Episode 125a: Conference Review Part 1

44 comments on “Episode 125a: Conference Review Part 1”

    • FWAnson Reply

      Yep – great to hear Bridget again (big fan here!)

      And, of course, Mike’s keeping Dentists around the world in business due to the all the teeth grinding his ongoing and seemingly never ending irrational rationalizations cause anyone but TBMs. They love him!

  1. I don't think so Reply

    Listened to the entire podcast, and didn’t have a comment until the very end, when the conversation turned to the subject about singles, and how there are a lot of single people who aren’t choosing to get married.

    A couple of comments.

    Interesting how the responsibility is put on the single brethren. What a joke. Take a look sometime in an elders quorum full of single elders, and compare a similar sized elders quorum full of married guys. The married guys are zombies. Marriage has become increasingly hostile territory for men, including within the church over the last 50 years.

    If Russel M. Nelson wants to persuade the single brethren to embrace marriage, he needs to stop hacking at the leaves of evil and start striking at the root. Maybe he has some commentary about why divorced men have an insanely high suicide rate. Maybe he has some commentary about the routine financial rape and shaming perpetrated on perfectly decent divorced men. Maybe he should discuss the sexual dysfunction present in all these happy lds families. Maybe he should look around, and see that a 35 year old single man who holds down a job, pays his bills, and whacks off when he feels the urge, is not hurting anybody, or harming society in any way. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is not the elders quorum members who look at porn. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is the complete joke that modern marriage has become for men.

    Any time I hear the subject of strengthening the family brought up in any kind of lds setting, the complete lack of understanding of the forces at work that are really undermining the family network simply blows me away. The solution is not more shaming language directed at the singles.

  2. I don't think so Reply

    Listened to the entire podcast, and didn’t have a comment until the very end, when the conversation turned to the subject about singles, and how there are a lot of single people who aren’t choosing to get married.

    A couple of comments.

    Interesting how the responsibility is put on the single brethren. What a joke. Take a look sometime in an elders quorum full of single elders, and compare a similar sized elders quorum full of married guys. The married guys are zombies. Marriage has become increasingly hostile territory for men, including within the church over the last 50 years.

    If Russel M. Nelson wants to persuade the single brethren to embrace marriage, he needs to stop hacking at the leaves of evil and start striking at the root. Maybe he has some commentary about why divorced men have an insanely high suicide rate. Maybe he has some commentary about the routine financial rape and shaming perpetrated on perfectly decent divorced men. Maybe he should discuss the sexual dysfunction present in all these happy lds families. Maybe he should look around, and see that a 35 year old single man who holds down a job, pays his bills, and whacks off when he feels the urge, is not hurting anybody, or harming society in any way. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is not the elders quorum members who look at porn. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is the complete joke that modern marriage has become for men.

    Any time I hear the subject of strengthening the family brought up in any kind of lds setting, the complete lack of understanding of the forces at work that are really undermining the family network simply blows me away. The solution is not more shaming language directed at the singles.

  3. I don't think so Reply

    Listened to the entire podcast, and didn’t have a comment until the very end, when the conversation turned to the subject about singles, and how there are a lot of single people who aren’t choosing to get married.

    A couple of comments.

    Interesting how the responsibility is put on the single brethren. What a joke. Take a look sometime in an elders quorum full of single elders, and compare a similar sized elders quorum full of married guys. The married guys are zombies. Marriage has become increasingly hostile territory for men, including within the church over the last 50 years.

    If Russel M. Nelson wants to persuade the single brethren to embrace marriage, he needs to stop hacking at the leaves of evil and start striking at the root. Maybe he has some commentary about why divorced men have an insanely high suicide rate. Maybe he has some commentary about the routine financial rape and shaming perpetrated on perfectly decent divorced men. Maybe he should discuss the sexual dysfunction present in all these happy lds families. Maybe he should look around, and see that a 35 year old single man who holds down a job, pays his bills, and whacks off when he feels the urge, is not hurting anybody, or harming society in any way. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is not the elders quorum members who look at porn. The epicenter of the destruction of the family is the complete joke that modern marriage has become for men.

    Any time I hear the subject of strengthening the family brought up in any kind of lds setting, the complete lack of understanding of the forces at work that are really undermining the family network simply blows me away. The solution is not more shaming language directed at the singles.

    • Ozpoof Reply

      Porn, masturbation, single people, gays, are all enemies of the income of the church – future tithepayers. If people are beating off to porn alone rather than knocking up a tired, depressed, prolapsed LDS woman, how will the church ever grow?

  4. Heather Reply

    Cafeteria Mormonism: Of course it doesn’t work…. the leadership won’t LET it work. They’ve made it very clear: you either swallow the kool-aid or get out. If you are unwilling to KNOW the church is true, there is no room for you.

    And don’t get me started on how completely off-base it is to say Cafeteria Mormonism is choosing which commandments to obey and which ones to disregard. I have yet to meet one disaffected member or “Cafeteria Mormon” who is picking which sins they want to commit. It always comes down to dogma & church politics. It’s an entirely different thing. I have to wonder: does Packer KNOW he’s misrepresenting this issue, or does he actually believe this bilge?

  5. brandt Reply

    Random thoughts and comments:

    Glenn, you were so close with your Waynes World analogy. But it wasn’t Cleveland, it was DELAWARE! “Or, imagine, being able to be magically whisked away to… Delaware…Hi. I’m in Delaware.” A movie that gets better with age.

    I did like the Teton Dam story, but I only liked it because I lived in Rexburg, and they still have the effects of the dam in many of the old buildings (the old basements are covered in sand). If I didn’t live in Rexburg? I could care less. So I understand George’s point (I believe it was George). What about other states, or nations, outside of the mountain west?

    I was confused about Packer’s “LDS vs. Mormon” comment. I’m going to have to redo my vocabulary, because out here in Detroit, we are so accustomed to referring to our religion as “Mormonsism” and each other as “Mormons,” because no one knows what the LDS church is. However, when I lived in Idaho, people who weren’t members always referred to the church as “LDS,” and I didn’t say “Mormon” as much. For Utah/Idaho, sure, I understand that. For the rest of the world? Erm…..

    • Glenn Reply

      Brandt — You are right! I confused it with a similar scene in “The Rutles” when they do something similar and get off the plane in Cleveland.

      • brandt Reply

        Don’t get me wrong, Cleveland is just as bad, but I wanted to make sure we were staying as close to the Waynes World canon as possible! 😉

        • FWAnson Reply

          Oh my what a setup . . .
          (with apologies to Wayne and Garth)

          Boyd K. Packer: Alright, ladies and gentlemen. It takes two people to run a General Conference: one back stage, and one out front. One man alone cannot do this. L. Tom Perry, you will run the backstage team. Russell M. Nelson, you are my liaison between Tom’s backstage team and President Monson’s front-stage team which includes myself in the booth.

          To the left and right of the stage are machine-gun pillboxes, M-60 Browning. Now these babies tend to heat up so shoot in 3 second bursts. In the event of capture I will personally distribute these cyanide capsules to be placed under the tongue like so.
          [Places a capsule in his mouth]

          Boyd K. Packer: Any questions?

          Dallin H. Oaks: Yes, I have a question. When did you turn into a nutbar?

    • FWAnson Reply

      Well, being a HUGE parodical believer in Mike’s “doctrine of names” folklore . . . er, I mean, system of theology, I did a word study on the name “Heather” and discovered that it means (sound of clearing throat) . . .

      “Heather he(a)-ther as a girl’s name is pronounced HEH-ther. It is of Middle English origin. Flower name: an evergreen flowering plant that thrives on peaty barren lands, as in Scotland.”
      ( http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Heather )

      And of course this led a deeper study of the name in Celtic:

      “The Druids and ancient Celts were superb botanists. Their hebal sense was incredibly insightful and they utilized every leafy resource available to them. The heather was no different and after trial and error the ancient Celts recognized it served as a great cleansing agent, breaking up blockages found in the body.”
      ( http://www.whats-your-sign.com/celtic-meaning-heather.html )

      Naturally this can only mean one thing in this present context and setting:
      YOU, our dear Heather, have the unique and sacred calling of acting as the great Internet cleansing agent that breaks up the incredible leaps of illogic, and irrational rationalizations that Mike brought to the commentary that created the blockages found in minds the world over – especially TBM minds.

      But don’t worry – we’re there for you Sista Girl – we’ll happily sit back and watch it all go down!
      (no need to thank me Heather!)

      😉

    • FWAnson Reply

      Well, being a HUGE parodical believer in Mike’s “doctrine of names” folklore . . . er, I mean, system of theology, I did a word study on the name “Heather” and discovered that it means (sound of clearing throat) . . .

      “Heather he(a)-ther as a girl’s name is pronounced HEH-ther. It is of Middle English origin. Flower name: an evergreen flowering plant that thrives on peaty barren lands, as in Scotland.”
      ( http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Heather )

      And of course this led a deeper study of the name in Celtic:

      “The Druids and ancient Celts were superb botanists. Their hebal sense was incredibly insightful and they utilized every leafy resource available to them. The heather was no different and after trial and error the ancient Celts recognized it served as a great cleansing agent, breaking up blockages found in the body.”
      ( http://www.whats-your-sign.com/celtic-meaning-heather.html )

      Naturally this can only mean one thing in this present context and setting:
      YOU, our dear Heather, have the unique and sacred calling of acting as the great Internet cleansing agent that breaks up the incredible leaps of illogic, and irrational rationalizations that Mike brought to the commentary that created the blockages found in minds the world over – especially TBM minds.

      But don’t worry – we’re there for you Sista Girl – we’ll happily sit back and watch it all go down!
      (no need to thank me Heather!)

      😉

      • Heather Reply

        Just tell me this… were you being serious when you said people could be angels if they don’t want to get married? Or were you saying that tongue-in-cheek?

        • FWAnson Reply

          In all fairness to Mike that interpretation has traditionally been derived from D&C 132:15-17 in LdS Theology:

          “15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

          16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

          17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

          Of course this is essentially saying (at least to me) that single people who never marry “in the world” are second class citizens in the after-life. But of course since the LdS Church treats them like second class citizen “in the world” why should anything change after they pass through the veil?

          (after all, we wouldn’t them to feel uncomfortable throughout eternity – it’s a very long time!)

        • Mike Tannehill Reply

          If you dont keep the law, you dont get the blessing associated with the law. See FW Ansons comment, he quotes the scripture associated with it.

          • Ozpoof

            There are people who are mentally retarded, physically trapped in a non-functioning body, those who are shy to the point of needing medication, gays, people who do not feel they are only half a person and are very happy alone. Mike, are you telling us that your God will punish these people if they do not find a partner before they die?

            You’re saying that some people will be denied full (Mormon) happiness even if they are perfect in every other way and want to get married and are doing all they can to make that happen. Are you worshiping the Old Testament God by any chance?

      • Jay Bryner Reply

        Mike. Its not you man. It really isn’t. Mormon doctrine can go so many different directions. We’ve all looked back on some wacky theological theory/belief we’ve had. The impulse to correct what we perceive to be someone else’s ‘wrong thinking’ is almost unbearable. I for one am glad you’re part of team mormon expression.

      • FWAnson Reply

        Well, since you asked . . .
        Your flippant and supportive (even eager) comments about polygamy were “interesting” to say the least Mike.

        However, I would love to get your response to the following Answerbag question:

        Q: TRUE OR FALSE If [LdS Church] President Monson reinstated polygamy and took a teenage bride the membership of the church should support him

        Here is the full quote (that this question was derived from) in context:

        “It’s completely appropriate for a man in his late 30’s to have a consensual sexual relationship with his 14 year old wife.

        Even though Joseph was in positions of power over these girls like President of their Church, Prophet, Mayor, General of the militia, editor of the newspaper, in some cases like Fanny he was her employer or others like the Lawrence sisters he was their legal guardian. Those positions of power did not put him in a position to unfairly influence or coerce their decisions and I’m sure at even their young ages they were able to make adult informed decisions and weren’t influenced by his stature over them.

        If President Monson reinstated polygamy and took a teenage bride the membership of the church should support him in that decision because there is clearly nothing wrong with it.”

        (link to source = http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/52190-ex-mo-blames-elizabeth-smart-abduction-on-wait-for-it/page__view__findpost__p__1208940552 )

        And the author is a faithful and practicing Salt Lake City Latter-day Saint

        http://www.answerbag.com/polls/true-false-%5Blds-church%5D-president-monson-reinstated-polygamy-teenage-bride-membership-church-support_2372872#ixzz1Iu30LlRC

        And your answer is . . . ?

  6. Wes Cauthers Reply

    I know that faithful Mormons will cite the 8th AOF, but the whole guilt trip about how everyone should get married goes against what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:8:

    “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”

    I’m sure it’s a mistranslation.

    • FWAnson Reply

      Clearly so Wes! See I see that you used one of those modern translations that are based on the vain philosophies of men, let me get out my LdS Edition of the King James Version which says . . .

      1 Corinthians 7:8 (King James Version)
      “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.”

      Well, that’s odd, it seems to say the same thing as your corrupt and unreliable modern version. Very strange!

      Ah . . . another mistranslation no doubt!

      So let’s go to the inspired Joseph Smith Translation and see what it SHOULD say:

      1 Corinthians 7:8 (King James Version)
      “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.”

      Huh? Well that’s odd . . . isn’t it?
      Ah! The letter i after the comma – should have been capitalized! Sure it’s grammatically incorrect . . . buy hey, I’m glad we got THAT settled!

      But whaddya know – they all seem to say the same dog gone thing . . . whaddya know!

      That’s odd . . .

  7. MJL Reply

    I love Mike. He keeps bringing the funny!

    Some words on marriage.

    If divorce rates are down is it because more people are living common law instead of marrying? Fewer marriages equates fewer divorces.

    I think the Church set itself up for a perpetually single segment of its members by saying that they will be paired off in the Celestial kingdom if they die single and righteous (though no scriptural support exists to believe this). I’ve met single members who shrug off their singleton status believing they will provided for in the next life. On the other hand I’ve met single members who are depressed as well because the promised blessings of marriage and children have not come to pass despite their righteous living and service.

    What bothers me is the Church’s “anyone will do so long as he or she is living in accordance to the principles and standards of the Church” approach to match making. Marriage then becomes an act of service to the Church more so than an admission of love for someone else. The potential for future dissatisfaction is apparent, seen in the use of pornography by men and the escape into the “emotional porn” of romance novels and films for women.

    Case in point for the latter, since the former is well understood, is Mormon “author” Stephanie Meyer. Her purple-prose “fanfic” world of sparkling vampires allowed her a safe way to cheat on her husband while sparing her a trip to the Bishop’s office. Casting herself as Bella she proceeds to have an affair with a handsome and virile young vampire, with a curious case of psoriasis, named Edward. It’s all Freudian (or is it Jungian?) but then again maybe it is just some silly story written by a “sixteen year old girl” trapped in the body of a thirty-something married Mormon woman with children.

  8. G Reiersen Reply

    As usual, an interesting analysis of the conference talks. Regarding Alf O’Mega’s comments about the Church’s growth, I see nothing surprising about the slowing growth rate, except that what is really surprising about it is that it is not slowing even more than it is. Few religious denominations have historical claims that are so recent and can so easily be checked and shown to be at odds with the actual facts as Mormonism. This is especially true nowadays with easy internet access. Few mainstream religions (which Mormonism has arguably become one of in recent decades) have founders who can be so clearly shown to have blatantly lied to us. Mormon leaders and apologists cannot credibly or honestly deny, for example, that Joseph Smith lied clear up to the day he was martyred about polygamy, or that John Taylor had twelve wives waiting for him back in Utah when he vehemently denied that he was a polygamist while a missionary in France in 1850.

    Non-Mormon Egyptologists unanimously agree that Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Chandler Papyri and the facsimiles of the pictures included with them as found in the Book of Abraham, does not even come close to reflecting what those scrolls actually say. Even the few qualified Mormon Egyptologists admit as much when pressed on the issue. How, then, can any rational and well-informed person even begin to take seriously that book, and the man who claimed to translate it? How can Church authorities not be highly embarrassed by that simple, undeniable fact?

    And these are far from the only highly embarrasing, easily verifiable facts about Church historical, theological and scriptural claims!

    • Alf O'Mega Reply

      Gunnar! Has it really been ten years since we used to hang out on the 2think forums? I miss you, old buddy.

      • G Reiersen Reply

        Yes, it is hard to believe that it has been that long! I missed you too, and was delighted to have found your inputs to this forum and to have actually heard your voice here. I am also glad that you, like I, have had the pleasure of experiencing the hospitality of our mutual friend Craig, who was another one of my favorites on the 2think forums, and (I am sure) yours too.

  9. True Order of Hair Reply

    I agree with Heather that it is insidious for the leadership to preach against cafeteria Mormonism. They are saying that if you like the social or cultural aspects of Mormonism, you can’t have them unless you buy into the dogmas as well. And you can’t accept just some of the dogmas without losing your right to accept any of them.

    This has interesting implications for the old “Are Mormons really Christian?” issue. If I don’t accept all of Mormonism, does that mean that I am also not entitled to accept Christ? After all, the acceptance of Christ is one of the dogmas. Are we going to go back to the days of Brigham Young, who said that Mormons are the only real Christians?

  10. Anonymous Reply

    Was it this session in which someone dubiously claimed that the divorce rate is going up? (I seem to recall the ME panelists saying that it was Nelson…)

    I get so tired of demonstrably false “statistics” being repeated as truth, simply because it reinforces a presumed point. Or even true statistics that don’t make the point at all. Like, implying that the age of marriage increasing is a bad thing, or that waiting until a couple is financially stable to have children is negative.

    I’m glad you guys caught this.

  11. Shauna8979 Reply

    I’m surprised no one mentioned anything about the financial statement read in the beginning…is it just me or is this new?

  12. Ozpoof Reply

    I really wasn’t going to comment until Mike Tannehill began his routine. I actually sicked up a little from his comments. I wondered if Jesus was in his SS class, would he show such obvious pleasure at the exclusion of unmarried people from the Mormon idea of the tippy top heaven. If he would, he has a very low opinion of his God (one of them) or has little concept of what Christ taught.

    I was thinking how a believing listener to this podcast might not understand why membership growth in the LDS church has slowed down considerably, with many millions who still are members choosing not to attend. If you need an example as to the type of TBM that is doing more for the exmormon cause than the nasty real history of the church, just listen to this podcast again and Mike’s thinly veiled revulsion of anyone who does not fit the Mormon mold.

    If there is a Christ, please please please let him return in Mike’s lifetime. Someone’s in for a shock.

  13. Ozpoof Reply

    Cafeteria Mormons are heard a lot on Mormon Stories and less so here. I have said that these people are deluding themselves by believing they are Mormons. If you don’t swallow it all, hook, line and sinker, you aren’t a Mormon. Now we have this straight from an “inspired” Apostle of the Lord. Cafeteria Mormons aren’t real Mormons.

  14. Carla Reply

    So what Mike’s saying is that you don’t have any ancestors without a marriage ceremony. Makes perfect sense. So if you have an inheritable disease make sure you have all your kids outside marriage, because then they’re totally cut off from you as an ancestor. No bad genes!

  15. Carla Reply

    Your kids testify about what you taught them and what they did = you’re responsible for the stuff your kids do – negates free agency.

  16. Carla Reply

    The insistence that absolutely everybody should be married and have children is a complete failure to recognize the fact of human diversity in personality and sexuality. Some people have no desire or inclination to pair off and procreate. It’s just a fact. When the doctrine of the religion says that the only way to be perfectly happy, in this life or the next, is to be a part of a hetero procreative marriage, then the religion is simply inconsistent with observable reality. Humanity is vastly more diverse than that.

  17. Swearing Elder Reply

    I think it’s awesome that M.E. does these podcasts and I’ve enjoyed them in the past. But I’m going to skip this year’s. Episode 125 (a, b, & c) will actually be the first M.E. episode I’ve skipped. I’ve listened to every single one. Until now.

    I think I’ve just reached a point where I don’t care about widows or pickles this time around…

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *