Posted on October 3, 2010 by Chris HenrichsenSunday AM Session Open Thread: Where We Learn That FlipFlops and not secularists are undermining morality. Two more to go. Please play nice. Disagreement is allowed. Rude is not. I really enjoyed the Priesthood session. I am looking forward to the rest of Conference.
78 Replies to “Sunday AM Session Open Thread: Where We Learn That FlipFlops and not secularists are undermining morality.”
I’ll just start by saying that I’m glad Elder Uchtdorf is conducting the session. He’s so handsome.
a talk on religious pluralism?
If only we all had extra property just lying around that we could sell to get out of debt.
No kidding. But there is also the idea that we should get rid of it rather than keeping it for more profit.
The non-Mormon politician got a nice portrayal. There are many who seek after the common good who are beyond our numbers.
every time the camera focuses on the keys of the organ I think for a moment that we have a four-handed organist.
There have been a lot of President Benson references. I think this is partially because he focus on the idea of worldly evil. I do not agree with much of what he said, but there was also a lot of good stuff.
I love watching the organists at work. Very impressive.
Alright, the Family Proclamation. This is where the narrator and I will have to practice restraint.
Where was the non-Mormon mayor from? Did Eyring say?
What exactly is the definition of revelation that the Proclamation fulfills to be revelation?
I am not sure if he said. I had the impression that it was in Asia. Not sure if I am making that up.
Men are free to act for themselves unless they want to want to be gay married.
I am not aware of the typology of revalations.
For some reason, I had the impression that the mayor was from Taiwan–the comment about “harmony and prosperity” seemed to back that up. But I could be wrong.
I do not think the idea of agency leads to a libertarian view of all things. In a way, many of the arguments for marriage are friendly towards the idea of marriage for all.
Because the Church has moved away from the notion that sex is only for conception, I think we need to abandon the whole “power of procreation” rhetoric. From now on we should call it the “power of love.”
Satan is behind same sex attraction it seems.
It was a large city. So, Taiwan would be possible.
I agree with the argument against porn, though mostly for virtue/feminist theory reasons.
I’ve had the thought that, since we no longer maintain that birth control is wrong, it’s time to abandon the teaching that “delaying” child-bearing is necessarily wrong.
So gay couples aren’t happy? Aren’t they better judges of that than, well, anybody else?
1. Any relationship that aren’t in line with the teachings of the gospel are wrong.
2. The gospel teaches that we should be married in the temple.
3. All non-temple marriages are wrong.
#22 they seem to be quite gay
We should likely talk about the considerations that go into virtue.
Laws already permit immorality. The First Amendment permits one to say hateful things, for instance.
The Church recently gave support to loosening alcohol laws in Utah. Pack must have not been happy.
@28–He probably wasn’t.
The funning thing about going after the “vote” is that popular anti-gay sentiment is the main friend of the anti-gay-marriage cause.
Kittens are destroying families. Hopefully now my wife will stop bugging me about getting a cat.
This is very difficult for me. Is it difficult for anyone else? I don’t want to be mean, but I desire validation.
I am okay with restricting alcohol. It is not central to the pursuit of ones conception of the good.
You are validated!
@BiV–Yes, that was a difficult talk for many of us.
I am getting in trouble for blogging. You all behave.
BKP = buzz kill
the Book of Mormon actually says very little of the Holy Ghost (as understood today)
the bom actually says very little about most of what passes for doctrine in our church today
#38 of the dozen or so “restored truths” in the GP manual, only one (no child-baptism) is found in the BofM
all of this talk of the iron rod is reminding me that i might argue in the next sunstone that lehi’s iron rod is not a hand rail, but is rather a divining rod
The Proclamation can be defined as revelation…possibly even canon at least according to the author of this article on the White Horse Prophecy: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf.
In this article, he shares that lds canon is put forth by first, the prophet introducing a revelation, then the quorom of the 12 voting in favor, and finally, bringing it forth for the church for a vote….hmm…now that I think about it I think Hinckley read the Proclamation in Relief Society meeting and it wasn’t voted on. Therefore, it can be defined as revelation, but not canon, or scripture.
What do ya’ll think?
Here comes a hefty dose of Mormon legalism.
#41 Except the the Proclamation was written by a committee and presented to the first presidency and 12, not the other way around.
#40, I always liked your interpretation of that…
I propose that we say “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!” whenever Oaks takes the stand.
#44 I wasn’t aware of a committee bringing it forward, etc. Where can you find more information on that?
Hard to believe that this wouldn’t pass as canon: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage…”
#47 I don’t recall where I learned it. Sorry.
“Those reject the notion of organized religion reject the master”
Was Paul talking about “organized religion”?
#46 Oaks is actually pretty cool in person. He came and visited our stake a month or so ago. He had a meeting with us where he let loose and kind of had an “open mic” discussion. He’s actually a funny and congenial guy. I had only seen him in conference and was under the impression he was very stern and legalistic…his conference talks are always so serious. It was refreshing to see his real personality.
Oaks needs to read biblical scholarship. There was no “organized” Christianity in the NT.
Take it easy, narrator.
#48 The Proclamation wasn’t brought forth though for a vote for the church to accept it as scripture so therefore it’s not canon.
Sorry. I’m just glad I have Elder Poelman’s (original) “The Church and the Gospel” to fall back on.
what? you expect our church leaders to study biblical scholarship. thats evil intellectualism.
I have wondered alot lately what the priesthood is. Is it really anything tangible and real like metachlorians or something. It seems to me that all miracles and power of God comes from faith independent of priesthood.
Priesthood seems to just be hierarchy or an almost corporate label in actual practice
Oaks’s talks always feel like reading the Church Handbook of Instruction.
#55 I’d vote for it as Sec 139
Pres Monson knows how to make me cry.
#60 – Really. I hear Joseph Smith in the Proclamation. Good stuff.
I loved President Monson’s pronunciation of Epictetus.
#62… except that Joseph Smith did not teach most of what is found in the Proclamation–particularly those aspects most often appealed to.
Chris, I’m grateful to you for making this thread.
#64 – Why would he have needed to?
#66 in order for him to be heard in the Proc.
Oh well. If the Proc became scripture it wouldn’t affect me much as I don’t hold the scriptures to be infallible either.
I am grateful that Monson usually focuses on stories of Christian living instead of Mormon legalism and doctrinal/moral authoritarianism.
Joseph Smith didn’t need to say those things in the 1840s. I admit that it reads like a committee wrote it – but perhaps I mean it is bold in the JS sense.
Loydo, I am proud of you for making that wonderfully positive concluding statement.
#70 ditto. when i was younger I wanted more doctrinal talks. Now Im convinced christian living is prob the best subject for these talks.
When I ushered for one of the Mission Presidents meetings at the MTC, Pres. Packer talked a bit about the creation of the Proclamation to the Family and how inspired its creation was. He talked about how every word was carefully reviewed by the brethren and that the process was so involved that even the amount of syllables and the intonation of each word was taken into account. The line “this word has too many syllables, this one not the right intonation,” lingers in my memory.
I’m not making any cases, just reporting.
#74, Well, that kind of careful attention to the number of syllables and intonation is simply good writing style. But it does indicate that the Brethren wanted the material to stand out as something important.
I suppose it is good to know that the Brethren carefully reviewed it, otherwise I might consider the decision to support Prop 8 to be merely the influence of one or two apostles.
In response to #42. The author of that poor article also states that Theodore Turley was a faithful member of the church until his death. Well, he was actually excommunicated around the time the White Horse prophecy was recorded. He had mercury poisoning and was certifiably crazy, claiming visions and revelations on behalf of the church. Probably shouldn’t rely on that author…
@42 I agree with the canon argument, but let’s not rely on Cobabe.
Yikes–I find it deeply distressing that anyone would approve of the prose style of the Proclamation. It’s ugly bureaucratic boilerplate. Prophets should write poetry (like Isaiah(s), Jeremiah, even Mormon and Moroni sometimes…).