An evangelical live-blogs General Conference — Saturday Afternoon Session

Alright, session #2 is gonna start in a few minutes. I pulled a Britney Spears this afternoon by driving to McDonald’s with my two-year-old on my lap pretending she could drive. Yay me.
BTW, my sincerest congratulations go out to Elder Neil Linden Andersen on his new calling of apostle. I know he doesn’t read this blog, but it’s a big job and I wish him the best.
Alright, Uchtdorf-Your-Mom is conducting! You know, he is kind of handsome for an old dude. I see now why all of the elderly LDS chicks dig him.
No MoTab this time. Every time I get to watch MoTab sing I start looking for Dr. Huntsman, and I feel like I’m playing Where’s Waldo.
I have to say, whatever choir this is for this session, it sounds really good.
No, don’t sustain BKP! Sigh. He scares me.
M. Russell Ballard, right on! Time for a talk indirectly aimed at evangelicals.
Oh, nm. I thought Ballard was up. Okay, Robert W. Cantwell is speaking now. Oh it’s some kind of boring financial report.
Now Brook P. Hales is speaking. Another Hales. I forgot whom my Hales was named after.
BALLARD TIME!
Hmm… this Ballard talk seems pretty neutral so far. Or is there some insinuation against evangelicals I’m missing?
“The boundaries of good taste and public decency are being pushed to the point…” Yeah, you know, I’m probably at least partially responsible for that. Sorry about that.
Oh, Katie has corrected me, it’s Holland who gives talks aimed at evangelicals. My bad.
Now we’re on to Quentin L. Cook.
He’s talking about people (I assume traditional Christians) having a hard time accepting that there could be prophets and apostles on the earth today. Personally that was never a problem for me, in fact I found it quite attractive. I just never bought what the alleged apostles and prophets were saying.
“Our doctrine towards other churches has been to refrain from criticism,” el oh el.
So, I guess if I’m getting this right Cook’s criticizing the rest of Christianity for (1) Not being open to the notion of prophets and apostles, and (2) believing in eternal hell. I kind of liked a saying I read over at aquinas’s blog recently, it went something like: “Well, the Bible says there’s a hell so I guess I have to believe it exists. But I can always hope that it’s empty.”
Okay, I missed this guy’s name ‘cuz I was tabbed. I’ll post it when they put it on screen again. Kevin W. Pearson is speaking.
Doubt leads to discouragement. Discouragement leads to fear. Fear leads to hate. Hatred leads to the Dark Side…
You know, I’ve long considered myself a “doubting Thomas Christian,” and I’m okay with that.
Rafael E. Pino up now. I immediately thought of Antonio Banderas when he began speaking and his cover of “Livin’ La Vida Loca” from Shrek 2 popped into my head. I guess that probably makes me racist or something.
What a sad story!
Okay, this is Richard G. Scott I think? And he’s gonna talk about how great temples are.
On that note, thanks again to Brian and Rob for talking with me about temples. I’m still a little bit of a phobe, but not a huge one. I think it’s an improvement in my world view.
Hmm… there’s a lot I could say about this talk, but I genuinely don’t like snarking about LDS temple business. So sorry if I’m more boring than usual right now.
Wow. He’s not a talented public speaker, but I am impressed by Elder Scott’s heartfelt sincerity as he tells these stories. My daughter’s surgeries weren’t nearly as serious but they were still hard to sit through, and a lot of kids with my daughter’s condition (VCFS) do need serious heart surgeries.
I’m also noticing some level of emphasis on children being born in the covenant at this conference.
Ah, Elder Russell M. Nelson. I don’t think I have any feelings about him good or bad.
You know why I thought it was Ballard who does the anti-evangelical talks? When I first attended General Conference in October 1999, Ballard gave the anti-evangelical talk that year and it was called “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers.” Ruffled my feathers good and proper it did.
My husband is asleep again.
Well, I guess that’s it. Thanks for hanging out with me everyone. I’ll try to do this tomorrow, too.

Comments

An evangelical live-blogs General Conference — Saturday Afternoon Session — 68 Comments

  5. And since we’re discussing fashion and we’re equal-opportunity critics, I have to say that Uchtdorf’s suit-and-tie looks much sharper than Monson’s.
  12. I don’t think so. I’ve heard many historians say that “the Dark Ages” isn’t really a fair term for it and there was plenty of learning and growth during that era.
    There certainly could have been some spiritual falling away. Evangelicals aren’t adverse to partial apostasy, just full apostasy.
  13. BKP has been unfairly vilified and quoted completely out of context for just about 20 years now. He scares you because his enemies went “booga!” at you.
  20. You can try, Jack, but I’m already familiar with all the quotes and the events surrounding the September Six. BKP is anachronistic to me, but not frightening.
  21. Are you familiar with BKP’s under-the-table campaign to keep women from giving the opening prayer at Sacrament meeting? There was a discussion of it at T&S recently.
  23. Looks like Quentin L. Cook is the one this conference to throw down the gauntlet at the rest of Christianity.
  24. BKP obviously lost that campaign. The reason he’s not frightening is that nothing he does can stick unless 14 other people (1st Pres. and the rest of the 12) consent to it.
  25. I don’t get how anyone could say that translations calling hell eternal are mistranslations. The exact same Greek words which describe hell as eternal also describe heaven as eternal. If hell isn’t eternal we have no reason to believe heaven will be.
    Personally though, I’ve never been into the notion of hell as a dark torture chamber where you get strung up on a rack or stuck into a furnace for eternity. I believe in the C.S. Lewis version of hell: people who don’t want to be with God will get what they want, to be left to themselves and make the best of what they find there. And what they’ll find there is hell.
  26. Yeah, I was just thinking that, Seth.
    Rob, the thread at T&S is here, and Kevin Barney had a post at BCC explaining why he thinks it came from Packer. He’s been at least partially successful with it.
  28. I understand that, Katie. My friend Laura and I have discussed it a bit here. My own feelings towards humanity are rather dark and it’s never bothered me much. It doesn’t really amaze me that people eternally go to hell, it amazes me that anyone at all gets eternally saved.
    As evangelicals go, some are annihilationists and believe that people who go to hell eventually cease to exist. And some believe that people will get another chance to accept the gospel in the millennium.
  29. I liked C.S. Lewis’s vision of Hell in “The Great Divorce.” It was his view of heaven that creeped me out.
  30. Jack, You are cracking me up today:)
    Oh and Hell is Eternal. Even in Mormonism. Read D&C 19 again when you get the chance.
  35. It’s okay Neil, if you don’t switch IPs then your gravatar symbol will stay the same and I’ll know it’s you.
    I enjoyed The Great Divorce a lot as well.
    I definitely think righteousness stems from faith, Katie.
  38. /agree
    From Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 4…
    HARMONY: Is Antonio Banderas a vampire?
    SPIKE: No.
    HARMONY: Can I make him a vampire?
    SPIKE: No. On second thought, yes. Go do that. Take your time. Do Melanie and the kids as well.
  45. No. About 60% of kids with VCFS have major heart problems. My daughter seems to have dodged that bullet altogether.
    She’s had two surgeries, one to repair a cleft palate and one to repair an umbilical hernia. Both minor as surgeries go, but still. I’m 27 years old and I’ve never had a surgery.
  46. i’m very glad to hear she dodged the bullet. but I can’t imagine my daughter having to be in surgery. I get worried enough when she has a cold. :( scary times.
  47. my husband fell asleep too. all my comments have been lower case because i’ve been typing on my palm so I could hide it from him. totally unnecessary as it turns out.
  51. You had a couple of posts over at HI4LDS with your picture in the avatar, but that’s the only blog where I’ve seen it, which is weird. Usually it’s universally set.
  53. What’s your Twitter ID, Rob?
    Yeah, I don’t know what was wrong. I messed it up. I’ll try and go back in and fix it sometime. (Now I’m back on my computer…)
  54. I saw a guy bring his girlfriend to Priesthood session in the Marriott Center a few years back.
    My dad was disapproving.
  56. Missed this session—it’s 52+ F outside and totally sunny for the first time in weeks, so I took all the kids to the playground (my wife is at work). I’ll have to watch it tonight after priesthood session.
    btw, Jack, “mpressed by Elder Scott’s heartfelt sincerity”. Elder Scott = sincere. He’s usually pretty light on doctrine, scriptures, etc., but his heart is the size of a small planet.
  57. Seth your dad sounds scarily traditional. What does he think of your bizarre beliefs that there should be eternal polyandry and reform to the priesthood system with women?
    Can’t blame you there, Brian. We took Harley to the park in between sessions.
    And now that she’s down for a nap, I think I’m gonna take a walk and have some me time. Swinging on the swings at the park is one of my favorite things in the world to do.
    See you guys, it was fun.
  58. My Twitter ID is @OobieBinoobie. Someday I may explain that, but that day is not today. Plus, I just signed up two minutes ago.
  59. You need to get your husband to sneak video into the Priesthood session so you can continue your commentary.
  60. Heh. I didn’t think my commentary was that great.
    If people really like it, maybe in the fall I’ll speak with Paul’s bishop and see if I can’t get special permission to sit in on the Priesthood session with a laptop or something.
  61. Jack:
    I reread the talk you disliked so much in the past. While it is logically possible to think Ballard was including non-Mormons in the following paragraph, I’m much more apt to look into the entire context of the talk. That is “the wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Those within the church that are trying to change the church against what God has ordained because of their own philosphies and understanding. Of course, since you hsve publicly stated you want to change Mormons so that Mormons can change the church, I could see some possible animosity. I still prefer this to be a talk to church members about church members.
    “False prophets and false teachers are those who declare that the Prophet Joseph Smith was a duplicitous deceiver; they challenge the First Vision as an authentic experience. They declare that the Book of Mormon and other canonical works are not ancient records of scripture. They also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead, and they deny that God has given and continues to give revelation today to His ordained and sustained prophets.”
    On a related note: it is quite apparent to me that we do have false teachers in the church who are doing exactly what Elder Ballard warned us of:
    “False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.” Behold the apostasy of men.
    Jack, other than the first paragraph, is there anything else out of that talk we could about?
  62. “What does he think of your bizarre beliefs that there should be eternal polyandry and reform to the priesthood system with women?”
    Jack, I’ll thank you not to mention that to him if you ever meet him. Hopefully he’ll die peacefully at a ripe old age never having discovered my crime-fighting alter-ego.
  63. MadChemist ~ You have to remember that I heard this talk in person, when I was 17 and not completely familiar with church vernacular, so when I heard him say “However, I reiterate: there are false prophets and false teachers who have or at least claim to have membership in the Church. There are those who, without authority, claim Church endorsement to their products and practices,” I didn’t interpret it as a reference to internal struggles in the LDS church at the time. I couldn’t hear him capitalizing “church,” and all Christians do claim membership in Christ’s church, so I understood the entire talk as directed at the Christian world.
    There’s also this paragraph before the one that you quoted:
    We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world. . . . And the moment that individuals look to any other source, that moment they throw themselves open to the seductive influences of Satan, and render themselves liable to become servants of the devil; they lose sight of the true order through which the blessings of the Priesthood are to be enjoyed; they step outside of the pale of the kingdom of God, and are on dangerous ground. Whenever you see a man rise up claiming to have received direct revelation from the Lord to the Church, independent of the order and channel of the Priesthood, you may set him down as an imposter
    Protestants and other Christians do claim their truth as having come from sources outside the LDS priesthood, so I think this can be seen as directed at most of the Christian world as well.
    This is definitely the talk that set me off. I’d read you my journal entry, but um… it’s mean. I was still hazing my way out of anti-Mormonism back then.
    Re-reading it now though, I can see how it was probably more directed at liberal factions within the church. I don’t recall any other talks bothering me that year, so maybe there wasn’t an anti-other-Christian talk that session.
    I’ll probably take a more careful look at Quentin Cook’s talk once the text is available.
    Seth ~ I can’t think of an excuse to meet you in person in the near future, let alone your father, so I think your secret’s safe with me.
    Man though… your dad’s in for a shock when he gets to the other side of the veil and finds out what you’re really like.
  64. My dad is well aware of what I’m really like. He just doesn’t know the details. I have tried to bring up some of my ideas with him before, but it didn’t tend to end well. Now he and I have reached an silent understanding that the “controversies” are not going to be much-discussed between us.
    So basically, he knows I’m up to something. But he figures he’s happier not knowing exactly what. I’m just as happy with him not knowing as well.
    He really is a nice guy and an absolutely doting grandfather. He did well by us kids. Not perfect, but more than good enough in my book. He’s also a great resource for canonical and semi-canonical LDS source material. He’s one of those “scriptorians” in the classic LDS sense.
    Love him to death. But not everything you do with your adult life can necessarily be shared with your parents.
  65. Jack, the talk you heard referred directly to trends within Church membership. Mormons were advertising to other Mormons with implications that “the Brethren” approved of this or that symposium, historical viewpoint, what else have you. They wanted it clear that the general Church doctrine and practice comes from the general Church leadership, not people who don’t have responsibilities in the hierarchy.
    It was internal stuff (from the perspective of a teenaged evangelical outsider) and used internal vernacular, etc.
  66. Jack,
    Thanks for reminding me of your own context behind reading the talk. That makes total sense.
    Rob, thank you bringing up more of the context that I was only slightly aware of. It would be great to have a historical introduction to conference talks the way we have section headings to the D&C to help contextualize these things.
    Jack,
    I am somewhat confused by one statement though, which I think would be good to explore just so I know what you mean by it. When I read the excerpt that you included, in my Mormon viewpoint, the Bible was automatically included. Do you recognize that? Or is there something I’m missing? If we interpret Elder Ballards saying to Mormons “We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel” through Evangelical eyes, we would view the appointed channel as the BAHBLE. I’m sure you’d be shocked and horrified to learn there were Evangelicals who were claiming canonical, normative status of things not located in the bible, right? That’s kind of what I’d expect. If I’m wrong let me know. That doesn’t mean we don’t learn truth from other sources, but it does mean it’s not authoritative or canonical. I mean, the pythagorean theorem may be true, but it’s not gospel truth. I just think, back then, and even now, there’s more that you’re reading into the text than was intended. That fact has major implications, because it’s something that every Mormon, every Christian, and every human does.
    For a quote that can be used as a denounciation of creedel Christianity: continue reading. Of course, there are some important things to talk about in this quote.
    How Wide the Divide 161 — Stephen Robinson
    In Joseph Smith’s first vision, the statement that all existing denominations are “wrong” is not an aspersion on the character of their members. These churches are not “depraved,” “corrupt” or “Abominations.”
    They are just wrong–and therefore not the Lord’s one true church. Despite the impassion received by Prof. Blomberg, Joseph Smith’s History says nothing to the effect that the religious worship of other Christians is “all a hypocritical pretense.” It does say that their creeds are an abominations, but this is because creeds are philosophical idols created by human minds, imposed upon the Scriptures and then revered as God’s word in place of God’s Word. Those who believe such creeds are not “abominable.” They are just wrong.
    However, those who offer these intellectual idols to their hearers as the word of God (in Joseph’s words, “their (the creeds’) professors” are corrupt when ”they teach for doctrines the commandments of men.” If they would just stick to the Bible without filtering it through the creeds-and many do-they still would not have all the truth, but they would not be “abominable” or “corrupt” either. There is no insult here to non-LDS Christians who believe the Bible and refrain from dragging in the philosophers and theologians as equal or…
    BTW, I’m stupid when it comes to this stuff…How does one make a quote appear as a block quote, and how does one insert a link that someone can click on? Thanks for tolerating my ignorance of HTML.
  67. HTML Tutorial
    <blockquote>This is how to do quotes</blockquote>
    This is how to do quotes
    <strong>This is how to bold your text</strong>
    <em>This is how to italicize your text</em>
    <strike>This is how to strike through your text</strike>
    <a href=”http://www.putlinkhere.com”>Put the http:// web address in the quotation marks</a> for alink
    I’ll get back to your comment after conference, MadChemist.
  68. The Pythagorean theorem is a description of the holy and eternal relationship of Three, Four, Five, Twelve, Thirty, Sixty, Ninety, and One Hundred Eighty.
    See how there’s a “Twelve” in there? How many apostles did Jesus have? YUP. That’s right, TWELVE. Thus proving the Pythagorean Theorem!
    Or something. (Should I go away now?) ;-p
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity