Oct 2013 conference thread

[wuapinmon]

Your feelings are valid and that statement alone seems to indicate that it isn't a sacrifice to pursue a professional career. So don't take it the wrong way, what I'm about to say, but to play a devils advocate here for a moment, and from the viewpoint of my wife... Many of her friends and professional colleagues have maligned her for leaving her career because she wanted to just be a mom. It has happened a lot. I've been accused of making her be a 'good Mormon wife' when I've never said either way what I think she should do, this decision was hers to make, and continues to be and I'll support her whatever she decides.

She was successful in her career and may go back someday, but she always says, "While it is maddening at times, I just want to be a mom right now, I just want to be at home and take care of the kids and be there for them. That is how I feel like I can make the greatest impact." I'll say for her current career choice as a stay-at-home-mom she is exceptional at it, and her past career has really helped her with things she is doing now. We are also very fortunate that we are able to even do it, I think it is increasingly unfeasible to have a household with only a single income.

But some people, particularly some people close to her, really denigrate her for her decision pretending like it is somehow a lesser choice for her. We don't think so. For her, that statement (and some others by Christopherson) was a powerful and affirming one. And she is the first person to note to people to respect career decisions of people, maybe because she has been a victim in that regard.

Now certainly there is pressure from Mormon circles toward professional career women to be stay-at-home moms as well, so I don't want to pretend like that doesn't happen and it shouldn't.

I personally don't understand why there can't be respect both ways for these decisions. Having now witnessed it, there is no replacement that money could buy for what she is doing for our kids. Lots of families have fathers that are more nurturing and better suited for raising children than women too. Lots of different circumstances, but it would be nice to see respect for any decision.

I think you raise excellent points, and it should absolutely be a woman's right to choose, something I think that most people on this site would agree with. What gets me though is the subtext that reinforces the general feeling that if we don't have women be moms and grandmas like they've always been, then we're going to really regret it, bringing a flood of guilt to those who perhaps 1) cannot afford to not work, 2) cannot stand the tedium of not working, or 3) are really good at what they do and take pleasure in doing something well besides/in addition to motherhood. I don't believe that only men should feel at ease about relishing the satisfaction of knowing that you're the best or really-damned-good at something because you are able to hone a talent via years of experience. All of these pressures from his talk then seem to either put a moral lien against a mother's career. When we couple that with the lamentation of the decline of birthrates and the "loss of Christian culture" from Europe, the guilt can seem overwhelming if that's not what you want for your life. My wife chose to stay home for years until she could see that my working 65-70 hours per week, doing any job I could get to earn extra money, was hurting my health and our relationship, so she started working. She didn't really have a choice, per se, but she despises being made to feel guilty for enjoying the fact that we can now afford a gym membership to get healthy because she works instead of staying home.

[mUUser]

....
But some people, particularly some people close to her, really denigrate her for her decision pretending like it is somehow a lesser choice for her. We don't think so. For her, that statement (and some others by Christopherson) was a powerful and affirming one. And she is the first person to note to people to respect career decisions of people, maybe because she has been a victim in that regard.....

My own experience is as follows, and wouldn't be surprised if your wife eventually arrived at the same place. My wife has been a working mom for some 19 years, and I've been a SAHD. In the beginning, we found little support within the church. Most were critical. I think over the years we've become numb to both criticism and applause. It's irrelevant. We've come to realize that our decision was personal and nobody, including the prophet himself, spent as much time, energy and prayerful thought into our decisions about our family than us. Once we understood that nobody else mattered, we ceased to need reaffirmation and ceased to be offended by those who are critical of our choice. It simply doesn't matter.

I suspect one day your wife will get there as well. It won't matter what her mom, your mom, her sister, the bishop, the SP, her best friend, some internet dude or President/Elder Whoever says.....both criticisms and applause. It'll all be water off a ducks back.

[LA Ute]

I personally got guidance, encouragement and inspiration I specifically needed from the talks by Presidents Uchtdorf (both of them) and Eyring (again, both talks), Elders Suarez (sp?), Hales, and Holland. President Monson's talk this morning hit me as hard as any talk by a church president ever has. ("I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.") I didn't hear Sunday afternoon. I think the Oaks and Uchtdorf talks are easily reconcilable. People may be reading too much into both talks.

This is just me, but when I approach Conference as a source of inspiration it really works for me. When I am instead listening for shifts in policy and trying to decide whether I agree with a speaker's statements on such matters, not so much. That would probably be true of any church, it seems to me.

[concerned]

I personally got guidance, encouragement and inspiration I specifically needed from the talks by Presidents Uchtdorf (both of them) and Eyring (again, both talks), Elders Suarez (sp?), Hales, and Holland. President Monson's talk this morning hit me as hard as any talk by a church president ever has. ("I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.") I didn't hear Sunday afternoon. I think the Oaks and Uchtdorf talks are easily reconcilable. People may be reading too much into both talks.

This is just me, but when I approach Conference as a source of inspiration it really works for me. When I am instead listening for shifts in policy and trying to decide whether I agree with a speaker's statements on such matters, not so much. That would probably be true of any church, it seems to me.

I thought of a DU's talk when I read Ross Douthot's column about Pope Francis yesterday. There may be a parallel between the LDS church and NY Jews. Everybody is either very orthodox or become inactive altogether; the center has trouble holding (admittedly, a Mormon center is still very right of mainstream center). I thought D.U., like Pop Francis, is trying to hold or grow the center, which he can do because he is not American and does not carry all the political baggage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/op...t&emc=rss&_r=0

[LA Ute]

I thought of a DU's talk when I read Ross Douthot's column about Pope Francis yesterday. There may be a parallel between the LDS church and NY Jews. Everybody is either very orthodox or become inactive altogether; the center has trouble holding (admittedly, a Mormon center is still very right of mainstream center). I thought D.U., like Pop Francis, is trying to hold or grow the center, which he can do because he is not American and does not carry all the political baggage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/op...t&emc=rss&_r=0

We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf. I think there is more of a continuum in LDS belief, and where one sits on the continuum depends both on cultural issues (drinking caffeinated drinks, for example) and doctrinal issues (women and the priesthood, same-sex marriage, etc.). Even among Orthodox Jews there are gradients -- e.g., some people are more kosher than others. There are plenty of Mormons who are not strictly orthodox but still participate actively in the church.

[Applejack]

We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf. I think there is more of a continuum in LDS belief, and where one sits on the continuum depends both on cultural issues (drinking caffeinated drinks, for example) and doctrinal issues (women and the priesthood, same-sex marriage, etc.). Even among Orthodox Jews there are gradients -- e.g., some people are more kosher than others. There are plenty of Mormons who are not strictly orthodox but still participate actively in the church.

I can't tell if this was intentional or not, LAU, but I found your categorization of doctrinal/cultural very interesting indeed. Are you suggesting that opposing same-sex marriage is a "doctrine" of the LDS church, while drinking coffee is not, but merely "cultural"?

[LA Ute]

I can't tell if this was intentional or not, LAU, but I found your categorization of doctrinal/cultural very interesting indeed. Are you suggesting that opposing same-sex marriage is a "doctrine" of the LDS church, while drinking coffee is not, but merely "cultural"?

It was shorthand regarding the different sources of disagreement. By "caffeinated drinks" I meant things like Coca-Cola.

[LA Ute]

I'll listen to the talks, wuap.

[wuapinmon]

I'll listen to the talks, wuap.

When you do, think about this:

I think it's far healthier to remove ourselves from the ideologies of both sides (in as much as that's possible) and view the LDS ideological view of homosexuals and homosexual sex as an attempt to patch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system. What does that mean? We have a conundrum. If we have agency, if we are children of our Heavenly Father--created in his image, and if we are created with temptations that make us feel flawed for life, how then can a just God expect us to obey all of the commandments and yet find happiness in this life? How does our ideology address the children born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sets of genitalia, and those who have ovaries inside but a penis and no vagina? We're reminded of Packer's famous now-redacted conference question of "Why would a loving God make them that way?" The consequences of this hole in our ideology, this unanswerable question in the face of the prophetic declaration that "gender is eternal," demonstrate an inconsistency, and therefore, we're left with an ideology that doesn't ultimately provide a logical answer to the knowledge that it lacks--and the consequences that stem from that absence of knowledge.

[Viking]

Cook said something like, "I applaud the contributions of women in every field, BUT if you don't behave like my grandma did, then a pox upon you and your kin to the -nth generation"

Oaks drops sociology on us to defend the church's position on marriage while failing to note that the data he's giving is precisely because WOMEN now have the ability to make decisions for how they want to live outside the agriculture-society patriarchy to which the Brethren cling so tenaciously.

Then comes Elder Andersen with "Women don't need the priesthood because I God said so." The analogy of men opening the drapes to let the light in was especially patronizing because it just reinforces the circular logic he was throwing down throughout the entire talk. The church also completely misuses the word gender. Their insistence on using it to mean "sex" is incorrect, and wrong, because even in homosexual relationships, there can be differing genders among equal phenotypes. I nailed it here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mac-w...51586882586095

Elder Oaks said that a "moral coward" doesn't act when he knows he should. Right back at you, Dallin.

I'm really struggling with calling myself LDS at this point. Mormon? Sure. But, LDS? I just don't know any more.

Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

[wuapinmon]

Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

Yeah, but at some point reconciling the brand with the branding on my person is difficult.

[Solon]

He's the Miggy Cabrera of apostles. All he does is hit home runs.

Though I'd have to say the entire Quorum of the Twelve brought their A-game yesterday. Great talks all around.

Not sure who the others are? This sounds like a good way to waste 20 minutes this morning:

Elder Bednar = Ichiro. Efficient and all business. Throw you out at home without blinking.
Elder Perry = Derek Jeter. Doubles hitter with occasional unforgettable moments. Impossible not to like him.
President Monson = Tommy Lasorda. A people's coach with a huge bank of amusing stories. A winner.
Elder Packer = Joe Mauer. Tough as nails. Calls a great game from behind home plate. Takes a lot of abuse from opponents.
Elder Oaks = Mariano Rivera. Consistent quality.
Elder Holland = Justin Verlander. Brings the heat with an occasional vicious change up.
Elder Nelson = Clayton Kershaw. A surgeon.
Elder Scott = Andy Pettitte. The stare-down. He'll look into your soul.
Elder Anderson = Jose Fernandez. ROY candidate overshadowed by more outspoken/dramatic candidate.
Elder Eyring = Joe Torre. Just loves the game. Loves his team.
Elder Christofferson = Manny Machado. Best defensive player in baseball.
Elder Ballard = Jerry Hairston. Best utility infielder in baseball. Will take on any assignment.
Elder Hales = Roy Halladay. A soft-spoken star.

This was pretty funny, sancho. Now I've got to go see what Elder Scott has said about forgiveness for taking PEDs.
But I think Packer is Ty Cobb. Oaks is starting to look like Mantle - stumbling around at the tail end of his career. He has a great legacy, but I wonder if he'll damage it with some of his recent strong remarks.

We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf.

I wonder if, to some extent, there is a connection to be drawn between both being cultural and geographic outsiders to an entrenched ecclesiastic culture. I strongly suspect that Uchtdorf is more liberal, socially minded than others in the Q12 because of his upbringing. I wonder to what extent the more hardline stances from his quorum-mates bother him.

Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

This is good advice, Viking. Good luck, wuap. Oaks has inspired me to avoid moral cowardice, although he would probably disagree with the morals I plan to defend more outspokenly.

[Sisyphus]

“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young


“For Brigham Young, conformity is the danger signal: “I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint,” he said, “and do not believe in the doctrine. . . . Away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” When, as a boy, he was asked by his father to sign a temperance pledge, he resolutely refused. Youth rebelling against respectability? No, honesty resisting social pressure and hypocrisy.” Approaching Zion, – Hugh Nibley

Solon, Wuap and Viking. I love your style and I don't want you to conform within Mormonism just from social pressure.

There's always room in my big-tented heart for people willing to go against the grain on principle. I also have a some contempt to the moral cowards that will just go with the flow in fear of rocking the boat.

[Solon]

“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young


“For Brigham Young, conformity is the danger signal: “I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint,” he said, “and do not believe in the doctrine. . . . Away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” When, as a boy, he was asked by his father to sign a temperance pledge, he resolutely refused. Youth rebelling against respectability? No, honesty resisting social pressure and hypocrisy.” Approaching Zion, – Hugh Nibley

Solon, Wuap and Viking. I love your style and I don't want you to conform within Mormonism just from social pressure.

There's always room in my big-tented heart for people willing to go against the grain on principle. I also have a some contempt to the moral cowards that will just go with the flow in fear of rocking the boat.

Thank you, friend.
I'm more of a moral coward than I would like to be.

[Sisyphus]

Again:
“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young

Moral courage, for me, is finding your way without going into full group-think mode. Oaks criticizes secular "group-think" in his talk if you boil it down to the essence. Yet there's plenty of material he uses that will help perpetuate the LDS "group-think" at the same time.

For me there's always admiration and respect for people willing to go against the grain out of principle. I also have some contempt of moral cowardice when it comes to going with the flow in fear of rocking the boat. The boat can be rocked from both sides. True to your principles AND ALSO willing to challenge one's own beliefs. We have around 90K+ missionaries at any given moment whose SOLE PURPOSE is to ask people to challenge their current beliefs with a distinct alternative, yet if we do the same it's "the road to Apostacy". Hmmm....

[Viking]

Yeah, but at some point reconciling the brand with the branding on my person is difficult.

I have an inkling of what you are going through. I can only hope you find a way to reconcile all of it and have inner peace.

[OrangeUte]

Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?

[Two Utes]

Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?

"And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

Sorry, but I can't believe Oaks can make this statement with a straight face given church history.

This is where the wheels come off for me. Is he even thinking before he is speaking or just throwing out words and phrases because that is what he has been conditioned to do and no one ever challenges him on it?

[Scratch]

"And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

Sorry, but I can't believe Oaks can make this statement with a straight face given church history.

This is where the wheels come off for me. Is he even thinking before he is speaking or just throwing out words and phrases because that is what he has been conditioned to do and no one ever challenges him on it?

I think to do this he is defining "truths" and "doctrines" very narrowly, much more narrowly than most people would intuitively think.

[LA Ute]

I think to do this he is defining "truths" and "doctrines" very narrowly, much more narrowly than most people would intuitively think.

One of my favorite terms comes to mind: "infelicitous wording." Rare, in a DHO talk. But I think you are right.

[USS Utah]

Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5....6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?

Whoa! That was a leap. That Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes hardly means Oaks made one. When I read Uchtdorf's comments I specifically thought of some things Burce R. McKonkie said that he later acknowledged being wrong about.

As for gay marriage, I said after the reaction to the passage of Prop 8, that those who were against gay marriage had already lost, they just didn't know it yet. I happen to think that members being asked to support Prop 8 was more about a test of obedience than about stopping gay marriage as government recognition of gay marriage appears inevitable. The LDS Church has made some movement, saying last spring that being gay wasn't a choice, and was mostly silent during the Prop 8 court case. This was very significant, but I think it is about as much as can be reasonablly expected. Gay marriage will be legal eventually, but the church will still disapprove.

[OrangeUte]

Whoa! That was a leap. That Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes hardly means Oaks made one. When I read Uchtdorf's comments I specifically thought of some things Burce R. McKonkie said that he later acknowledged being wrong about.

As for gay marriage, I said after the reaction to the passage of Prop 8, that those who were against gay marriage had already lost, they just didn't know it yet. I happen to think that members being asked to support Prop 8 was more about a test of obedience than about stopping gay marriage as government recognition of gay marriage appears inevitable. The LDS Church has made some movement, saying last spring that being gay wasn't a choice, and was mostly silent during the Prop 8 court case. This was very significant, but I think it is about as much as can be reasonablly expected. Gay marriage will be legal eventually, but the church will still disapprove.

I think you are right about the gay marriage issues.

The divide between what Uchtdorf and Oaks said, in my opinion, was that on one hand Dieter was saying "stick around in the church even if you have questions and disagree with some of the policies and doctrine because we want you here and we love you." Oaks, on the other hand is saying "you can't be a Mormon and also hold a political belief that gay marriage is just." i was inartful about what i was saying (thanks Siri dictation...) But Oaks' comments leave me with the impression that if I hold a political belief that gay marriage is equitable and fair that i cannot be a good Mormon for condoning such a political position. Perhaps i am wrong, but i don't think he leaves any doubt that his view of being a good Mormon doesn't include that. Uchtdorf's comments suggest that you can still be a good member of the church even if you disagree with the policies of the church politely. Oaks doesn't even leave room for that option.

[OrangeUte]

Regardless of what Elder Oaks said or how it is interpreted, the Church has been clear for a long time that political opinions have nothing to do with standing, worthiness, or anything else that matters. A couple of lines in general conference doesn't change that.

My own personal feeling is that God finds most political issues to be quite unimportant. I don't think He cares much what we believe politically. He wants us to be good citizens, study issues, and vote because He wants us to be thoughtful and caring, not because He hopes we will vote a certain way. It's a "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" type thing.

As for the few lines that Elder Oaks spoke regarding the law, could it be that he was merely offering a justification for the Church's involvement and not issuing instructions to members on political leanings? Honest question because I can't remember the exact wording.

I think saying a Mormon can't condone legalizing same sex marriages is definitely in the realm of saying how members should vote and also conveys that standing in the church and worthiness are at issue. The word CAN'T (or cannot) is pretty strong and doesn't leave much room for discussion of differing political ideologies.

[OrangeUte]

So do you think this represents a change in church policy then? I don't. I am guessing that church policy has not changed and that we can all ignore that word "can't." That's what I plan on doing.

Not at all. It's more of the pseudo "love" speak that the church gives to people that aren't mainstream Mormons politically. Saying "you are welcome and we want you to come because we love you" but really it's not that way at all. If you don't conform, members are marginalized that don't toe the line.

[OrangeUte]

So do you think this represents a change in church policy then? I don't. I am guessing that church policy has not changed and that we can all ignore that word "can't." That's what I plan on doing.

It doesnt change my mind on how I view issues politically. But I can do without the trite "come back" talk about people offended or who are concerned with church history or the way they are treated. The reality is that the church may officially say that but words like Dallin Oaks make sure that the church, its leaders and its members will get to be as homogenous as possible.

[OrangeUte]

Uchtdorf may have only been speaking of instances of particular individuals behaving badly. However, given some of the official actions historically taken by the church, I highly doubt he was excluding those instances. Mountain Meadows, blacks and the priesthood and the "policy"are all instances that should be included in his "apology". If that's not what he meant, and those weren't included, then to me his talk was not as great as it seemed.

[LA Ute]

He meant whatever you wanted him to mean. Just reading here, for some he meant Mountain Meadows, for some he meant Elder McKonkie, for some he meant Adam-God. Probably for some, he was apologizing for some bishop forcing the deacons to wear white shirts even though it's not in the handbook. For me, he meant every line in the journal of discourses that haters have mined out in order to throw them in my face on the internet.

I listened to his talk again this morning while walking the dog and was reminded of the importance of context. I encourage everyone to read or watch or listen to the whole thing again. Video here. The subject of mistakes by church leaders was only a small part of the talk. There was a great deal more to it. In essence, he was echoing (and he quoted) the BofM's title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...." He was saying, over and over again, "come, join with us." Don't let the imperfections or hypocrisy of some members (a subject he spent much more time on than the mistakes of leaders) keep you away. "There's room for you here." There's so much beauty in the talk. I can't get enough of it.

[concerned]

I listened to his talk again this morning while walking the dog and was reminded of the importance of context. I encourage everyone to read or watch or listen to the whole thing again. Video here. The subject of mistakes by church leaders was only a small part of the talk. There was a great deal more to it. In essence, he was echoing (and he quoted) the BofM's title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...." He was saying, over and over again, "come, join with us." Don't let the imperfections or hypocrisy of some members (a subject he spent much more time on than the mistakes of leaders) keep you away. "There's room for you here." There's so much beauty in the talk. I can't get enough of it.

Thus the comparison to Pope Francis. Trying to do similar things, it seems to me.

[USS Utah]

The Germans were never in the Abbey.

[Slim]

From Clark Griswold: It's the Christmas star, and that's all that matters tonight. Not bonuses, or gifts, or turkeys or trees. See kids, it means something different to everybody, and now I know what it means to me.

The fact that you were able to incorporate a Christmas Vacation quote into the General Conference thread is amazing. Well Done.

Christmas Vacation: "...The gift that keeps on giving the whole year."