Sunday, October 2, 2011

Reactions to General Conference

I only watched the two Sunday sessions of the recent general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because that is about all my blood pressure can handle. However, here are a few of my thoughts in response to what was said in those two sessions:

- I feel like all the emphasis on reliance on Heavenly Father may serve to marginalize the recognition and respect for our earthly fathers. I find it especially sad that at some point my children may look at me as a failure because of my unbelief in the church, but will look to their imaginary Heavenly Father (as interpreted by the LDS church) for the support and recognition they desire to give to their father. I guess the lack of emphasis on Heavenly Mother in the church is somewhat providential so that earthly mothers don't receive the same marginalization.

- I was surprised at the number of references to people who died of cancer (or other illnesses) ...even when in the presence of a supposed "apostle" of Jesus Christ. Aren't the apostles of Jesus Christ supposed to be able to heal people who are sick or otherwise afflicted? Apparently the leaders of the LDS church (AKA Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ) are not able to do that kind of stuff (heal the sick) anymore.

- I was disappointed by the talk by Tad R. Callister. He was very divisive and continued to endorse the false dichotomy of either the Book of Mormon is of God (and therefore 100% true) or it is of the devil. While saying there can be no other alternative, I wish I could propose the reasonable alternative...which is that there is no devil and there is no God. Of course, this would negate everything the church stands for, and since the mission of the church is to survive I suppose we won't see them admitting this is an alternative to that stance any time soon.

- I also had to kind of laugh at his comment about how the bible represents one point through which many lines could be drawn representing many different interpretations of the gospel. He went on to point out that the Book of Mormon represents another point through which only one line can be drawn. I would assume this assertion is designed to point out that the LDS church represents the one true religion through which the gospel of Jesus Christ can be interpreted. However, what I would point out is what about all those different churches that exist on the earth today that also use and believe in the Book of Mormon and bible as scripture? Don't all of those (nearly a dozen or so including the Community of Christ, Church of Christ, Strangites, LDS fundamentalists, etc.) other religions represent the truth using that line of thinking?

Other than the above, I was just amused by the fact that grown men (and one woman) can speak for nearly 4 hours and not say one thing that can be seen as new or applicable to real life except for to serve as inspiration for taking a nap. Oh well, I guess we all need to nap every once in a while.

No comments:

Post a Comment