It’s that time of year again!
[poll id=489]
[poll id=488]
General Conference, LDS, leadership, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture, Prophet, weekend poll
General Conference (Weekend Poll)
General Conference, LDS, leadership, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture, Prophet, weekend poll
It’s that time of year again!
[poll id=489]
[poll id=488]
Wheat & Tares 
I wish I could vote with multiple choices.
I’ll listen to every session (not always intently)
I’ll be napping through some sessions
I’ll get irritated with some of the messages
I’ll listen to it on the radio while working in the yard
I’ll be grateful I can go to church in my pajamas
Happy Hubby, me too, that’s my exact list (except replace “yard” with “kitchen”)
Happy Hubby, your wish has been granted. (Sorry to those who have already voted.) Hopefully the poll allows you to select up to 5 answers now.
We were in Hawaii on vacation during General Conference one year. We discovered that one ward watched the Sunday morning session live at 6 AM. They recorded the session, and gave a copy to another ward who watched the broadcast at 10 AM (which was the ward we attended.) I don’t remember what they did for the Saturday sessions.
It seems like I heard that in some places, the Saturday sessions fall on Sunday anyway, so they watch those. When GC is at an unreasonable time due to time zones, what do they do? Do they simply record them and then watch Saturday sessions one week, and Sunday sessions another, or do they ignore the Saturday sessions altogether and just read them online? I’m just curious.
My preference would be to not schedule general conference on Easter Sunday. On the other hand, I’m a bit resistant to the idea that as an Easter observance, general conference doesn’t count.
We have a beautiful day in SE PA so I’m taking a hard pass on the day sessions today. I will probably take advantage of being able to watch the Priesthood Session from home tonight so I can stream it on my iPad while I watch the Final Four. I have never been more grateful for the OW agitation as I will be tonight during f the priesthood session. Thank you Sister Kelly et al.
MH, in Britain we get Saturday Morning on Saturday evening (5-7pm), Priesthood Session on Sunday Morning (10-12am), Saturday Afternoon on Sunday Afternoon (1-3pm), and then Sunday Morning live 5-7pm. We get the Women’s Session a week later, and are left to our own devices for Sunday Afternoon session.
In Japan and Australia they get the official broadcast a week later. I do wonder what the effect of Internet accessibity might be on that. As it is here, more and more people are watching at home on the Internet rather than attending the official broadcasts in the chapel.
Thanks for the info Hedgehog. I’m glad W&T has such a nice international presence with you, LDS_Aussie, and Kangaroo. It’s always interesting to hear your perspectives.
By the way, I just added another option to the poll (about wrestling with children, cause that’s what I’m doing.)
I just listened to Elder Packer. His speech is so slurred, he is so hard to understand. It reminds me of President Kimball’s throat cancer. It is obvious Packer can’t walk anymore. I just wonder why, when they have such severe limitations, they can’t seem to get inspiration to retire like Pope Benedict did. As I said in that post, Elder Hugh B. Brown proposed this back in 1968, but it seems to me that these men, as soon as they get a little authority, are loathe to release it. I miss Elder Brown’s voice of reason!
I was in and out. Was Monson a complete no-show?
Pres Obama came to SLC to meet with church leaders yesterday, and Monson was a no-show there too, apparently resting for GC, but I didn’t see him (did I just miss it?) God bless Pres Monson, but if he is so ill from dementia, why can’t he simply retire?
Loved Elder Perry’s talk, right on the mark!
I really like E. Oaks’ talk. I nearly did a spit take when E. Perry quoted Iran quoting us. Think about that one for a second.
Yea, I could have done without Islam quoting the our leaders. I thought the overall message of Perry, was right on for the times we live.
Can someone explain (or, preferably, quote) this Iran or Islam quoting church leaders please?
E. Perry was speaking about the Colloquium on Family at the Vatican that Pres. Eyring attended, and he said one of his favorite moments was when “a Muslim scholar from Iran quoted two paragraphs verbatim from our very own Proclamation on the Family.” Well, I can think of one reason that Iran would love the Proclamation. They claim there are no homosexuals in Iran. It’s also a capital offense to be a homosexual. Gee, I wonder why there are no gay people there!
“I could have done without Islam quoting our leaders.”
Why? Because it speaks well of Iranian Muslims or because it reflects poorly on us? Cognitive dissonance either way, I suppose.
Thanks, Hawk. And I agree with you 100%.
Joel, would you want a regime that oppresses women and gays quoting you as a source for their rhetoric?
It is disconcerting, isn’t it.
I wish I were shocked.
Yes here in Australia we get the broadcasts next week. Just spent this morning (Sunday) watching the Saturday morning session and also watched some of the priesthood session live.
Interestingly, there is still a culture of attending the chapel to view the sessions. Why should I get all dressed up and spend all next weekend at the chapel when I can watch it all at home in our own time. There are some leaders who consider non attendance as heretical. It seems our culture has not caught up with the technology.
Ps – I just saw the Saturday afternoon session where the dissenting votes were cast. Very interesting.
I wasn’t able to see it. Can someone explain the dissenting votes? Were they acknowledged by the leader conducting the meeting?
I grew up on the east coast and we went to the chapel bc it was the only way to see GC. It was strange when I moved out west and members just watched in their pajamas, so, Aussie, I think it’s just hard for some people to change, they’ll adjust out there soon too I’m sure.
On my mission in Argentina, we got tapes weeks later, and watched in the chapel, but attendance was very low for these videotape watching sessions.
There is a group called “any opposed?” They garnished some support and had 5 people cast dissenting votes. They also yelled out to make their point. E Uchdorf acknowledged their dissenting votes and advised them to contact their Stake President.
Live tweeting it helps me stay awake.
Dexter: some dissenters shouted opposed, Uchtdorf said the vote was noted and at the end told them to go speak to their stake presidents.
“Why? Because it speaks well of Iranian Muslims or because it reflects poorly on us?”
Because Islam is such a violent religion
“: some dissenters shouted opposed, ”
What a waste of time, why even go if that’s how you fell.
Islam is not a violent religion any more than Christianity is a violent religion (remember the Crusades? the centuries of European Christian-on-Christian warfare?). Some who claim to be one or the other, however, are terribly violent and use religion as an excuse for hate and destruction. The overwhelming numbers of members of both religions denounce such behavior from those claiming membership and in turn are of the opinion that those who practice violence are *not* true Muslims or Christians.
Thanks for the explanation, guys. A friend just sent me this, if anyone is interested. It described the dissenting votes.
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2365694-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion
Ken, the conductor of the meeting doesn’t have to ask if there are any opposed. The brethren choose to ask, so I don’t know why it’s a waste of time to answer the question. Is it a waste of time for E. Uchtdorf to ask if any are opposed?
“Islam is not a violent religion any more than Christianity is a violent religion (remember the Crusades”
Baloney
“so I don’t know why it’s a waste of time to answer the question.”
They knew going in the question was going to be asked, they are just being a pain in the ass. Again, if that is how the feel (not fell as I said, although that applies), why waste your time going. If you don’t sustain them as prophets, why waste your time (and ours having to listen to them) even going to conference to listen to them?
“Again, if that is how the feel …, why waste your time going. If you don’t sustain them as prophets, why waste your time (and ours having to listen to them) even going to conference to listen to them?”
What other opportunity do ordinary Mormons have to say that they think the church is going in the wrong direction?
Ken. There are many things you do not sustain on this blog. Should we assume you are disagreeing to be a pain in the ass?
“What other opportunity do ordinary Mormons have to say that they think the church is going in the wrong direction”
As I said, they can just quit going to something they don’t believe anymore. That is my whole point.
MH,
This is a blog, which is the proper place to discuss opposing views. General conference is the place for faithful LDS to be replenished by the church leaders. It is not the place to pick a fight, which is exactly what they wanted out of thier objection. If they had sincere questions they would have done as President Uchtdorf suggested and would have taken it up with thier local leaders.
MH,
By the way, President Monson looks his age, but is still inspiring. No need to boot him out as you suggest!
#8 – perhaps Pres. Packer could use Lord Vader’s vocoder. As long as he can “smile and wave”, boys. I recall a FEW decades ago when Pres. Tanner gave a talk, and he could barely hold himself up, and though his (thankfully brief) talk, primarily a testimony, was very inspiring, it was obvious that he wasn’t long for this world. It’s painful when you see a celebrity or loved one struggling so…
Ability to speak in public isn’t necessarily a measure of an Apostle’s efficacy. And if one or more of the First Presidency are diminishing in vigor, another counselor can be appointed, as was done with McKay and Kimball. It might be said that in the three or so years that GBH was at first an ‘extra’ and then ‘second banana’ that he was in effect running the Church on SWK’s behalf, which would undoubtedly prepare him for his own thirteen-year tenure. The Lord knows what He’s doing with regard to ‘staffing’ issues.
#14 – I see your “snark” is in fine form. Allahu Akbar!
Ken, though most of the time I agree with you, I object to how you define Islam as a religion of “violence”. I’ve known many Muslims, especially in my Fresno State days, and most, while devout in their faith, had serious issue with the violence of the then-Ayatollah (Khomeini). Or do we care to explain Mountain Meadows?
Ken, you still didnt answer my question.
Ken, obviously YOU think it’s a waste of time for them to dissent. BUT THEY DON’T. Their opinion is what matters. I think your posts are a waste of time but that won’t stop you from writing them.
If you don’t like people dissenting, maybe you should take it up with your local leaders and suggest that the conductor not ask if there are any opposed.
Ken, I suggest you read the sections on “The Sustaining of Church Officers” from October 1977 and April 1988 GC, where President Tanner addresses the importance of acknowledging the dissent. (I only added one link because I think WordPress will kick it back on me if I add two. Let me know if you can’t find April 1988.)
Sorry. April 1978. Bonus – there’s the link!
Sorry for the multiple posts. Listen to the April ’78 citation, don’t just read it. In it, after sustaining President Kimball, President Tanner asks the ushers to pay attention and note if there were any dissenting votes and to let him know, as he had not seen any. That statement didn’t make it into the printed transcript.
New Iconoclast:
There are practices in the church that I don’t necessarily agree with and see a need for dissent in such cases. However, when you purposely plan to attend general conference just to oppose the presiding quorums, you have crossed a threshold.
If I were to reach that point, which I don’t see especially after the stellar performance, I would not waste my time going any longer. I have never agreed with the “I am opposed to what you believe approach”; rather, I tend to gravitate to strong conviction as expressed by Elder Holland for instance
The process of asking for a sustaining vote, though it may SEEM to be a mere formality and a show-piece, does have a legitimate function: IF those present know of a reason, which somehow might have eluded ‘divine inspiration’, why those proposed in their callings ought not to have been called, then they have opportunity to make their objection known and to discuss it (privately) with the relevant Church leaders. It’s as much to reassure the membership at large that their leaders aren’t being foisted upon them without consent as to act as a safeguard. Probably more so, since rarely does it seem that the safeguard is needed.
What objecting is certainly NOT intended for is to turn General Conference into a contentious spectacle or a forum for one’s personal dissent.
Methinks Paul the Apostle put it far better than I: (Ephesians 4:11-13)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the UNITY of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
The emphasis (hopefully not on the wrong syllable) is mine.
I posted on this topic at BCC this weekend: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/04/05/infinite-diversity-in-infinite-combinations-e-cook-ldsconf/
A few additional thoughts. Dissenting at General Conference is somewhat pointless (why didn’t we get a dissenting vote when George P. Lee was sustained to the 70??), but if pointless things were banned from the conference center, there would be less than 8 hours of content. Also, expressing dissent while remaining engaged is perhaps better than those who silently dissent and slowly disengage, right?
Ken says: There are practices in the church that I don’t necessarily agree with and see a need for dissent in such cases. However, when you purposely plan to attend general conference just to oppose the presiding quorums, you have crossed a threshold.
The beauty of a church professing a belief in free agency and run on the principle of common consent is that you don’t get to define other peoples’ thresholds. Only your own. To think otherwise is to exercise, or desire to exercise, unrighteous dominion.
Hawkgirl/Iconoclast:
I found what they did to be a waste of time and I would not do it if I felt the leadership had gone astray. I would also not waste my time letting in JW’s who knock at my door; or, I wouldn’t waste my time going to an Obama rally.
I have never said they don’t have the right to dissent, I simply said it is a waste of time in my opinion.
#43 – unless you’ve got something wherein the late George P. Lee was doing the bad things he was found guilty of (which seems to be part of the reason he was ex’ed which understandably the Church did NOT want to publicize) prior to his appointment as a Seventy, it’s pointless. Who knew, and when did they know it? I’m sure the young lady he victimized (now in her late ’30s) might have appreciated someone coming forth back in 1975 (when appointed as one of the youngest GAs ever) if the man had that issue at the time! I’d like to hope that even then the Church was thorough in evaluating prospects for appointment to a GA position, but some 36 years of membership has taught me that even the ‘Big Boyz’ pull some real ‘boners’. Surely the Brethren learned from that fiasco.
Somehow, the Savior gets His work done anyway, in spite of have men (literally) in charge on this 3rd rock from the Sun. I never said that female ordination was a BAD idea, just not revealed as His will at the moment.
Ken,
You keep saying you think it’s a waste of time and you wouldn’t do what they did. No offense but…SO WHAT? Obviously these members aren’t like you. They didn’t think it was a waste of time. They aren’t the types to just stop attending. They wanted to make a statement, they made it. Their view, that it was not a waste of time, is relevant. Your view, that it was a waste of time, is not relevant.
The church has thought this through, and they want to ask if any are opposed, so it’s on the church if you don’t like it, not these respectful dissenters. They didn’t interrupt someone’s talk, they didn’t try to cause a huge, crazy stir. They respectfully said opposed when Uchtdorf asked if any were opposed. What threshold did they cross? Some vague, arbitrary irrelevant threshold in your mind?
LDS_Aussie: Not here in the West. Our Stake Presidency actively encourages us to watch (and rewatch) conference in our own time and goes out of its way to make it clear the screenings at the Stake Centre are “for convenience and tradition’s sake only”
Also I think Monson and Packer are simply seeing who can last the longest.
We seem to have the perception that if we do stuff that causes inconvenience or suffering that it is somehow counting for our eternal progression. Going to the stake centre or chapel to watch conference is certainly in that vein. I think that is one if those villages E Uchtdorf was talking about.
Ken, I think your disagreement here is a waste of time, and not only are you a pain in the ass, you are an ass.
But still we let you post your disagreement here. I pretty much sustain nothing of what you post, except “Go Utes!” Should we encourage you to go to another blog where you can talk in an echo chamber like they do in General Conference, or should we continue your right to be an ass in your disagreement? (Note you were the one that introduced “ass” into the conversation, not me, but I suspect you aren’t all that fond of the characterization when it becomes personally targeted at yourself.)
MH,
Thank you for your kind words.
No Problem Ken. I’m just reflecting the love you shared in comments 29, 21, and 27. Ain’t it grand?