I'm listening to conference online because the satellite wasn't working at the stake center. I've realy liked the talks so far, especially Elder Groberg's.
I didn't hear, though, the announcement of the new apostles. Who are they?
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I too enjoyed Elder Groberg's talk.
The two new apostles are Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Argh! I was hoping to find out here. We missed it too. (And I just happened to be distracted the two times afterwards that it was repeated.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Cool! Thanks.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
President Faust's talk reminded of a Hatrack thread.
Why do the good suffer along with the guitly in this world? Why do we suffer?
His answers were the following:
1. I don't know 2. Maybe we aren't as innocent as we think. 3. The Lord cares more about our eternal life and potential than our immediate happiness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is Elder Uchtdorf the first apostle of the latter days not born in the United States?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
No, I'm pretty sure there was at least one from England.
Hobbes Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Like Hobbes said, there were a whole slew of them born in Britain in the 19th century, John Taylor being the most prominant example.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...that makes sense. What about since the church found a home in Utah?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's possible, he's porbably also the first Apostle who doesn't have English as his first language (I'm assuming he didn't).
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Matt! You're reading this thread. I have a confession. I told your sister how we sort-of-not-really-I-wouldn't-recognize-him-on-the-street-but-still-I-think-it-may-count knew each other, and the she immediately told me that you hadn't divulged any information at all. Which made me feel bad, because it then occurred to me that you may have had reasons for not saying anything. *wince* Sorry.
Your sister is very nice. I hadn't seen my cousin in almost five years. He looks like Adam Brody.
[ October 02, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Hey, kat.
I haven't been online in a couple of months because I moved to DC and am now up to my ears in grad school.
Hm. I find what she said rather odd, because I actually talked a bit about hatrack and that connection with her and John a couple months ago in a 'isn't-this-a-small-world' sort of context. Maybe she forgot. Actually, on second thought, I probably didn't explain hatrack that well so she had no idea what I was talking about. That's probably it.
So when did you see them? And does John still have that poofy afro thing going on?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I saw them around Labor Day at Grandma Pilkington's birthday party. And yes, John still has the poofy afro. They were jazzed about seeing Napoleon Dynamite the night before.
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
I don’t usually read explicit LDS threads, thinking there won’t be anything I can contribute in any case. But this time I happened to read, and it made me curious. Please forgive me if this is an improper question, but what is a LDS apostle? What lies in the title? Does it compare to saints in the Catholic tradition, or is it simply a position within the church, like a bishop or a cardinal?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Saints in the Catholic tradition don't really exists in the LDS church - we use the word "saint" to refer to any follower of the gospel. The church is headed by a prophet, who is counselled by the quorum of twelve apostles, just as Christ had twelve apostles in the original church. Each apostle serves for life, and the new prophet is chosen from the quorum of the twelve.
The calling of apostles is to be "special witnesses of Jesus Christ," and to represent the church across the world. Currently, some of the aopstles live abroad, one in Chile and one in the Phillipines, to better serve the needs of the church there. We also sustain the apostles as "prophets, seers and revelators," and recognize their authority to receive direct revelation for the church.
Actually, Elder L.Tom Perry (one of the current apostles) gave a great talk this afternoon on the role of apostles and what their specific mission to the church is. That talk, along with all of the other conference talks, will be avaiable on video here within the next 48 hours.
[ October 02, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I found it pretty great that a few topics that people had brought up as questions for me and I'd had discussions about were so simply and wonderfully presented in talks today. I'll have to provide links to the audio/video to those people once they're up.
For people who want to know what the Church teaches, what better way than to listen to their leadership address the worldwide membership?
Two more sessions tomorrow, streamed live. Great stuff.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I thought so too, Dave. I'm taking an institute class on church history, and I think every single talk today mentioned the Restoration.
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
Thank you, Annie! I think I understand how it works now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For anyone who cares and may have missed it, Pres. Hinkley announced new temples for Sacramento, CA, Twin Falls, ID (I thought they already had one - that was probably Idaho Falls), and somewhere in the Salt Lake Valley. I wonder where the next SLC one will be?
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
Can I ask one more thing? I read part of your (Annie’s) missionary thread, and got the feeling that there is a certain dress code among LDS missionaries. So far, the only Mormons I have ever encountered are missionaries, and they have always been rather easy to identify by their clothes. Most people where I live dress rather casually and they always dress against the weather. Therefore, to us, the missionaries in their dark suits (I have only met male missionaries) look like undertakers or movie FBI agents without sunglasses. Is it part of a dress code, or is it a failure to adapt to the environment they’re in? If there is a dress code, what does it consist of? And why is there one?
This is again just curiosity, and not intended as an insult to Hatrack missionaries, undertakers or FBI agents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The new Salt Lake Valley temple (not SLC temple) -- President Hinkly specifically said that the location for it will be announced soon.
Trondheim -- yeah, most missionaries in the States wear dark suits with white shirts. When I was a missionary in Brazil, I wore a white shirt and slacks, but no suit jacket. I've heard of even more casual dress in some places (some parts of Africa? Some parts of Polynesia?), but those might just be rumours.
And yes, these dress codes are for the missionaries only. Outside of Sunday, you'd have a hard time finding me in anything but jeans or shorts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The elders (male missionaries) must wear suits (navy, dark gray, or black) all the time. If it's hot, they can go without the jacket, but they must wear the jacket to church and important meetings. I think in very, very hot areas (Tahiti, Hawaii), they can wear short-sleeve white shirts, but that's the extent. It's to keep them looking professional.
The FBI thing has been noticed before. I've heard a hundred stories about people scattering and panicked hiding of something when the elders come by because people think they are cops. I had one elder in Detroit who would hold his ear and talk to the air like he was on a radio watching for security, and since he was an imposing guy, he always got a reaction. It was pretty funny. I don't think that's the point, though.
[ October 02, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
So, what did we think of today's talks?
I thought Pres. Hinckley's talk this morning was amazing. I really want to get a printout of it and share it with a professor of mine who asked me last year how I could belong to a religion that was so oppressive of women. I tried to explain the church's view of women, but fell far short of President Hinckley's words.
I also loved hearing from the new apostles. I can't believe they only got the call on Friday!! I understand why their talks centered mostly on the Lord qualifying those whom he has called.
I also always like the talks with numbered points - like Elder Wirthlin's. They always help me come away with a clear, applicable summary of what I learned. And Sister... (rats! What was her name? Started with a D...) the Young Women's president - i really appreciated how she talked about temple work and how it applies to youth and those whoa re unendowed. I think they often feel a little disenfranchised, and I thought that a whole talk centered on the temple as pertaining to the youth was awesome.
Such a great meeting!
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Couldn't have said it better myself, Annie. Your thoughts completely echoed my own.
I already really like the new Apostles.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
For those interested, audio and video streams of complete sessions are up. Soon, they'll be divided between individual talks, and bu Thursday (I think) the text transcripts will be available.
[ October 04, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: movie FBI agents without sunglasses.
Several times in Italy, I was mistaken for the CIA.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
We only attended one session - the first session on Sunday. The amazing thing was that my husband went. Although he joined the church 9 years ago, his brief conversion has turned around the other way and he's mostly antagonistic toward the church.
So he went, and I was glad he was there for President Hinckley's talk. I don't think he got much out of it, but when a transcript is available, I will try to bring it up again. We've been talking about divorce a lot and maybe the talk will help a little.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs Cay* That would be great.
President Hinkley's talk made me cry. I absolutely loved it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Every time Conference comes around, we should just bump the original thread on this topic, from five years ago. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh man, wouldn't that be wonderful if it was still here? I'd love to compare our reactions to each conference side by side. There were conference predictions on Nauvoo, and I think several people won Conference Bingo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'd love to compare our reactions to each conference side by side."
They don't change as much as one might suppose. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So just keeping your eye on us, eh Tom?
I heard a rumor that missionaries dress casually in San Francisco because wearing a dark suit has some other meaning that they don't want to advance.
What is the dress code for sister missionaries? It seems like they have a lot more leeway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Since God has obviously chosen not to answer my questions, I always figure I'm stuck knowing y'all by your fruits. So I watch everybody. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When I was on my mission, sister misssionaries seemed to have a lot more flexibility in their dress than we did. I used to covet their ability to wear sandals instead of constricting dress shoes. Not to mention the fact that those skirts have to have been more comfortable than the polyester slacks I was stuck with. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I rather liked not having to mix and match every day.
Dark trousers, white shirt-- hardest thing to choose was the tie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The best thing I ever did in my mission was when I bought eight identical cotton white blouses. For the last half, I wore a white cotten blouse, flowered skirt, and laced-up shoe boots in the winter and Aerosoles flats in the summer every day. Having a uniform was WONDERFUL.
Tom, you would have liked this conference. There was a talk on how to get faith, and another on Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People. Even if you didn't believe what they said, I think you might have enjoyed hearing their versions of some pretty standard Hatrack threads.
[ October 04, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I heard a rumor that missionaries dress casually in San Francisco because wearing a dark suit has some other meaning that they don't want to advance.
I had a friend who served in SanFran and he wore the standard suit. This sounds a little urban legendy to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, I generally listen to the conference talks when they're made available. I'm not sure I'm particularly eager to sit through a "how to get faith" bit, though, because I'm getting really, really tired of the whole "God will provide testimony to anyone who asks" routine; heck, even Hobbes believes it and cites it as unquestioned fact on Nauvoo, despite obvious examples to the contrary here on Hatrack.
If you tell me that the talk doesn't just boil down to not being sincere enough in my willingness to give your church a fair shake, I'll give it a listen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It doesn't say that. *thinks* In fact, he agrees with you - the first step is to desire to believe.
Was that the same one as the one on conversion? I liked that one too. The speaker talked about how a witness is the first step to a testimony, but is not a testimony. A testimony brings about a desire to have faith and repent, and a conversion - the change of heart and mind - comes after the deliberate leap of faith and repentance. That was Sunday morning, I think.
[ October 04, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: routine; heck, even Hobbes believes it and cites it as unquestioned fact on Nauvoo, despite obvious examples to the contrary here on Hatrack.
I'm not sure if this is an insult, or a compliment, but using my name in this way made me smile.
[I think I'm just not used to seeing my name in italics ]
Hobbes
[ October 04, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh, and I think you would realize Tom, that I'm going to speak very differently about gaining testimony to a group of believers than unbelievers. Not contraridictory things, but I wouldn't bring up reasons that would make it difficult to gain a testimony (most likely) when I'm talking to a group that has all signed an agreement stating they have such a testimony as compared to when I'm talking to a group like Hatrack, that is mostly non-LDS. Though I'm not really sure what you're reffering to specifically, I'd just like to point that out.
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Very good conference. I know President Hinckley's talk on Sunday morning was my wife's instant favorite. I was glad he spoke on that topic.
I was impressed how many talks seemed to focus on the blessings of both diligence and sacrifice.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, why are you bothering to so closely scrutinize a religion you've already ruled out? I mean what is the point of lurking at Nauvoo?
I mean I'm pretty areligious at this point myself, but I guess I'm apathetic enough that I just wouldn't bother. Just seems like a waste of time. Not that I don't do enough other things to waste time. I guess it's an interesting hobby if you want to call it a hobby.
AJ
(Note, this is not intended as sarcasm, this is honest curiosity. I know I wouldn't do the same thing, so I'm trying to understand why Tom does.)
[ October 04, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, why are you bothering to so closely scrutinize a religion you've already ruled out?"
Hey, I could be wrong. My primary objections to the LDS church involve wacky and improbable archaeological claims, and that's a flimsy objection on which to flip God the finger.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tom, do you mean archeological claims, or claims that have archeologicial implications?
Personally, I have never heard the Church make what I would consider to be an archeological claim. However, our scriptures undoubtedly contain much that has archeological implications.
Don't mean to be nitpicky. It's just that I've heard from people who really did think that some of the outright archeological claims made by some LDS people are in fact part of what the Church teaches.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:first apostle of the latter days not born in the United States?
Not to be egotistical, but I .. well, just as everyone decided a bit ago that means I'm about to be egotistical and focus the thread back on me. What did you mean by "even Hobbes ..."?
Hobbes
[ October 04, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hobbesy, I don't think you're egotistical. For what it's worth. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think he meant "even Hobbes, ultimate master of rational thought." Now go have yourself a happy day. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I liked Boyd K. Packer's talk.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* Couple missionaries? What was Elder Packer's about?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I missed a lot of conference, first because the local TV station that has always carried it on tape-delay unexpectedly carried it live this year, and second because my small kids just don't allow me to sit in front of the TV quietly for four two-hour stretches in a weekend. I look forward to perusing the Conference Ensign in the privacy of my own bathroom.
I did hear a chunk of Ballard's talk, and really liked what he had to say about what constitutes an appropriate testimony at Testimony Meeting on Fast Sunday. I have half a mind to be the first one up next Fast Sunday and read the talk verbatim. But, of course, that itself would not be in keeping with the message of the talk.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
This is the first time I've actually been able to sit down and WATCH conference instead of reading it a month later in the Ensign. It's so much nicer to watch it. I really enjoyed the talks, (especially Elder Ballard's and Elder Eyring's), but what made me the happiest was to see President Bednar as he was called to be in the Quorum of the Twelve.
I was at Ricks College when President Bednar was inaugurated as president. I sang in the choir, so I had a great seat. I was there for two years and President and Sister Bednar's talks will always stay with me. He has a way of making you feel like he knows you personally and loves you like one of his kids. I felt like he was my mission president. I am really excited that the rest of the world gets to hear him speak and receive visits from him because of his new calling.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
[ October 04, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
*sneeze* point? *sneeze*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think romany has some Costco washcloths for y'all. *offers*
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Taalcon:
Lindsay's archeological evidence may be of interest to some and ignored or discounted by others -- I don't really care one way or the other. But what I love about him is that he's one of the few Mormon apologists with a great sense of humor.
Click on the "Humor" and "Mormanity Blog" links on the top nav to see what I mean. Jeff is no master comedian, but some of his stuff is quite funny.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:But what I love about him is that he's one of the few Mormon apologists with a great sense of humor.
Which is why I linked him, and not FAIRlds
And UofU, I thought I heard someone talking about archeological claims. So this coughed out.
Perhaps I need a lozenge...
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Taalcon,
I like Jeff Lindsay's Cracked Planet too.
My buddy says he left the Church after studying Central American archaeology at the university for several years and not finding any correlation between the Book of Mormon account and discovered artifacts (it didn't help that he was also diddling the neighbor lady).
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Taalcon,
My point was that I didn't think the Church itself had made any direct archeological claims. I conceded that there are aspects of LDS theology that do have implicit archeological implications.
I certainly do not deny that there are (misguided, IMO) members of the LDS Church who DO make archeological claims. I think that these are sometimes interesting, sometimes amusing, often ridiculous, and always beside the point.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
First of all, I wasn't proclaiming that link to be endorsed by the Church. The site states plain and simple that it is not.
quote: I think that these are sometimes interesting, sometimes amusing, often ridiculous, and always beside the point.
I agree with that for the most part, but will add that to some, seeing even a small bit of plausibility in a stream of much outspoken talk of implausibility can sometimes open one's mind a little bit.
The site I linked to itself agrees when it says:
quote:Such evidence does not and should not equal "proof," but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention
.
So once again, they aren't making claims - they're providing what they see as evidence for the 'archaeological implications' stated within. As many have said before, you can't scientifically prove spiritual matters - however, if keying up of unexpected physical and archeological elements that appear to correspond to a written record of those accounts (especially one such as the Book of Mormon, which many claim to be simply the work of an American farm boy's imagination) are elements that can allow an individual to take a closer look at a work - then I wouldn't say it's a completely worthless venture at all.
But it's true - having physical evidences is nice, but it's not by far a definitive prerequisite for faith.
I'm in the group who find those litle tidbits in the "Oh Cool", category, rather than the "Testimony Building" category - the former being where they should certainly belong.
[ October 04, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)