General Conference Speculation Thread
Posted on March 27th, 2006 by Clark Goble
Well it is that time again. We all prepare to sit in front of our TVs to watch conference. The whole “bold exciting talk” syndrome has fallen in recent years since Pres. Hinkley doesn’t quite seem to have that singular topic like Pres. Benson used to. Yes, there are still the rumors about what “big change” there is afoot. Despite what some outsiders think of Mormon conservatism in theology, it seems most Mormons like to think that a big change is always just around the corner. Yes it rarely ever happens. The last big one was the creation of the second quorum of 70. And, all things considered, that really wasn’t that big a deal. Still already rumors are flying. Some no doubt created by pranksters who seem to truly enjoy this time of year. So what are your predictions? Will there be a current of commonality to the talks?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
84 Responses to “General Conference Speculation Thread”
Leave a Reply
Just to start things off. The things I’m expecting is the announcement of the French temple and discussion of issues of child abuse in church (i.e. the windows issue).
I also expect that fully 1/3 of talks will be nearly identical to talks given within the last 5 years. There will be 4 talks that basically just restate the easter story. There will be 1 talk that basically restates the Joseph Smith story. (I don’t necessarily mean that as a criticism - there are always talks for the rest of us who actually read our scriptures after all.)
mini-temples was a pretty big one. (it was preceded by Hinckley’s recap of the Hong Kong Temple dream and design)
the Perpetual Education Fund was not as big.
Elders Oaks and Holland being assigned to Chile/Phillipines was something new, but not revolutionary.
while not a big change in the same sense, two apostle vacancies was something to look forward to and speculate about.
two wild guesses:
1. i will venture they announce some change to the missionary program. nothing major like eliminating it or changing to polos/khakis. and nothing as mundane as pass-along cards. I think we’ll see something that seems new for the long-time ‘we’ve never done it that way [as long as I remember]’ crowd–like Apostles heading overseas. but nothing that would make non-SLC newspapers.
2. tue announcement that the Church is now giving bishops some sort of optional financial assistance. seems like they’ve been mulling that for a while.
My HT families and I always play a game like “guess how many temples will be announced”. The over/under this time around, by the way, is only 3.5.
As mentioned elsewhere, I predict a temple announcement for Vancouver.
I’ll take the under.
I’m wondering about something warning us about the evils of the internet that could reflect on things like the bloggernacle, but nothing specific.
Oh, and an anouncement that the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon are going to be translated - probably announce in the latter part of the Sunday session.
Oh, and China, and India, and the Middle East being opened to missionary work.
Oh, and families being encouraged to make a pilgrimage to Missouri.
Oh, and one of the temples announced will be the Jerusalem, Isreal temple.
But nothing really big.
Eric -
Haven’t you read Prophecy Key to the Future? First, they’ll call all the missionaries home and then the entire membership of the church to Salt Lake. That stuff you predicted is for October Conference.
I think that the only “Big Deal” will be that there isn’t one. We will be counciled and reminded about the same things we are always instructed about. Why, because none of us seems to get it right all of the time. We always seem to be looking for the “new thing” at the expense of the “old things” we already have been given council regarding. It will not be surprised if at some time there is a new “Big Deal” but it will not be until we have mastered the things we already need to be dealing with.
How about another temple for Happy Valley? Seems unfair that SL valley gets 4!
They could use one for the Provo area. Something closer than American Fork. Plus we actually use our temples out here. (grin)
Here’s one you can take to the bank: someone will mention pornography in Priesthood session.
Oh, ho, if somebody says something about windows in the classrooms in general conference, I am so going over to my stake president’s house and slap him. Because he has been mad at me ever since I wrote him an official letter asking him to do that.
Sorry you guys, but if they tell us to stop blogging, I will drop you like a hot rock.
Windows (not Microsoft’s) in the classroom, or even a “peephole” would preclude predators from depleting our tithing funds. Maybe even installing confessionals in Bishop’s Offices
They’ll talk about MySpace — prolly in the YW broadcast.
Some of the older apostles, including GBH, announce retirement as active apostles, abandoning the service to death tradition.
Mogget, the YW broadcast was last Saturday, so that one’s easy to speculate about ;-). I don’t think there was anything about MySpace or anything else internet related. They seemed to be the usual talks about young women becoming mothers and home being their primary responsibility.
Maybe I’ve become cynical over the years, but I predict that there will be nothing new. Ok, maybe a new temple or two and a few administrative changes, but that will be it. There will be the typical atonement talks that I’ve read and heard a million times over. Other than a decent joke from Pres. Hinckley, the Priesthood Session will sound pretty much the same- the anectodal talk by Elder Monson interspersed with lines from plays and poetry; the talk specifically addressed to the young men about morality; the evils of pornography.
The other sessions will be pretty much the same too. Joseph Smith, the Easter story, blah blah blah. All I need to do is listen to the news blurb about conference on KSL at ten.
Is it just me, or does it seem like conference is a re-run every time? We haven’t been thrown any red meat for a long while now.
Frankly, there is a lot in this life that I’m concerned about and I’d love to be able to take something away from conference that might help me with those things. I’m concerned about the state of the world, the state of the country, bird flu, the never-ending war in the Middle East. To be honest with y’all, with those things on my mind I’m not way concerned with Perpetual Education Funds, a recantation of a gospel story, or even mini-temples.
I’d like President Hinckley’s take on what’s happening in this world and/or revelation specific to this. Yeah I’ve read Revelations- but I could use a little help digesting it’s meanings and implications from the Lord’s prophet.
Either there is nothing new happening in God’s universe or it is being withheld from us.
Could there be a reason they keep pounding nothing but the basics into our head conference after conference? Could it possibly mean we might be wise to get those down before trying to swallow major new revelations? Are the apostles bound to preach only at the level of the lowest common denominator when speaking generally at general conference? Do I detect a slight frustration in President Hinckley- even a subtle disappointment- with the worthiness level of the Church in general? Maybe I personally should work on the basics and hone my own worthiness before the wisdom I take from conference will increase. Maybe we all should.
Tossman,
Standard Elders Quorum meeting answer number 6:
“There has been no new doctrine because we have, so far, proven unable to follow or implement the doctrine that we’ve been given already.”
Mogget, the YW broadcast was last Saturday
Shows how closely I pay attention to these things, I guess!
Tossman,
I can’t fully claim this opinion, but I do wonder if our failures as a people- being too materialistic, too selfish, too gossipy, breaking covenants (consecration specifically) makes us unworthy to move forward with new light and knowledge until we heed the advice and commitments already given to us. It fits with how our meetings and confernces are so “back to basics”
Rebuking those countries that engage in war without provocation.
Hey, it’s as likely as most of the stuff written here. And I’d enjoy hearing it as much as I would most of the stuff ehre. I really get more out of the conference issue of the Ensign than I do the actual talks. Honestly, some of the speakers talk so slowly I have a hard time staying away.
I think the reason so many talks are basic is that at any given time there are a lot of new members or investigators listening to conference. We err if we think the talks should just focus on more experienced members.
The danger is that when the same message is delivered the same way people who’ve been paying attention in the past tune out. There are some figures who reuse the same stories and analogies over and over again. It’s human nature to not pay as close attention. Sometimes looking for the new angle of saying the same thing a slightly different way is helpful. And some apostles manage to do that quite well. For instance I always listen careful to Elder Oaks. Same with Elder Packer, even though sometimes his analogies don’t work, but he always is saying something interesting and important and often in an interesting way.
That’s not a knock on the other GAs in the least. As I said, I think we have to understand the audience of conference. That’s why special settings GA talks are typically better than their conference talks. The audience matters. But I think for instance, that I’ll have a pretty good idea of what Pres. Monson will talk like. (grin) Which once again isn’t to devalue his talk. Just note his oft repetitions.
I’m hoping for the same two things I hope for every conference: A condemnation of the occupation of Iraq and the increasing militarism of our society, and a reduction of Sunday meetings from three hours to two. But I’m certainly not holding my breath.
I can guarantee you, though, that the first talk in Priesthood session will include a sports story or metaphor. You have maybe twenty minutes to capture the attention of the young men before they put their foreheads down on the back of the pews in front of them and start drifting off to sleep.
Oh, and may I say that conference isn’t the same since Elder Maxwell passed away.
Rebuking those countries that engage in war without provocation.
In October, 2002, Russell Nelson did basically just that.
“[T]he Golden Rule encompasses the moral code of the kingdom of God. It forbids interference by one with the rights of another. It is equally binding upon nations, associations, and individuals.” (emphasis mine)
and
“[P]rophecies of hope could materialize if leaders and citizens of nations would apply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ours could then be an age of unparalleled peace and progress. Barbarism of the past would be buried. War with its horrors would be relegated to the realm of maudlin memory. Aims of nations would be mutually supportive. Peacemakers could lead in the art of arbitration, give relief to the needy, and bring hope to those who fear. Of such patriots, future generations would shout praises, and our Eternal God would pass judgments of glory.”
Read the whole thing at http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-315-13,00.html
In the build up to the Iraq invasion, the message was not well received, and the Church had to put out a statement that he had been “misunderstood.”
Lemming- Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying the Church changed it’s stance because of it’s unpopularity?
Big T (Thurl Bailey) will be officially recognized and honored as the first of the 3 Nephites to come out of hiding.
I should have said that the press coverage of the talk was not well received. In my opinion, Elder Nelson, not being a fool, had to have understood how his talk would be reported. One doesn’t deliver such a message in the hopes that it will be ignored in favor of the caveats.
The Church’s statement, however, encourages people to do just that–focus on the “patriotic” caveats rather than the “peaceful” meat of the message. I find that unfortunate.
You can read the Church’s statement here:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-13323,00.html
Tossman #24: If memory serves, the Church’s press release was in response to media reports that Elder Nelson’s remarks had established the Church’s opposition to a (then-future) invasion of Iraq. The press release clarified that he did not speak for the Church, and quoted a previous First Presidency statement regarding the propriety of military service.
According to this chart, the LDS Church is the only large U.S. institutional religious organization that has not taken a position on the Iraq war. All the religions in the chart, with the notable exception of the Southern Baptist Convention, were opposed to it or believed all other alternatives needed to be exhausted first.
I’m personally disturbed that a modern prophet — the one we believe is entitled to more and better inspiration than other religious leaders — has not offered an official stance on this, the most important issue of our time. President Kimball was certainly more forthright about the evils of war and militarism.
I for one, am glad the prophet is more or less silent on the issue, as it allows for both sides of the aisle to be a bit more uncomfortable.
I don’t thinl the prophet exists to make us more secure in our liberal (or conservative) political aspirations. Those who want the prophet to come out in favor of their pet liberal programs are fooling themselves. Generally, it’s not gonna happen.
When Ezra Taft Benson became prophet, his right-wing views were toned down and he didn’t take sides in political issues as much (which was a dissapointment to many right wing members who wanted the prophet to pronounce their politics as doctrine). Left wingers should realize what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I admit I’m liberal in some cases, and I don’t expect the church to make statement s supporting those ideas. However, I don’t find opposition to war to be a liberal idea, any conflict between states should be settled in the most peaceful way possible, whether the current president is Democrat, Republican or Green Party. I also find it strange that the Church refuses to make a stand on an activity that kills thousands of innocents. Being in the “no stance” column of the previously linked pro/anti war page makes them look like fence sitters. I’d rather have them come out in support of the war than the current lukewarm nothing response.
With the recent troubles due to MySpace abuse I see a call for more oversight of children’s online activity, if not an outright call to keep the children totally away from online diaries and blogs.
Just from what I have noticed in my ward recently I can almost promise a call for more member missionary work. I understand that the subject is standard fare for conferences, but this time they will push it harder then before. They will do it in the form of asking members to help with retention. The news reports about membership numbers have kicked our ward to push missionary work like never before.
These are the big two I see coming from this conference.
Here’s an interesting question (though somewhat off-topic): What would happen if Dubya decided to roll the dice and give Pres. Hinkley a call for advice about the war and the state of the world? Do you think Hinckley would inquire of the Lord and get some specific revelations concerning these things like what happened with the Nephites periodically? Do you think Hinckley already has an answer if only Bush would ask? Should Pres. Hinckley be obligated to call the White House and offer his counsel? After all, this is a serious war with scores of people dying every day.
President Hinckley has on a couple of occasions expressed PERSONAL beliefs regarding recent conflict, but emphasized that he was not speaking for the Church (Larry King was one case). I think that since we have members in Europe and some in America who are undoubtably on both sides, it probably doesn’t behoove him to make a firm stand unless there’s a clear-cut stand to make.
Let’s be grateful they published yet another “we are not Republican” statement (at least in Utah).
Tossman,
I suspect GBH would discuss their common faith in JC and encourage him to inquire of the lord for inspiration on war/peace plans, war/peace personnel decisions, etc. I doubt GBH would offer/dictate specific advice even to an LDS politician, unless the person were also co-serving as a GA. In the later case the advice would likely be restricted to issues that might impact the church directly and short term.
Then again, I’m not GBH.
RE 28 and 31: I would hope that a prophet could rise above the political bickering and the labels of liberal and conservative and just come out and say what’s right. To say that it doesn’t behoove a prophet to ‘take a firm stand’ on an obviously moral issue seems to contradict the common perception of prophets that we learn about in the scriptures every Sunday.
Granted this would ‘offend’ certain political segments (on either side of the spectrum), but couldn’t that be a great way to teach humility and obedience? If that’s a good enough justification as to why we shouldn’t drink coffee, have more than one earring, or do (or not do)any other number of things in the church, then why does ‘political identity’ get a free ride?
Now we’re telling prophets what they should do. Interesting.
The Iraq war is a complicated issue, and there may be no clear cut right and wrong on it. Too many people want to see it in black and white, though. Good thing the Prophet has told us to seek our own inspiration on the issue - this is a church that believe in personal revelation after all. It is not meet that we be commanded in all things.
I agree Ivan. While I’m quite open to the prophet making mistakes, I’m very uncomfortable of presumptive telling the prophet what he has to do or criticizing him.
Oh, now I see, if the issue is complicated, we’re on our own to figure it out. If it’s as simple as one or two holes in my ear, that’s when I need help deciding. But, what happens when two church members seeking their own inspiration get conflicting inspiration about a complicated issue, Ivan?
APJ -
then, one of them might be wrong. Or perhaps it’s a case where, as Joseph Smith said, different revelations apply to different people in different situations. JS’s ideal was that everyone revcieve specific revelation to their given circumstances. So maybe the Lord sees a need for certain people to support the war and others to oppose it (just as there is a need for some members to be Democrats and some to be Republican and some to be Libertarian, etc. etc. Diversity of political opinion is often a good thing).
oR perhaps, in the end, our positions on the Iraq war will have nothing to do with our salvation and exaltation, so the prophet sees no need to comment on something that has little to do with getting into heaven.
There are many possibilities.
I’d just like to point out that there are cases when a prophet would be wrong NOT to encourage people to go to war. There are a long list of just wars (WWII for example). Would the world be a better place today if the United States had not entered WWII and allowed Hitler and Tojo to divide up the world and kill additional millions (and they probably would have ended turning on each other and killing tens of millions)? I happen to think Iraq was a just war, although please, please, please, let’s not threadjack this post. But please note that I think it was just because fewer people have been killed than would have if Saddam had stayed in power, and I think the Lord wants people to live in liberty. Mike Parker is one of the smartest people in the bloggernacle, but he is somewhat presumptuous (to say the least) if he think he knows better than the prophet what is important for Church members today.
This post is intended to speculate on what would be discussed, not what we humble bloggernaughts think should be discussed.
I personally don’t think that that prophet will denounce a war; like the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. The Church is careful about what it says because it is concerned with the peoples of the world. We are not an American Church anymore, but an international Church and decisions and opinions should reflect as such. This is one of those discern it out for yourselves kind of thing.
PS I agree totally with you Geoff B.
As for what I think will be discussed: Atonement, Joseph Smith, modesty, pornography and the announcement of a temple in France.
Geoff, I think the rightness of entering both those wars is debatable. But to answer your main point.
First: I think we might see something on eating disorders.
Second: We may see the definition of “pornography” extended to include women’s romance novels and similar material.
Third: Perhaps something on retention of converts.
Hmm. Danger. Danger. Threadjack in progress. I think the war was right but the way it was planned was nothing short of massive incompetence. Aargh.
Will Iraq get mentioned this weekend? I can’t see any mention that is anything but superficial.
I find that if I prepare myself for the meetings, I always will come away with an uplifted heart to do better, be better, and try harder. Many talks will likely be things that we have already heard. For heavens sake, the whole church is in a state of repeating itself. Repetition is the mother of learning. If we hear it enough, perhaps we might start to actually internalize it and use it in our life. Besides, ten years ago, I didn’t think that it was so repetitive. I was young and just started interesting myself into the talks. They were new to me. They were instructive. Just as they are to people ten years my younger now, going through the same thing I once went through.
Perhaps rather than expecting the talks to change, perhaps we had better change and do a better job at preparing for the feast that is truly presented at conference.
Nathan, I agree. The hard part is trying to shake the bad attitude. I’ve been cynical for so long now that I’m finding it very difficult to get myself into the mindset you just described- even though I really want to. I’m sure if the desire is there, I’ll have help.
Some helpful hints for better conference (not that these are the best ways, but I find they help me to get more out of it):
Temple attendance a time or two during the week prior to the conference
Going to the chapel dressed in “Sunday Best” even on Saturday sessions (most utah stakes broadcast this to the stake center but there are a few that don’t)
Take notepad to write down what the speakers say and what thoughts come to you during the talk (i.e., thoughts on what you need to improve on specific to you, your calling, your family, and other thoughts that may pop up while you are listening). This helps me not only stay awake, but focus on what the speaker is saying and why it is important for me.
Doing things between sessions on Saturday that keep you in the right mind are helpful as well.
We just split wards last week and my wife was going to take her VT’ing sisters (since they are no longer in the same ward) out to eat between the morning and afternoon sessions. I think this is an excellent thing to do as it keeps your mind on spiritual things, plus, there is a big chance that she and the other sisters will talk about the talks and get insights from others on what they got out of it.
Anybody else have thoughts?
1. I hope. And I hope it becomes as consistent as talks on JS and the temple.
2. Really? Romance novels must be different than I imagine.
3. I hope.
Sorry if I contributed to a threadjack. My point was that I consider war, epecially war against someone that hasn’t attacked you, to be a moral issue no different than abortion or the Law of Chastity. Apostles should speak on moral issues.
I can’t believe you guys think the war with Iraq was a just war!!!! I am dumbfounded. The Book of Mormon and D & C are very clear on the reasons for going to war. There is no ambiguity involved. We are permitted to attack those that attack us AFTER we have tried everything we can to use peaceful means.
IRAQ never attacked us! How can this war be “just”? It is just the attempt of pathetic men to prove they are masculine and to show their daddies that they can “finish the job”. But maybe their daddies had more wisdom than the sons.
Now the war with Afghanistan/Al Qaeda is a different story. They did attack us.
Whoa, settle down little dogie! We are so proud of you for reading your scriptures. (Clap Clap)
Now move on to the topic at hand.
No, no temple in France will be announced, me thinks. I’ll betcha one will be announced for Colorado. They need another one in the northern part of the front range there. Maybe around Ft. Collins.
Probably the opening of Laos for the preaching of the gospel will be announced as well.
Also, church growth will be close to the following:
Stakes 2,700
Districts 670
Missions 340
Wards and Branches 27,100
Total Membership 12,595,800
Increase in Children of Record 101,000
Converts Baptized 221,000
Full-Time Missionaries 48,000
Temples in Operation 125
Any bets?
Dearest Nathan,
That is why our leaders at conference repeatedly stress the need to deeply study the scriptures and to have meaningful prayer often. So that cultural latter-day saints don’t come out with stupid comments about a war that is clearly unjust.
I predict that this conference they will continue to stress the need for these items and I predict that the majority of cultural saints will ignore them and come up with even more stupid comments about political items that have no foundation in the restored gospel.
There. How was that? I stayed on topic.
If that’s what the scriptures say, then they are wrong.
I’m noticing that no matter what the initial blog post- it always boils down to partisan politics here. Liberal vs. conservative. Every dang time.
“If that’s what the scriptures say, then they are wrong.”
gst, you cannot be serious with that comment. Read D&C 98:23-48.
Dear Tossman,
I didn’t start it, they did! I was just impatient with members that mix politics and the gospel as though we were some evangelical religion made up of the philosopies of men mixed with scripture. I am tired of saints that don’t learn by faith to discern the will of the Lord on very basic issues. It still amazes me that they claim to have spiritual testimonies when their comments reflect Mormons in cultural only.
I apologize. I really try to stay away from mixing the two.
I stand by my flippant comment.
Aren’t you the guy that just told me to go read the Doctrine & Covenants as evidence of the correctness of your preferred foreign policy?
Its not my “preferred foreign policy”, it is the Lord’s way of doing things.
Did you read it?
Michael, if this isn’t the “mix[ing of] politics and the gospel” that gets you so impatient when others do it, then nothing is.
Yes I did read it, though perhaps not in the most prepared and reverant frame of mind, I admit.
Although I am certain it will not be forthcoming, I would like to hear the Brethren announce that we will be building a temple at Far West and establishing a town in Caldwell County. After the success of Nauvoo, I think it is time to return.
Michael,
Beware, my friend, proving politics with scripture will ensure nothing but frustration in the bloggernacle.
Anyways, I hope that Bishop Burton speaks. What a jolly man he is. His countanance just shines.
I also hope that Elder Oaks cracks a wide smile. Always so serious, probably due to the seriousness of his task at hand.
I always look forward to Hollands talk. Always pulls something out of the scriptures that was hidden. In fact, for those that don’t feel you get anything out of conference, just go back through Hollands talks and tell me that they were repetitive - No way, he always teaches something different even if it is a similar topic that others have talked on.
Something interesting to watch for is, depending on when he talks, to watch the YW listen to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk. I have heard on more than one occasion that they think he is “very handsome” and would bet that they listen to him more closely than one not so “handsome”.
I also can’t wait for another anatomy lesson by Elder Nelson.
Unfortunatly, I bet that there will not be as much joking as usual by President Hinckley. He has been noticeably been slowing down which might (I hope not) slow his normally quick wit.
Jeez … I’m sorry for starting something that’s clearly gotten out of control.
Geoff B #39:
My new signature line! [g]
I wouldn’t presume to tell President Hinckley what revelations he should be receiving. I just find it odd that he’s been fairly ambiguous in his public statements about 9/11 and everything that has followed it.
For an example of an official Church statement condemning American actions in World War II, see here.
Mike, you are a smart guy and always have good comments, but I think the following…
…is a bit presumptuous on your part. I simply believe the prophet knows better than you or I or anybody what subjects to address in GC.
I think there is always an itching to suspect something ‘big’ is going to happen during conference. I’ll remeber hearing buzzing about something ‘big’ happening during conference and what was it? Little temples. Now I think that little temples are great and all, don’t get me wrong, they have provided a great blessing to many that wouldn’t otherwise have it, but I think that even President Hinckley would admit there is nothing particularly earth-shattering about that kind of announcement. I mean if there was going to be something earthshattering what would it possibly be? The Second Coming is clearly not just around the corner, if any countries were opening to the Gospel we probably would have heard about a change in the political climate in those places, and there is really no major policies that really have potential for major changes (like blacks and the preisthood in 1978). Let’s face it, this conference will be just like all the others-uplifting, yes, but shocking and amazing, no.
Honestly, I’m not too concerned whether they talk about the war or not.
As far as the romance novel thing goes …
Actually the content of much of the cheap paperback section of romance novels includes some pretty explicit descriptions. It seems that while guys are checking out Maxim, the girls are into explicit novels. However, these novels haven’t really been pinpointed as a problem yet. But in principle, they aren’t much different.
Interesting. I was a librarian for years. The only thing I knew about romance novels is they must be quick reads, because my Bishop’s wife would usually check out ten at a time.
I don’t expect it, but it would be nice to have another temple in Davis county. Bountiful is pretty busy. Syracuse would be perfect if they’re asking for suggestions.
#63 - you’re right, who cares about the war, not me and hopefully they do not delve in political nonsense about this mess as it has no relevance to my being a better person, nope, none! Now, if they decided they were going to send some apostles over there to intervene shortly, then I might perk up and listen, but not yet, but I will listen anyways…because they’re handsome men, yea, that’s why I’ll listen, because of superficial vanity and because they have nice hair…bahahaha!
If President Hinckley has not mentioned anything about the war in a public forum, that probably tells you that although he may have an opinion on it, it is his own and nothing more and that perhaps the Lord has commanded him to hold his peace on the matter for whatever reason. Afterall, what does it matter to the building of the kingdom which is President Hinckley’s main work, not political stands. This is kind of like Joseph Smith when the Lord tells him that his calling had nothing to do with worldly matters, and in fact that he would not have strength for such matters, but that he was to concentrate on the work of the kingdom — See D&C 24:9. President Hinckley is a great religious leader, but perhaps would not make a good political leader no matter that he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator because our politcal world is not based upon any sort of theocratic rule, especially from a Christian perspective.
Geoff #61: Perhaps “disturbed” is a little too strong. Maybe “perplexed” is more what I was after.
President Hinckley may speak on any topic he wishes. I sustain him and don’t think he’s purposely holding anything back from us. I just wonder why a President Kimball would condemn war so soundly during a time of peace, and why a President Hinckley would be so silent about it during a time of conflict. I find it odd.
Mike, maybe it’s because Kimball expressed a general principle that may or may not apply in any given individual case. If Hinckley were to say something similar today, people would likely wrongly interpret it to one of the specific wars occuring today.
War means killing and maiming a lot of people, including many innocent human beings like little children.
It also means diverting scarce resources like money and other material capital from being invested in peaceful enterprises that would actually improve the lives of people.
God made man, so say the scriptures, to take care of the earth and everything in it. Wars are the exact opposite of what God intended man to do.
Why would the issue of war be irrelevant to you?
And why would any believer in prophets expect their leader to be silent on a serious moral issue like war?
Just wondering…
Wait, let me make sure I get this right: War is bad?
Boy Wonder, you should try living in the adult world for about 10 minutes. War is unavoidably upon you, just like it has been on every generation before you, whether they liked it or not.
Mike, perhaps the issues at play at that time in the cold war were different from today? I think the battle against fundamentalist Islam is fundamentally different from the battle with Stalinist Marxism. Even within the Cold War our reactions to the two Marxist powers was quite different. Thus Nixon’s strategy (fairly successful) with China. (Although China was never terribly Marxist that I could see)
Boy Wonder -
our scriptures say it is not meet that we be commanded in all things. The ideal is, as Moses put it, that all the Lord’s people should be prophets. The prophets letting us form our own opinions and recieve our own personal revelation is a good thing (except for those that abuse the freedom, but that’s their problem).
We don’t (or shouldn’t) expect the prophet to tell us what to believe or do in every political situation. The prophet (and the Lord) likely expect more wisdom on our part.
Hey gst, Boy Wonder posed a thoughtful question about why a prophet should not be expected to have guidance on such an important moral issue - a question infinitely more interesting than most of what’s been posted in this thread - and your only response is to tell him to grow up?
If I were an outsider reading this thread I would come away with the impression that the Mormon prophet has had more to say about the personal grooming habits of Mormons than about the morality (or lack of it) of a war costing thousands of lives, hardly something that would demonstrate to me the relevance of a modern prophet.
I might even begin to question who it is that doesn’t live in the “adult world.”
I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect the prophet to use conference time to make a statement on what we should have done. I expect him to address the here and now, and the future. Of what significance to our salvation is a statement on whether we should have invaded Iraq in 2003?
The question is what do we do now? I would expect the prophet to offer his counselling to the President if he were asked. But I don’t think Pres. Hincley is going to use the Sunday afternoon session to lay out a political/military strategy for winning the war there.
We say we want guidance, but let’s be honest with ourselves here. Each of us has made up our minds already. I’d be willing to bet next month’s tithing that were the first presidency to take an official stance on the war in Iraq, 90% of church membership would retain their own views on it. Making a statement about a political hot potato would only eliminate the portion of membership that would adamantly disagree with it.
I meant alienate.
Tossman:
Yes, the time has passed for a statement on Iraq.
It would be nice to see a statement against militarism and reliance on weapons and war in general, Ã la Kimball. Especially now in this time when the situation in Iran is starting to heat up.
Even better? A follow up to the letter that came out earlier this month on political parties. The letter said, “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.” It would be nice to hear, “Principles incompatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.” [g]
I cannot predict what will come up in Conference, but I can tell you what I will attend hoping to hear. I am hoping to hear something from the Brethren about the importance of participating in national elections because I cannot see the point. I am hoping to hear something about the morality of attacking Iraq which was no threat to us nor to its neighbors. I am hoping for some guidance on the topics of US national sovereignty and illegal immigration. I would like to be reassured that there is no secret Gadianton Band running things in Washington, D.C. I am hoping to hear a strong denunciation of abortion and the sin of voting the pro-choice position. I would like to have the Church position cleared up on the philosophy behind so-called “victimless crimes.” I want to hear a reaffirmation of the Church committment to the Constitution and warnings about current threats to it. I would like to hear Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie quoted as authority on doctrine and the scriptures, or at least something reassuring me that our leaders still believe the same things they did when those men were alive. I would like to hear another denunciation of those who are proud because of their money or learning and set themselves above the prophets. I would like to hear it reaffirmed that it is official Church doctrine that there really was a Lehi colony in ancient America and that the Book of Mormon is not merely an “inspired” fiction of purely 19th century origins. I would also like it cleared up whether the priesthood ban on blacks holding the priesthood before 1978 was God-made or man-made. And I don’t think it will happen, but I wish The Family: A Proclamation to the World would be added to our standard works with a sustaining vote of the Church membership in General Conference.
Bottom line: I would like to receive assurance that I am attending a Mormon religious meeting, and not just another traditional Christian meeting. I just hate it when I receive in General Conference only what I could have heard in any Protestant church before I became a Mormon. I like my religion hard-core. That is why I became a Mormon. That is why I knew it was true. All the Jesus-loves-me-this-I-know-for-the-Bible-tells-me-so stuff I can get anywhere. I go to General Conference for the truth that goes beyond that.
All the real cool more Mormon unique talks tend to come in smaller meetings John. It’s been that way as long as I can recall.
Ah, now here’s my real pipe dream: An official statement that the “curse of Cain” explanation for the priesthood restriction, no matter how well-intentioned, was wrong and that members should stop promoting it.
Never let it be said I don’t dream big.
If killing and maiming thousands of innocent people is a good thing in your “adult world” then I’d say it must be a bizarre world. You know, where left is actually right, and right is actually wrong.
Without doubt, our generation has been thrust into war. But is it your duty to accept it willingly, without doubting the reasons for it?
I don’t see how anyone can reconcile his faith in a compassionate Jesus and yet willingly cheer those who shoot, bomb, or torture innocent people.
What if your personal revelation goes against what the Prophet thinks?
What if your conscience revolts at the sight of piles of dead Iraqi civilians because our troops bombed them, yet the prophet says this is necessary because freedom is a good thing and this is how we “liberate” them?
Are you allowed to question the wisdom of your prophet?
Killing people is not a political issue. It is a moral issue; more so when you kill thousands of people. “Thou shall not kill” is a commandment of God.
Why do you want reduce the Iraq War to a mere political issue?
Again, I really wonder…
Wars, because they kill so many human beings, destroy families more swiftly and efficiently than pornography or drug addiction. If your church is a family-centered church, you should expect your leaders to make a stand against the wholesale destruction of families in Iraq.
Is repentance out of the question? Can you not start acknowledging that supporting those who had misled you into this war was wrong, and that you should stop supporting them from now on?
Your spiritual leaders ought to be helping you repent, unless of course they themselves have become stumbling blocks to repentance.
Or you might expect him to confess publicly that he was wrong in April 2003 when he said that going to war to liberate the Iraqis was a good thing. He cannot change others (ie, the President of the USA); but he can surely change himself.
Neither do I expect your prophet to be a political/military strategist. But now that we have seen how thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered because of our country’s self-righteousness, I expect a prophet to lead the way by wearing his sackcloths in ashes. This should be well within his expertise.
We can always change our minds.
In other words, because your people will not change their minds, then you expect your spiritual leaders to tell you only those things you all have set your minds on. I have always had the impression that prophets are supposed to guide the people, but now I see a tail wagging the dog.
“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?…
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” [John 6:66]
If Jesus himself had suffered being abandoned by his followers, why should your prophet expect to be treated differently? Is the servant greater than his master?
Or is it now all about being politically correct?
BoyW, how does death destroy eternal families? If you bear adversity well and endure then you will have an eternal family. We are not guaranteed to live forever in this life.
When has liberation ever been a bad thing? Just because the outcome isn’t clean like you and I would want it to be doesn’t mean it wasn’t right. Or maybe you are one who believes in Satan’s plan and that a dictator is ok so long as he maintains the peace. Keeping everyone down is ok if people aren’t dying unless they resist the dictator sounds like a great system.
Q: What have the Romans done for us?
A: The aqueduct, roads, peace, education, trade, commerce, safe streets, and art/culture.
Q: Ok, other than the aqueduct, roads, peace, education, trade, commerce, safe streets, and art/culture; what really have the Romans done for us?
I guess Israel should just have accepted Roman rule because their standard of living was higher in some ways.
“Thou shall not kill” is a commandment of God. Yet, obeying it is no guarantee that you will live forever in this life. Should we now abandon the commandment so we can pursue war?
When the cure is worse than the disease.
- Our troops pre-emptively bombed the Iraqis because we thought they had WMDs ready to use against us. We didn’t find any WMDs in Iraq. The cure was worse than the disease.
- We overthrew Saddam because “he was a bad man”. Shortly after accomplishing that, the Bush govt employed Saddam’s tactics of torture and repression against the Iraqis. The cure is worse than the disease.
- We conducted national elections and formed a “democratic” Iraqi govt because they didn’t have a democracy. Yet we dictate, dictate, and dictate the Iraqis who to vote and what to do in nearly every aspect of their political life. The cure is worse than the disease.
In other words, we’re not supposed to judge the tree by its fruits. If it grows tares today, we’re supposed to always trust our leaders that someday, it will produce wheat.
Neither are we supposed to learn the lessons of history. Even if means that the Middle East has been the traditional burial site of the world’s most famous empires.
Nor are we supposed to follow simple logic and common sense. That if we beat our plowshares into swords and pursue a never-ending war, eventually, our lands will be left untilled, and we all die destitute and hungry with our swords.
Saddam has been overthrown years ago. “Mission Accomplished” says the sign behind Bush. But there is no end to the slaughtering of men and the destruction of their families. Bush predicts more fighting and more murdering. What’s all the killing for now?
How can your leaders remain silent in the face of such monstrous evil?
In other words, it is OK for Israel to resist Roman rule, but…
- It is not OK for Iraqis to resist the foreign occupation of their country by US forces.
- It is not OK for those here who don’t believe in the senseless Iraq War to resist it.
Are you saying that there is one standard for Israel but a different standard for the rest of the world?
Well, John Redelfs,
At least you got your statement on the 1978 revelation. It was God-given.
i want to participate in the upcoming conference