Apr 2, 2012

Episode 194: April 2012 General Conference Saturday Sessions

Heather hosts a review of the Saturday sessions of the 182nd semi-annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

By Rich Rasmussen Uncategorized 18 Comments

rufus72

I loved Elder Packer’s talk, so I guess this could be considered being critical. But you have to hear a couple things again.
1. Children do not have to have any ordinances done for them at all. The missionaries were using their position to bring comfort to the parents, which is what priesthood leaders should do with it. Also Elder Packer said he understood the passion of the minister, that’s pretty cool. Understanding doesn’t make it right.
2. I particularly loved the line where he said that parents learn so much about life from their children. I can only say amen!
3. This is a general comment is that conference is for the church and world as a whole. In a Stake Leadership type meeting you get a great deal of focused doctrine.
4. I’ve been to boring sacrament meetings. I’ve given talks that I found boring. But after being in a Bishopric I learned that this is the time to teach each other. Some do it well, most don’t. The best ones when you feel the spirit is when the people add their own thoughts but that is tough for non-professional speakers.
http://profile.yahoo.com/XC6HV4KG4HPDH6MPA2YOORLXTE Cindy

Hey- great podcast! Here is a link to a photo of David Archuleta in the choir. Found it on Instagram.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f69/chandlerfreecycle/arch.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/people/Megan-von-Ackermann/100000167835734 Megan von Ackermann

Love this mix of people on the podcast!
http://secondgospelofmatthew.wordpress.com/ Matthew Crowley

I didn’t realize Brandt and Heather did both sessions. You guys have serious stamina!

Heather_ME

Ruined my whole damn Saturday. You better appreciate! ;^) haha.
brandt

I’m glad you corrected your typo. Though, it wouldn’t be the first time that someone has typo’ed my name as “Brandy”

Heather_ME

Careful… you might be earning yourself a nickname there… Brandy.

Robert Saladino

Great points all around…I also have a hard time with the idea of moving one inch away from God which will put me on dangerous ground and a loss of reasoning…This concept makes no sense to me!! Shouldn’t having the gift of the HG make it easier to discern right from wrong, not hadrer? And if I’m in the danger zone and lost my reasoning then how will I ever get back? Why is God so powerless against Satan? Why would loud laughter effect the HG? Shouldn’t he cut through all evil no matter how daunting it may seem?
http://www.facebook.com/RayArias Ray Arias

Just so you know, Jehovah/Jesus equivalence is actually a belief that many members of Protestant and Restorationist denominations. I recall some Jehovah’s Witnesses once told me that they had reasons to believe that Jehovah and Jesus Christ were the same person. But I looked it up and it doesn’t appear to be actual JW doctrine. So it appears that in other denominations where they don’t hold anything different as creed or doctrine, it is possible to find people that hold this as a personal belief. However, I think it is true that only Mormon Movement denominations are the only ones who hold Jehovah/Jesus equivalence as actual doctrine. I’m not sure what CoC’s position is on this principle, but I think if they no longer believe it now, I’d bet they once did.
Furtwangler

I have to agree with the panelists negative reaction to Elder Oaks’ assertion that Mormons spend more time and money on charitable causes.
Church “service” usually isn’t humanitarian. Almost every calling is focused on 2 things: attracting new members and/or keeping the faith alive. Consider what the following organizations do: Primary, young women/men, Sunday school, relief society, missionary work, seminary/institute, activities committee, home teaching, etc. It’s all about indoctrinating each other, telling our story, and preserving the faith. It’s more like an Amway meeting or a pep rally. Yes, service projects are often folded into these programs, but almost always with the goal of attracting people to the church. And what kind of service is temple work? Really! As if the dead have more pressing needs than the living.I will concede that tithing is a type of charitable giving, if it subsidizes the cost of tuition for those attending BYU. But the 40 million spent on automobiles each year is not really a charitable cause, and neither are the 20 million dollar temples, because missionary work and temple work is not humanitarian.The general tone of his talk seemed to imply that church service is an indicator of one’s overall selflessness, and is a superior form of sacrifice/service. This idea is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to those trying to discover their own unique talents and passions, which might not be church-related. I have much more admiration for the service rendered by skilled professionals than under-qualified clergy. Bill Gates, a less-active Episcopalian, contributed more to humanity through his vocation than anything he would have ever done at church. AND, his computer applications have probably done more for Mormon temple work than anything done by the saints. The low-cost religions of main-line protestantism have figured out something that Mormons still don’t understand: you serve humanity best by being good at your vocation, which usually isn’t a church calling. Less time at church means more time with family and career, which is where the real service and sacrifice takes place. What happens at church, happens in a bubble. It is not real life. It is a classroom with under-qualified teachers. The idea that ”whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies” is simply not true and not helpful. True service is offered by those who are truly qualified to do the job, in the real world where there are real consequences. Mormons, who give their all to the church, have less to offer the world.
Elisabeth Oppelt

Question: are people okay with the idea that choosing not to have kids is a selfish decision? I heard discussion about the difficulties of choosing when to have children, and the difficulties of people who can’t have kids, but if someone said that the idea that choosing not to have kids is selfish is wrong, I missed it. I don’t think it’s a selfish decision; am I in the minority there ?

Heather_ME

Actually, Elisabeth, I wondered to myself why that didn’t come up in our discussion and why his statements about that didn’t piss me off. If I had to guess why that didn’t come up in conversation it’s because those on the panel either have kids, want kids, or aren’t affected by those types of statements anymore (me). I think it just didn’t occur to us to discuss. But yes, I agree with you. Choosing to forgo children is not a selfish decision.
http://profiles.google.com/ozpoof Oz Poof

I think choosing to have too many kids is selfish.

I’m childless,and it is illegal for me to marry who I love. I see married people with kids at work get so much more consideration than anyone else. They get so much extra time off. The Australian federal government pays $4000 for each newborn, they get subsidised everything, health, childcare, education, and monthly grants until the child is 16.
I work full time and get nothing, which I’m OK with, but I’m helping to pay for the breeders, who in my opinion sometimes don’t make the best parents.

One work colleague I don’t know that well but who is a Mormon, has ten (10) kids. He actually quit work and stayed home full time because the government payouts for all of his kids came to more than he was earning working full time. He is now better off because he pays no child care.

I’ve heard of “bleeding the beast” but it seems Mormons are some of the most willing to take the hard-earned money of those in the “World”.

Part of this is the ridiculous notion that if you keep breeding like flies on a cow pat the Lord will make it all work out. Well the Lord only makes it work in countries where the secular government decides they need more children because of a changing demographic. To tell Mormons in Latin America or Africa to keep pumping out kids is simply irresponsible and yes, very selfish.

http://www.facebook.com/chrisallmanlovesyou Christopher Allman

Meredith, I was surprised to hear you on MormonExpression as well, I didn’t realize you were this far on the dark side. But just as before I very much enjoyed your comments and perspective. You voiced many thoughts and ideas I myself would have liked to voice had I been there.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Meredith-Hudson-LeSueur/686545382 Meredith Hudson LeSueur

Chris – haha, I’m what’s commonly referred to as luke warm and shall be spewed out of some mouth surely at some point.

SacKIngsFan

The story of the missionaries and the protestant minister is an old one. Was in the plan of salvation lesson when I was on my mission a LONG time ago. This story is probably an urban legand. Where are the comments for the priesthood session?
http://profiles.google.com/ozpoof Oz Poof

When Donald Halstrom says that those who leave were never sufficiently converted to the gospel, he seems to be saying what March Ensign says in “News of the Church” page 74.
During the Feb 2012 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, President Uchtdorf explained that “in Church terms, growth could be defined as ‘new members’…..REAL growth, however, is defined as growth in the number of ‘active members’.Clearly this is breaking ground for the inevitable revelation that church numbers are in fact way, way down on what the faithful have been led to believe.M. Russell Ballard also said, “growth occurs when personal, lifelong conversion to the gospel results in increased faithfulness of each individual and family.” That’s Mormonspeak for “the numbers we will soon reveal are the faithful and elect. The 7 odd million we used to count as well were actually never sufficiently converted to the gospel and just aren’t as good as you so we won’t count them anymore”.This is the second instance I’ve noticed recently where a GA talks about how there are some “Mormons” be they apostate or inactives, who were never real members- i.e. not real growth. It seems they are positioning themselves to reveal their real numbers by claiming they have changed how they count members and now count only the faithful – i.e “real growth”. So they will still call their announcement “growth”, and they will be able to hide the numbers of resignations by revealing an even bigger drop when they stop counting the apostates because they were never real Mormons anyway.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Meredith-Hudson-LeSueur/686545382 Meredith Hudson LeSueur

Heather, you reminded me that I used to say in High School how my testimony was based on things making sense. The things I still love about mormonism are the things that still make sense to me. And a lot of my disaffection is because a lot of it just doesn’t make sense. I hadn’t remembered that until you said it!