Can I ask (and I'm not being an *** this-time) if you think the position of the LDS church sets up any "salvation-seeking" GLBT person to fail in that goal of obtaining salvation (as dictated by the doctrine of the LDS chuch)?
General Conference - Fall 2010
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Can I ask (and I'm not being an *** this-time) if you think the position of the LDS church sets up any "salvation-seeking" GLBT person to fail in that goal of obtaining salvation (as dictated by the doctrine of the LDS chuch)?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I just knew that some angry fallen away member or ignorant critic who refers to the media for their facts on the lds church was going to hijack the thread. I actually did think that of Katie wanting to spread her hateful opinions on gay marriage and the LDS church. Glad that I was confirmed.... Unfortunately, I'm more interested in what people thought about General Conference than reading the 222nd thread discussing this subject.
Katie, you're not going to change anyone's opinion. You have yours and they have theirs. In fact, has anyone's opinion on this subject been changed on this message board... Ever?
Katie, you're not going to change anyone's opinion. You have yours and they have theirs. In fact, has anyone's opinion on this subject been changed on this message board... Ever?
CONAN
Well-Known Member
This has been brought up before and it is true to a point. Most families I know (including ours) have gone to the "Late-Nights" instead of sleepovers. Kids hangout til late and then go home.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Dude, you're way out of line, in my opinion. I haven't found Katie to be ignorant or hateful in this thread; in fact she's been quite reasonable. When others challenged her on her use of the word "hate," she took a step back, considered things, even watched the speech. Then she said she was wrong to use the word hate, but stuck with her assessment that it is still hurtful to LDS acronym'd-up youth.
That is a perfect example of reasonable conversation and being willing to take other points into consideration.
Did you even read this thread before jumping in here to pile on?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I couldn't disagree more. Katie did take a step back, but only after being called out and asking her to explain her reasoning. She came into the thread, ignorant about what Packer said (hadn't listened to the talk) and was claiming he was hateful and his speech was a message of "hate". The definition of "hate" is strongly disliking something. If you were to ask Katie is she strongly dislikes the LDS church, what do you think her response would be?
Would it be reasonable of me if I went into _________ (insert religion of your choice) pointing fingers at them and calling them hateful because of their beliefs on morality?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I liked the talk by the guy that sounded like Count Dracula.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
What's more important, a person's initial overreaction to something, or the fact that they listened with reason to the opposition and then, in fairness, adjusted their tune? For me it's the latter.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Same. The one about scorpions.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I agree, but your original point was you didn't find Katie to ignorant or hateful in this thread.
Last edited:
I liked the one where everyone started busting up laughing at the speaker's "stupid cow" who ate itself to death, followed by said speaker holding back tears as he expressed what a difficult moment that was.
Seems to me that the "applause", "laughter", and "reverence" signs in the conference center need to be tweaked.
Seems to me that the "applause", "laughter", and "reverence" signs in the conference center need to be tweaked.
What was funny, is I slept-over at one of my friend's house in Park City to watch conference along with a bunch of other people, so we got a kick out of that when it was brought up.
I'm in college, so it's not like my life is not one huge sleepover to begin with, but that was just kind of coincidental.
I think that is a very valid observation though. I know I was introduced to some stuff at sleepovers in my youth-- and did some introducing myself. It also protects children, you may trust the parents of your kid who is sleeping over, but do you trust the uncle from out of town who was "just stopping by." I was introduced to far more other things at concerts, so I wonder if the church will take a stand against those in the near future (I'm not being cynical, just making an observation).
CONAN
Well-Known Member
I noticed that as well. It amazes me how quickly the speakers will go from humor to serious stuff. That guy was kind of hard to listen to when he'd get choked up.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
No question a lot of bad stuff for me went down at sleepovers.
As a parent now I am more concerned with the dangers of my girls sleeping over somewhere else (like you said with the uncle). But they are getting older so now it's getting to be less an issue of safety and more an issue of what are they doing. There's a balance in there somewhere that doesn't intrude too much on their agency.
I'm by no means a Sean Hannity fan, but he said something once that stuck with me. It was regards to day-care, but I think the same applies to sleep-overs: (paraphrased) "Is the day-care leader [i.e. parent, for this application] the type of person and the establishment [home] the type of place where you could leave $1 million in cash in a bag, and come back 8 hours later to pick it up with not a dollar missing?" If I can answer yes to that question, I might consider letting my daughters do a sleepover at someone else's house. Otherwise, why would I trust my child (infinitely more valuable than $1 million) to a person/place where I wouldn't trust my cash?
I think each prophet put his own personal stamp on how business is conducted even though they all speak to the same god.
When Benson was in charge I could watch conference as the speakers would inject humour into their talks which made them so much more enjoyable to listen to. Once Benson died and Hunter took over he took a firm stance that conference was to be solemn and reverent and not a place of laughter and joking. The talks were to be serious and devoid of humour. Conference became unbearable to watch. Once Hinckley took over it went back to being more enjoyable. And it wasn't just conference. It was extended to all church meetings.
Did God all of the sudden decide the laughter and humour were bad when Benson passed? Did he decide that once Hunter died laughter and humour were a good thing again? I don't think so. This was strictly an individual injecting his own beliefs into how things should be done.
I have some strong feelings on personal beliefs directing what the Word of Wisdom has evolved into over the years but we'll leave that for another conversation.
Fact is, these men of god are still men and have a personal opinion that dictates how things are done outside of what god would necessarily want.
When Benson was in charge I could watch conference as the speakers would inject humour into their talks which made them so much more enjoyable to listen to. Once Benson died and Hunter took over he took a firm stance that conference was to be solemn and reverent and not a place of laughter and joking. The talks were to be serious and devoid of humour. Conference became unbearable to watch. Once Hinckley took over it went back to being more enjoyable. And it wasn't just conference. It was extended to all church meetings.
Did God all of the sudden decide the laughter and humour were bad when Benson passed? Did he decide that once Hunter died laughter and humour were a good thing again? I don't think so. This was strictly an individual injecting his own beliefs into how things should be done.
I have some strong feelings on personal beliefs directing what the Word of Wisdom has evolved into over the years but we'll leave that for another conversation.
Fact is, these men of god are still men and have a personal opinion that dictates how things are done outside of what god would necessarily want.
If God wanted to, he could just be here running the show himself. He does things for a reason. Even the best of men are still just men. It would be pointless if they were complete puppets. You could probably trace differences within the culture of the church, prophet by prophet, if you felt so inclined.
You and I could probably have a 6 hour discussion on the WoW, Marcus.
Discussing such topics as the relative advantages of Orc characteristics versus those of Dwarves?