the same book, I note it was believed that God considered it an abomination to offer an animal sacrifice that contained a blemish. I am comfortable with the thought that we, like the ancients, continue to find truth that is consistent with the one secure touchstone, “God is love.”

    In my opinion, to say that quoted sentence is “in response to Church leaders and Church doctrine” is to provide a false context.

  305. No problem Buck. I think when a human face is put on the issue… it’s more than an issue… it becomes real people, real lives, real pain and heartache and struggles. It hits more to home. When it’s just an issue…it’s easy for people to detach themselves from it and fight against “it” or act like it’s some evil thing come to destroy everyone. If the Church even openly admits that homosexuality is not a choice, then how does opposing rights to those who are gay somehow protect our religious rights? Is not everyone entitled to the pursuit of happiness? Or does the Church get to determine who gets to pursue that? I still have yet to see a good argument for how gay marriage will hurt our heterosexual marriages. I also see a strange correlation between the Church trying to make it illegal for gay marriage and what happened with the Church back in the 1800’s when the U.S. did not like polygamous marriages and they made it illegal for LDS families to marry how they wanted to…called them horrible lewd names, said polygamy was evil, etc. I don’t understand how it’s ok for the Church to do the same thing to another group of people that was essentially done to them many years ago. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I am open to correction and facts. And if someone has a good argument for why gay marriage would hurt my religious rights, I would really like to hear it. I am not totally decided on this issue, but I am having a hard time feeling good about the Church telling me to vote a particular way about a certain issue and financially backing this issue by saying that it will destroy our religious rights if it doesn’t pass. When I pray about this issue, I feel that Heavenly Father would be displeased at such division among His children. I don’t feel that God is directing this. Of course I am not the prophet… I am not God… I am not in charge, but that is the feeling that I get and I have prayed about this over and over for clarity. Any thoughts?

  306. I really enjoyed hearing Come Thou Font of Every Blessing this year.

  307. Loved conference. Saturday was my favorite.

    Still wonder why the General RS Meeting and General YW meeting aren’t “part” of conference and why the Priesthood session isn’t broadcast. Anyway, here’s my mostly irrelevant, bundled response.

    Certainly, that’s the case with nonmembers — though I’m not 100% certain about inactive members, but that’s my understanding. So the question then shifts from one of whether the ordinance took place on earth to whether that ordinance, which eventually will take place will have validity in the hereafter.

    My grandmother and grandfather were both members, but my grandfather was never active as an adult. He married civilly twice (widowed the first time). Right after he died my grandmother had him sealed to both of them, even though he would never agree to it when he was alive.

    As a kid I thought that was odd, but who knows?

    What ever happened to just preaching love and acceptance?

    Was that ever the plan?

    Sin implies choice, so what about situations where there is no choice?

    What behaviors are required?

    they should have just had someone say a really, really, really long prayer

    Didn’t they?

    I was totally loving the benediction of Sunday’s first session. A prayer that didn’t aspire to be a sermon. Hurray!

    It is a fact that some apostles have requested and instructed priesthood to wear white shirts.

    A few years back I researched this and could only found “white shirt counsel” for those participating in ordinances (such as the sacrament) and missionaries. That’s the same thing I heard this weekend. Did I miss something?

    I am interested because I think white shirts are utterly boring and always buy my husband anything-but-white dress shirts.

  308. “The church can only accept those who are actively working on changing from the natural man to the righteousness that Christ provides. Part of this process is to accept the church’s teachings. I think it is unfair to expect the church to accept those who fight against the Church’s teachings.”

    If the thrust of this comment is that the church should not “accept” such individuals in the sense of asking them to teach a lesson or give a talk on the issue they are “fighting against”, I agree.

    If by “accept” is meant the extension of fellowship, friendship, love, or welcome, I strongly disagree.

    It may be offensive when a person (including a member or friend of the Church) expresses a view that strikes us as “fighting against” Church teachings, but I think it was either Elder Hale or President Eyring who suggested that we always respond to critical comments about the Church with love.

    The Savior said in the Book of Mormon that, even if a person’s attitude or actions have resulted in his being “no longer numbered” as a member of the Church, “[n]evertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.”

    “Continu[ing] to minister”, in my mind, means continue to love, to befriend, to fellowship, to welcome, and even to listen without arguing.

  309. Regarding Az Proposition 102 (similar to CA Proposition 8).

    The First Presidency has not formally issued an endorsement in Arizona. However, the campaign in favor of the traditional marriage amendment has raised $7 million, and the campaign against the amendment has raised $350,000.

    The list of donors to the pro-traditional marriage campaign includes several prominent LDS individuals (including a local area authority 70) who have each contributed $100,000. With only one exception, every person on the list who I know personally is LDS. You can pull up the reports at

    According to the Church spokesman, the Church itself has not contributed funds to the campaign.

    In my stake, and in many others (as I understand it), members have been strongly encouraged to support the amendment, to contribute financially, and to provide other sorts of support (like phone banks). Some Church buildings have pro-Proposition 102 posters prominently displayed throughout the building and on the entranceways.

    I understand, through the grapevine, that the effort is being encouraged, if not directed, by the Brethren in Salt Lake City. I am not sure why it is being performed in a less official way than the efforts in California.

  310. Anytime you need another punching bag, let me know. I’ll stay away for a day or two. :)

  311. For the same kind of details about funding for California’s Prop 8, see . Currently 42% of the funding for is identified as coming from LDS sources. And that equals a bit over 8 million dollars. And to clarify that’s donations over $1000. The data for smaller donations won’t be released by the CA Secretary of State for awhile yet.

  312. Nick Literski says:

    #176: Some actions we don’t love. Some sins we don’t accept.

    Yes, such as:
    (1) the sin of passing judgment on others, and
    (2) the sin of attempting to eliminate the freedom of other churches to “worship how, who, or what they may,” simply because your church doesn’t choose to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

  313. Nick Literski says:

    #186: love and acceptance alone do not get people to exaltation.

    Attempting to enforce LDS behavioral rules on non-LDS citizens of a pluralistic society doesn’t “get people to exaltation” either, especially when you basically pick just one group of “sinners” to persecute in this way.

  314. Nick: {yawn}

  315. Steve Evans says:

    Lolz Nick, thanks for stopping by.

  316. Nick Literski says:

    #203: If I fault you at all, it’s for your repeated expectation that the apostles stop teaching correct doctrine on marriage in order for you to feel comfortable.

    I don’t think Buck, or anyone else, is trying to force LDS apostles to stop teaching LDS views of proper marriage, Ardis. Rather, many of us would simply like LDS apostles to refrain from trying to “love” homosexuals by promoting legislation that, as Oaks recently expressed, is intended to make their lives more difficult, so they will ultimately “repent.”

  317. White shirts and blue light specials aside, I’m grateful for what I felt – a desire to be more like the Savior. Awesome conference.

  318. Nick Literski says:

    I read Carol Lynn Pearson’s No More Goodbyes about a month ago. Some of you might be surprised that I found it gave me good feelings about members of the LDS church. Reading the stories in that book reminded me that there are many faithful LDS who, no matter what their viewpoints, are committed to being loving toward others in a way that exemplifies all the best things in their church. For that reason alone, I recently recommended it to a gay former-LDS friend of mine.

  319. Nick: {YAAAAAWN}

  320. Nick Literski says:

    Poor Ardis. Being respectful to those with whom you disagree really can be exhausting, can’t it? Curl up with some hot chocolate and a good book, and get some much-needed rest!

  321. Nick: Zzzzzzzzzzz…

  322. Nick Literski says:

    Ahhhh…that hot chocolate does it every time!

  323. #305, bookwormmama.
    Sorry, dragged offline for a couple of hours. I, too, would just like to know how my marriage endangers those of others. No one has been able to explain that to me. My being married certainly hasn’t made anyone think, “Gee, since I can be married I’ll now be gay.” After 4 years of marriage, I have only seen our example send a couple of straight shacking-up couples to the alter. Truly I don’t get it.

    How does taking marriage equality away from us benefit anyone? Financially it benefits heterosexual couples, of course.

    I get that the Church teaches that only families sealed in the temple can be celestial and I’m not interested in a change in that doctrine. I’m happy to let God decide whether he will tear apart straight Baptist couples who didn’t marry in the temple and separate them from their families, and do the same for gay married couples who have adopted and raised children. But the Church isn’t trying to take marriage away from straight Baptist couples because they won’t/can’t get sealed in the temple. What’s their agenda here?

    It’s like everyone thinks marriage is all about sex, even if it isn’t that way in their own marriages.

  324. Nick, did you listen to conference?

    For apostles, I really enjoyed the talks by Elders Eyring, Hales, Uchdorf, Monson, Holland, Wirthlin, and Scott, off the top of my head. Which did you enjoy, if you listened?

    I liked all the Women’s talks also.

  325. “It’s like everyone thinks marriage is all about sex, even if it isn’t that way in their own marriages.”

    Sorry, Buck, but I didn’t get any hint of that whatsoever.

  326. Ray, certainly not in conference but the only difference between gay couples and straight couples is who they have sex with. Why else does it matter from a civil perspective? It has nothing to do with children, as gay people can and do have children. Unmarried straight couples even have higher legal standing than married gay people. Straight people who don’t or can’t have sex can get married. Gay people who don’t or can’t have sex cannot. If it isn’t about sex, what is it?

  327. I especially liked all President Monson’s talks. Also Eyring, Hales (most of it), Uchdorf, and Oaks. As always, certain speakers seem to resonate at certain times in my life. I’m grateful for the availability of Conference, which many of us probably take for granted.

  328. #316: I doubt that the Church’s efforts regarding SSM legislation is motivated by a desire to make lives more difficult.

    I think it probably has more to do with a concern regarding future implications for religious organizations. You don’t have to have the gift of prophecy to see where things are headed.

    For an idea of what I mean, see this report from NPR (a source that can hardly be accused of conservative alarmism):

    You might be able to see why these trends concern Church leaders. Are LDS temples next? (It would not be unprecedented for the US govt to threaten to seize control of them.)

    Some on this thread have implied that social conservatives are trying to force their worldviews on others. I think that accusation can probably cut both ways.

  329. Buck, if you say, “It’s like [many people] think [gay] marriage is all about sex, even if it isn’t that way in their own marriages,” I will grant you that. However, if that is what you meant, I still didn’t hear it in GC – and that is the focus of this thread.

  330. MikeInWeHo says:

    Sometimes it seems that all roads in the Bloggernacle lead to a debate about gays. Odd, that. Personally, I’d rather talk about Mormon stuff.

  331. Mike, me too.

  332. Peter LLC says:

    Nick: {yawn}

    Nick: {YAAAAAWN}

    Nick: Zzzzzzzzzzz…

    Not cool, Ardis. Just sayin.

  333. Aaron Brown says:

    333 is half of 666. Semi-Spooky.


  334. Thomas Parkin says:


    You’re up past your bed time.
    Remember, nothing good happens after midnight.


  335. Peter: {yawn}

  336. Peter LLC says:

    Ardis “Civil Tone” Parshall: I know; old news.

  337. MikeInWeHo says:

    Sometimes when I visit the Bloggernacle it seems like this.

  338. Hey, Peter, have I stepped on your toes somehow? I responded to Nick because he quoted me out of context to make his usual sour point for the umpteenth time. Whatever I’ve said to or about you to draw your personal ire escapes me, though. If I owe you an apology or explanation or tuna casserole, be a little less passive aggressive and explain, please.

  339. Steve Evans says:

    Serenity now, please.

  340. to bookwormmama, at least to me, the reason that the church believes that prop-9 needs to be fought for is that gay marriage will be used as a social, political, and legal hammer against both the position and the institutions that argue that a homosexual lifestyle is non-optimal. If you look into things like queer theory and the intellectual foundations of the movement (including their legal theories), the drive for marriage is and always has been about normalizing homosexuality and muting those who disagree. Official state recognition makes the upholding of those relationships a state interest–by most institutions (thanks to the first amendment they can’t touch churches themselves in the US, though they can affect church affiliated institutions (as was the case with Catholic Charities in MA). Again and again, the debate has been framed in terms of rhetoric rather than reality–be it the ‘suicide crisis’ that people like Judith Butler talk about (which was picked up by affirmation) [the numbers are relatively small and poorly investigated, in terms of underlying mental conditions, etc.] or the nature of current notions of homosexuality itself (which is almost certainly some combination of genetic predisposition, social conditioning, and choice; while it may confront an individual in a particular context as an immutable fact, that interpretation is in fact a social fact, produced in good part by mutable societal interpretations of underlying feelings, supported in particular by a naturalizing discourse), or the implications on a relationship of not believing the queer theory discourses on homosexuality.

    For me, my ideal point would be some kind of compromise that gives relationships some legal protections but which does not serve particularly to act as a societally legitimizing force for them. Or, a larger political consensus that may equally protect both sides–for instance, calling them marriage, but which equally protects the rights (including discourse rights in public institutions) of those who do not accept them as the most desirable way of living. Because I don’t see that happening–in good part because gay rights advocates will never accept it (you can see this in the current efforts against Bishop Duncan et al in the Episcopal church), the sort of movement we see in CA is what we are left with.

  341. Thomas Parkin says:

    Seems like I’m always behind the curve on the bloggernacle.

    I wanted to add a couple feelings I had. Just sentiment.

    I don’t think I’ve experienced a conference that gave me so much hope for the situation and direction of the church. In so many ways these messages are spiritually grown up from those I remember when I was young. I loved all I heard, but was particularly struck by Elders Christopherson and Corbridge (I’ve never heard anything quite like this latter before).

    When Elder Hales was speaking about being a peacemaker, I thought about Ray.

    I missed Sunday afternoon. But am gratified that SSM didn’t run roughshod over the conference, as some of us assumed it would.

    I do believe I love President Monson more than I’ve ever loved any other prophet. This is a pleasant surprise for me.

    */end my 2 cents*


  342. Much nicer than if Jesus himself had to say something about it. Don’t think Jesus cleansed the temple in a nice, pleasant manner. When God’s wrath is kindled, he does not always ask his children how best to approach them.

%d bloggers like this: