First, I must start with a confession. I haven’t yet watched General Conference. Despite living in the future here in Asia, we are living in the past in terms of General Conference which will be aired at the local church next weekend (or alternatively, live on-line now). However, I have read some of the recaps, including a live thread by good friend Ray at StayLDS.com. Here are some highlights pointed out in that discussion as evidence of progress.
- E. Perry spoke of the New Testament as the centerpiece of our religion, not specifically mentioning the Book of Mormon.
- 2 female speakers (Sis. Allred and Sis. Stevens) were described as speaking in a “normal” voice (meaning not in a sickly sweet Mormon woman voice).
- E. Gonzales spoke warmly and in sincered praise about all Christians, not elevating Mormons above other sects.
- E. Cook’s otherwise controversial talk about women also stated that those who hadn’t served a mission sometimes feel like second class citizens, a possible first step in erasing prejudice in this area.
- Pres. Eyring said “someone who needed to work to support his or her family,” effectively recognizing both scenarios equally.
- Pres. Eyring also talked about providing assistance to those both inside and outside of the LDS community.
- E. Oaks referred to an R-rated movie (127 Hours) without warning people not to see R-rated movies (it’s not R-rated here, and he was probably referring to the story, not the movie). But still . . . any port in a storm. He also referred to men as an helpmeet to women.
- E. Uchtdorf endorsed the use of social media. (I assume he’s reading this right now – hello!)
- E. Johnson made a non-KJV reference.
- Several talks referring to both parents as presiding in the home, not just fathers.
- Less talks about porn.
- More talks about Christ.
On the downside:
- Pres. Packer’s talk was viewed as a not-very-subtle further attack on homosexuals. However, he did mention that some members spend their whole lives offended over the mistakes of leaders. Hmmm.
- E. Nelson’s remarks about cafeteria Mormonism seems to have been a mischaracterization of that term, which he then sets up as a straw man. He stated it’s wrong to pick and choose which commandments to follow; however, cafeteria Mormonism is usually used to describe leaving some of the unpalatable doctrines alone, not behavioral picking and choosing. It’s unfortunate if the term is stigmatized among the so-called faithful as a result, since all doctrine is subject to interpretation and individual understanding and all members sin. This seems like it will become an excuse for some members to judge others or to try to chase them out of the church.
- E. Bednar’s talk was viewed by some as a backhanded insult to people of other faiths and to NOMs.
Overall, what did you think? Was the conference effective at clarifying old misunderstandings? Were there other statements or talks that you considered progressive? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I agree that the talks were generally more progressive than in the past. There were no firebombs thrown.
Elder Packer’s talk seemed to be a wrapping up talk. I wont speculate to say that he is not long for this world. But it seemed to me that he was trying to cover as many points as possible like a student writing a paper and listing a bunch of ideas in a conclusion. Anyone else get that feeling?
“it was decided that the men of the priesthood and the women of the RS would reach out to rescue these men and their wives… those involved in the rescue focused primarily on preparing them for the priesthood, eternal marriage, and the saving ordinances of the temple.”
I’m not quite sure how I feel about the use of the word “rescue” for this work with inactive members. It was used in another talk as well. It seems at once condescending and heroic. Does this word strike anyone else as problematic?
I think the word rescue is problematic in that it only appeals to the rescuers, not generally to the rescued. But I suppose it can motivate people to take actions that they might not otherwise take with a less dramatic urging.
don’t forget E. Cook endorsing LDS members being at the forefront of creating work environments that cater to the priorities of the family (i.e. maternity and paternity leave).
If we think of the term rescue in the eternal perspective, it is a more appropriate term, I think. If we just think about it as a term to rescue people from their own choices, I am somewhat troubled by it.
OTHO, if we give people the opportunity to come back to activity and they are trying to find a way to come back, that is another story as well.
“cafeteria Mormonism is usually used to describe leaving some of the unpalatable doctrines alone”
Hmm. I learn something new all the time from you, Hawk. I have always heard it used in the way you report that Elder Nelson used it.
Agreed, I’ve never heard “cafeteria Mormonism” used as anything other than indicating it is picking-and-choosing what you want to do.
I didn’t think he used it in the same way as NOMs use it. Because he did not use cafeteria and Mormonism in the same sentence. He refered specifically to the commandments, not the policies or practices of the church.
Re: the cafeteria – I’ve heard LEADERS generally use it in the “I’ll pick and choose which aspects of the WoW I want to follow” for example, but I’ve never heard members justify their behaviors in that manner. I’ve only ever heard them say things like “I belief x and y, but I don’t believe in polygamy/racial curse/etc. etc.”
Ha! I’m the wrong person to ask right now. Yesterday a coworker brought up conference and I mentioned that I found it interesting that Elders Cook and Packard could talk about the same subject using very different language, and that I preferred the former over the latter. I then sat dumbstruck as my coworkers proceeded to jump down my throat.
“So you don’t even think the wording of talks is inspired, so you think that conference talks are false scripture, so you think that prophets are FALLIBLE, so you think that Joseph Smith made mistakes translating the BOM, so you’re a HERETIC!”
My jaw was dangling by the end. I couldn’t even defend myself (couldn’t get a word in edgewise!).
C. – Yikes. I always try to remember that when people are jumping down my throat, it comes from a place of fear in themselves. Doesn’t make the jumping any more right or less annoying.
I am catching up on GC now – will try to listen to a talk a day for the next little while (we were at a childbirth class this weekend and I fell asleep during both Sunday sessions… I’m blaming the baby).
This was the first time I think I ever registered anyone at church calling a woman by her husband’s name. That is, during Pres. Monson’s discussion about rededicating the Laie Hawaii temple, he mentioned that “President and Sister Henry B. Eyring” were there along with “Elder and Sister Quentin L. Cook”, etc.
I’m not at ALL fond of this custom in general usage, let alone at church. I hate it when we get mail addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. [DH’s full name]” or when I am referred to as “Mrs. [DH’s full name].” It doesn’t happen often, but I find it really marginalizing, especially since I kept (and use) my maiden name, including at church. I’d be particularly irritated to be called “Sister [DH’s full name]”, though. Am I overreacting?
I loved when Elder Uchtdorf said at the end of his talk on Sunday Morning:
“I testify that the Lord speaks to his Apostles and Prophets in our day. He also speaks to all who come to him with a sincere heart and real intent.”
It feels like he is putting personal revelation of individuals in all faiths (he didn’t single out just mormons) on the same level of importance as the revelation that church leaders receive. Maybe I’m reading to much into it, but it made me happy just the same.
As one who absolutely accepts the label “cafeteria Mormon” and has associated with such for a reasonable amount of time, I assure you Hawk’s interpretation is most certainly a valid one (though perhaps so is E Nelson’s). I hold a TR, so my behavior is acceptable by Mormon standards, but I definitely “pick and choose” the interpretations of the doctrines I believe in.
#1–
I’ve never seen anything in GC I would call a firebomb. Compared to scriptural preaching, it’s all tame. At what point can we say people are being overly sensitive?
@Allquieton– I would say that President Packer’s talk last year was a firebomb. The gays are tired of being told that we chose to be something that the Church and society are largely against.
I haven’t gone back and looked at it again yet, but I liked Bishop Burton’s talk about helping the poor, and I hope the Church continues to put renewed emphasis on it. I think we as a church should be doing much more in this regard.
The one part I remember being slightly uncomfortable with was the emphasis on self-sufficiency. That should be our individual goal, of course, but I wish he emphasized: 1) not everyone is going to get there because of differing life circumstances and that doesn’t mean they are unworthy of our charity, and 2) we are required to be self-sufficient ourselves but whether we help someone else should never be based on whether we perceive them to be self-sufficient. That’s not our call to judge.
Overall, I thought it was a very good talk, though.
Packer’s words were exceedingly mild. Some people just disagree with the words. But can’t you disagree without being offended? Isn’t being offended just a way to dishonestly manipulate the situation?
Of course I can disagree without being offended. It happens all the time when I have political discussions with friends. But I am damn well offended when I am told: “No you are wrong. You chose to be gay. You chose an orientation that may preclude you from the Celestial Kingdom.” I find that offensive.
Elder Packer’s talk was an attack on homosexuals? Huh? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion? because I completely missed that.
Not this years talk. It was his talk in October 2010.
The first bullet point for “on the down-side” says:
“•Pres. Packer’s talk was viewed as a not-very-subtle further attack on homosexuals. However, he did mention that some members spend their whole lives offended over the mistakes of leaders. Hmmm.”
I don’t see how people thought it was an attack on homosexuals. I didn’t think his last one was either (neither of them even mentioned homosexuality). I guess I need to get better at reading people’s minds (or perhaps just get more cynical).
The comment in my post about Pres. Packer’s talk comes from ‘nacle chatter. As I said, I haven’t yet watched conference. But after October’s controversial talk that required some rewrite on publication, I’m sure there was heightened sensitivity when he got up to speak. Having said that, I do believe it’s his personal agenda to pound on this idea in whatever time remains to him.
Re: Cafeteria Mormonism
What I didn’t like about Nelson’s talk – and the ramifications locally – is that Nelson specifically related the Cafeteria mindset to commandments, God’s commandments. The problem I have with that is that often what is done in the church as a matter of policy (i.e. earrings, white shirts, flipflops, WoW, etc) is seen by leaders to be a commandment of God. Therefore, if I disagree with any (or all) of the policies listed above, then Nelson’s talk can and will be used against me to conform my behavior. It’s my experience that precious few members acknowledge – let alone discuss – these potential differences. As such, everything that comes down from HQ is seen as a “commandment from God” and is to be acted upon as such.
#17: Jacob S
Bishop Burton’s talk on welfare would have been more helpful to me if humanitarian work was his primary goal. The business community in SLC is praising him as a businessman for spending $3 billion of our money on a the SLC mall. In contrast, the Church spends $15 million a year on humanitarian needs.
When his business focus out strips his humanitarian focus by a ratio of 200 to 1, I get a bit skeptical.
“spending $3 billion of our money on a the SLC mall”
Maybe the church spent that money on safeguarding the environment around the temple and the Lord’s church headquarters.
Also, calling it “spent” is problematic. It is more of an investment (meaning it is an asset that can be spent later). There is a different between spending money on food and investing money for retirement. Some people might prefer to have the church spend everything and be broke. Perhaps the Lord has directed that some assets be held in reserve for his future purposes. Real Estate is an asset (and I believe the church doesn’t own a lot of stock like they used to, they invest heavily in real estate).
JKS:
Do you think that the Lord can protect his “sacred” places by his strength alone?
I’m put off a little by some of the rhetoric that has flown around the CCC, justifying billions of dollars in spending as a way to “create a shield,” “protect” the sacred places, etc. It seems very, very odd to me – as if dabbling in Babylon is how we protect spiritual edifices.
That being said, there’s a parable in the D&C that I found strangely comparable to this situation (D&C 101:44-54):
I admit, it’s not a perfect fit (but a lot better a fit than most members would be comfortable with).
But, the opening verses of this selection discuss how the servants of the nobleman built a hedge (a natural protection, which relies on the processes of nature to grow and become vital) around the vineyard for protection. The servants also began to build a watchtower. However, once started they started questioning the nobleman, and reasoned (verse 49) that the money spent on the watchtower would be of a better use if given to the exchangers (i.e. Babylon). And, as a result of their slothfulness, the “enemy” came in and usurped all the planning of the nobleman. Verse 57 suggests that a wall (manmade way of protecting things, the work of men), a tower and the enemy’s watchmen had replaced the servants the nobleman set up.
So, contrast in this example how the Lord built up an hedge for protection, versus how the enemy built up a wall. What are the differences? How are they different and, if they are different, how does that apply?
I once went through an incredibly long project on the Hopi indians and Mormon relations to the Hopi down in Arizona. In that write-up I did, I draw further parallels to Burton’s rhetoric on why CCC needed to be built. I might invite you to read that, though it takes a while to read and get into.
In that article, I discuss one John Boyden (a lawyer and Mormon bishop) who used similar rational (i.e. develop land for monetary purposes) to justify stripping the Navajo and Hopi of billions of dollars worth of coal down on the Black Mesa in Arizona. His story is a shocking one in that it shows just how far some go to develop land in order to make a cool million or more.
I have to assume the mall project was viewed as:
1 – a good financial investment with a specific set of projections on returns. I would assume it was 99% a financial business decision.
2 – a way to attract people to an area where they will be exposed to the church and potentially join. This seems like a potential side benefit that would appeal to leadership on a more emotional level.
There’s also a “picket fence” mentality that might be at play. When your front yard looks good, you look good.
#28: hawkgrrrl
I agree with this absolutely. I just run it to its natural conclusion. If this progressed for another 2000 years, I bet SLC would look a lot like the Vatican, as I’m sure Popes, etc have used the same arguments over the centuries.
Hawkgrrrl and Mike:
Burton’s own words from a few years ago:
In the Book of Mammon, Daymon Smith points out the following (using that quote from Burton):
Mike S, 25
I agree as far as that goes, but I remember the focus of the talk being about what we as individual members should be doing to help the poor, which is a focus that should make a lot of our rich members a little uncomfortable.
But, yes, think what the church could have done in Africa, Central America, or even right here in the U.S. of A. if it had put $3 billion dollars into helping the poor.
I really love Elder Cook’s enthusiastic, “RLDS women are incredible!” Of course, he used the older name of the RLDS church rather than the contemporary “CoC” initials, but it was still an awesome gesture to give the women of the CoC a shout out. 😉 You know what I mean?