General Conference Notes

By: wheatmeister
April 1, 2012

David Archuleta with the MTC choir at General Conference

David Archuleta made a cameo appearance in the MTC choir on Saturday.  Julie Beck was released as General Relief Society President, and H. David Burton was released as Presiding Bishop.  Other than that, there wasn’t a lot of controversy.  Will there be any statements condemning Randy Bott’s racism or holocaust genealogy? I doubt it.  What are your impressions of yesterday’s conference, or today’s?

Tags: , , , , , ,

17 Responses to General Conference Notes

  1. Stephen M (Ethesis) on April 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

    Priesthood session was powerful.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  2. Mormon Heretic on April 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    I may have to listen/read the transcript on the Christofferson talk on defining doctrine. It sounds like something quite interesting.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  3. Mike S on April 1, 2012 at 1:29 PM

    So far I’ve really enjoyed conference. A few random opinions:

    - President Monson’s talk today on perspective was one of the best he’s given in a long time.

    - I really liked the encouragement given to single parents and the acceptance that we are not all “typical” families

    - I liked the separation of the gospel from the church (echoes of Poelman’s edited talk) and where people look at outward “activity” in the Church as important, where the more important is the inward spirituality.

    - I generally really like Elder Nelson’s talks, but hated this one.

    - More later

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  4. prometheus on April 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM

    Lots of great stuff:

    - receiving personal revelation
    - stop judging each other
    - the priesthood is not a club to be used to demand obedience
    - the purpose of the RS is still misunderstood by RS and Priesthood alike
    - repent because it is never, ever too late to come home
    - inclusion of single moms *and* single dads

    Stuff I didn’t like:

    - the smug portrayal of our righteousness (reminded me at times of the Pharisee praising God that he is not like other men)
    - the anti-science and anti-intellectual jabs
    - honestly, the excessive praise of President Monson seemed to go wayyyy overboard at times
    - some other bits that maybe I am reading too much into

    Overall, I liked more than I disliked. Saturday morning in particular was great.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  5. [...] family members and think about what they’re learning? I hear the high point was a celebrity in the choir (and ladies’ favorite apostle). If you skipped it, it’s not hard to guess what was said [...]

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  6. Mormon Heretic on April 1, 2012 at 10:11 PM

    I know that Julie Beck wasn’t a favorite among feminists for her “Women Who Know” talk. Is anyone celebrating her release?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  7. prometheus on April 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    In the last couple of years, President Beck has given some amazing talks. Maybe I am reading between the lines too much in what she said, but I think her focus on the history of RS is a great big hint that we need to look back before we can look forward – reconnecting with pure Mormonism, as it were.

    In any case, she was a strong leader and a good speaker, and I, for one, will miss her.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  8. hawkgrrrl on April 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM

    “I know that Julie Beck wasn’t a favorite among feminists for her “Women Who Know” talk. Is anyone celebrating her release?” Yes, she is!

    Actually, I know that a lot of the feminists are nervous about the new presidency – not a lot of college degrees in the group (elementary education only?), all are from an older generation (grandkids), and all have at least 5 children – one has 13! I think there’s a worry that they will not be very progressive on women’s issues.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  9. Mike S on April 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM

    #2 MormonHeretic: I may have to listen/read the transcript on the Christofferson talk on defining doctrine. It sounds like something quite interesting.

    It sounded interesting when he started, but was very disappointing. I’ll need to read it when available, but here’s the jist of what I got out of it:

    - Because of revelation, the Church leaders reserve the right to change doctrine at any time (makes sense – used examples from Bible of Peter’s dream and taking gospel to gentiles in addition to Jews, etc)

    - Revelation may come from visitation to feeling to inspiration with study (pretty reasonable – nothing new here)

    - Church doctrine is therefore defined by
    Church leaders’s statements (that’s how we find out what the revelation is)

    - But all of the statements that leaders say shouldn’t be taken as doctrine, because sometimes they are just speaking their opinion

    And that was pretty much the talk – as clear as mud. Essentially – doctrine is what we say it is and may change, but you won’t really know what’s truly doctrine vs opinion until later when/if another church leader says that that was just someone’s opinion and this is really what is really doctrine, at least until another church leader comes along at some point and says that this was really my opinion.

    I was actually quite disappointed with the talk. I was hoping for an actual definition about how we could actually define our doctrine – how can we know which things said in THIS general conference were someone’s well-thought out opinion vs actual doctrine received through revelation. There is still no mechanism to distinguish between the two.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  10. Andrew S. on April 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    It would be interesting to employ Christofferson’s talk on Nelson’s science comments.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  11. Mormon Heretic on April 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    Thanks Mike–that’s kind of what I thought. I must say that I have little kids, and I don’t pay attention very well when they’re being noisy.

    Hawk, so you’re saying the new pres could be worse than Sister Beck? Does that mean we should be careful of what we wish for? Because I know a lot didn’t seem to like her.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  12. Mike S on April 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    #10 Andrew S: It would be interesting to employ Christofferson’s talk on Nelson’s science comments.

    I agree. They were my two least favorite talks of conference. It is ironic that Elder Nelson (a surgeon) gave the most anti-science and anti-intellectual talk I have heard in a long time.

    I hate the flawed analogy that us coming from the Big Bang is the same as an explosion in a printing shop creating some text. It shows either a profound misunderstanding of basic scientific principles or else a willful ignoring of them.

    It is sad that we have so few scientists in the upper leadership of the Church anymore (being mostly businessmen and lawyers), and when we do have one, he gives such an anti-science diatribe.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  13. Heber13 on April 2, 2012 at 10:57 AM

    I like the message that unrighteous dominion was not just about priesthood holders who don’t understand their calling, which is often what I hear, but it was a practical application to all, including parents, that any use of coercion or authority to take away a child’s right to decide and make mistakes is not the plan of God.

    Good messages in this Conference about not judging and seeking Christ.

    Some things I tuned out, but I think more good than not so good, IMO.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  14. hawkgrrrl on April 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM

    The Nelson anti-science talk is extremely disappointing.

    MoHer, there’s always a limited pool for RS presidencies anyway. For every Chieko Okazaki, there are 10 Becks waiting in the wings. I’m only reporting chatter from feminists. Maybe it will be a pleasant surprise. You can’t judge a book by its cover, but it might make you wary of picking it up to read it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  15. Pool on April 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    I don’t think E’ Nelson’s talk was necessarily “anti-science”. Perhaps he was just talking about the quantum leap that’s taken with scientific discoveries that “prove” there is no God simply because it can be explained how something happened. Besides, he’s a doctor- I don’t think that one part of this one talk qualifies him as “anti-science.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  16. Chino Blanco on April 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    I got two phone calls from TBM family after this GC, which I’m assuming was because they needed to check off their “be nicer to apostates” box. Too bad Dieter didn’t give his talk twenty years ago, my parents might not have disowned me. Oh well. I’ll take whatever small kindnesses my TBM kin are now willing to throw my way, regardless of their motivation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  17. Peter Ventura on April 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    Elder Wilson’s talk was very unwise. As much as the premise of teaching our children to be spiritually independent is correct, his example didn’t show the principle. The spirit didn’t teach his daughter anything or she wasn’t listening. There was no comment on her age (13? . . 19?)and if she had won or lost the game (pertinent as if she had lost; of course she was miserable). You don’t allow your children to violate one of the 10 commandments because he, as the parent, failed to analyze the schedule and decide ahead of time if the daughter would need to play on Sunday. So how did the spirit teach? She felt bad but that was because she probably lost the game (he didn’t comment but my guess is he would have). So now you have struggling parents abdicating true parenting for “I am allowing my child to learn what to do by the spirit”. This doesn’t even address cultural differences. Other cultures are so much more involved with their children than the western anglo.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting

Archives

%d bloggers like this: