Jump to content
Scott Lloyd

Scrutinizing general conference

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

This is spot on and quite ironic

:oProbably kinda true...yes...what does this say about general membership??  Of course, you guys here..(for which I appreciate) prove you oonferance dediication..(  I can't prove anyone wrong..  Really don't want to...just so very interested in the changes or not since my young days and membership. 

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post

It does feel like, for the majority of members, you have to treat conference as repeating the same old things, not treating the talks as much more than people sharing moral Lion King type stories.  Giving too much  more than that, would likely put more people in the category of actually listening to conference, paying attention to possible results of what is said and then working their way out or on the fringes (welcome). 

I find it all kind of sad, not so much funny.  I'm sad that families are hurting with brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews hurting wanting more explanation for their pain while their family member post memes trying to make light of their loved ones pain. 

I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment.  But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It does feel like, for the majority of members, you have to treat conference as repeating the same old things, not treating the talks as much more than people sharing moral Lion King type stories.  Giving too much  more than that, would likely put more people in the category of actually listening to conference, paying attention to possible results of what is said and then working their way out or on the fringes (welcome). 

I find it all kind of sad, not so much funny.  I'm sad that families are hurting with brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews hurting wanting more explanation for their pain while their family member post memes trying to make light of their loved ones pain. 

I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment.  But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting. 

I love this.  In my teenage years..it was required to watch conference to earn things in the young women;s program.  The thing is, I am much more open and interested now.  But I did often watch conference for my own benefit.  What changed is the trust in all those words..the tears, emotions..all those things don't endear me anymore.  I do have to say that what I have read of the Saturday's conference (thank you Rain and others)  I agree with some great key points..especially on service.  I hold things dear that remain a constant truth in this church.  It is just the trust...some bewilderment/contradiction that I determine my truths.  But I won't condemn members...never.  We are all on our own journey.  I just wish them truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It does feel like, for the majority of members, you have to treat conference as repeating the same old things, not treating the talks as much more than people sharing moral Lion King type stories.  Giving too much  more than that, would likely put more people in the category of actually listening to conference, paying attention to possible results of what is said and then working their way out or on the fringes (welcome). 

I find it all kind of sad, not so much funny.  I'm sad that families are hurting with brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews hurting wanting more explanation for their pain while their family member post memes trying to make light of their loved ones pain. 

I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment.  But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting. 

I heard a lot of "we're in this together" language this conference - We have all have trials so support your teachers and leaders, and don't assume the worst, etc. I rather liked it. As for the battle you speak of, I assume you are referring to those who are in the margins or who have left the Church, and are full of criticism? We cannot specifically control their tone. A lot of them such as Jeremy Runnels are in it basically for the fight - the more you try to address their issues, it seems the louder and more shrill they become. Some may want to foster a sort of public middle ground in the Church, but there doesn't appear to be much room for that. So to some extent some people might just have to be satisfied with "following the prophet" on their own terms and in accordance with their own understanding of scripture. As long as the Church is giving the guidance needed for the gospel to operate, I think it is doing its job as our mother.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just saw this Facebook meme, got a chuckle out of it and had to share it with the board. I'm a fan of irony.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1428848880564834&set=p.1428848880564834&type=3

You've got a point! I for one listened w/o this. But at one time I would have been more in this camp. Really intently listening for anything that seemed out of line. But would be disappointed too. I Iiked most of the messages this conference, and will not get into the ones I disliked. I think in Mormonism there is still great good. Funny thing is a lot of the TBM's were probably sleeping, because I hear that some conference speakers lull you there! But you know it, there are the critics that are going to listen for anything that they will disagree on and be able to vent about it. 

 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't the ' THEN ' be a ' THAN ' ? Help me out Scott.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't the ' THEN ' be a ' THAN ' ? Help me out Scott.

First "then" is correct as it refers to time, second should be "than" as it is a comparison.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is, I am much more open and interested now.  But I did often watch conference for my own benefit.  What changed is the trust in all those words..the tears, emotions..all those things don't endear me anymore.  I do have to say that what I have read of the Saturday's conference (thank you Rain and others)  I agree with some great key points..especially on service.  I hold things dear that remain a constant truth in this church.  It is just the trust...some bewilderment/contradiction that I determine my truths.  But I won't condemn members...never.  We are all on our own journey.  I just wish them truth.

You are kinda quiet about your issues Jeanne. May I ask what specifically they are? Does it have to do with changes in priesthood? What do you no longer trust? You don't have to answer if that is too personal...

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You are kinda quiet about your issues Jeanne. May I ask what specifically they are? Does it have to do with changes in priesthood? What do you no longer trust? You don't have to answer if that is too personal...

Sometimes the leadership contradict each other...not to mention..again..I didn't know the real history.  Why did I not know?  It is my fault isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Sometimes the leadership contradict each other...not to mention..again..I didn't know the real history.  Why did I not know?  It is my fault isn't it?

Nobody's fault.
The Church taught a limited version of its history for decades.  Occasionally they did mention the things that seem to trouble people.
Most members never bothered to read anything outside of the Sunday School manuals.  Some did.

Now more information is readily available so more people read and the Church is being more forthcoming.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's human nature that it's way more fun to critique other people than to critique ourselves.  Looking for evidence to prove you are right and someone else is wrong is also more fun than looking for ways to be a better person or draw closer to Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It does feel like, for the majority of members, you have to treat conference as repeating the same old things, not treating the talks as much more than people sharing moral Lion King type stories.  Giving too much  more than that, would likely put more people in the category of actually listening to conference, paying attention to possible results of what is said and then working their way out or on the fringes (welcome). 

I find it all kind of sad, not so much funny.  I'm sad that families are hurting with brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews hurting wanting more explanation for their pain while their family member post memes trying to make light of their loved ones pain. 

I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment.  But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting. 

I think the image contains some fairly mild barbed humor at the expense of both "observant" Mormons (who are teased at the in the image for not paying due attention to General Conference talks) and hostile former members (who end up listening to General Conference, albeit for grist for their complaining-about-the-church mill).

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the image contains some fairly mild barbed humor at the expense of both "observant" Mormons (who are teased at the in the image for not paying due attention to General Conference talks) and hostile former members (who end up listening to General Conference, albeit for grist for their complaining-about-the-church mill).

-Smac

COmes off more as a hit against those who leave because they aren't far enough in.  I see absolutely nothing to suggest observant Mormons don't pay attention to Conference.  I wish it were as innocuous as that, sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Sometimes the leadership contradict each other...not to mention..again..I didn't know the real history.  Why did I not know?  It is my fault isn't it?

Yes, we have seen that the leaders are not perfect and that a good number of times they have ended up giving us there opinion so as a matter of course it later gets contradicted. So what? Do we really want to go down the road of claiming infallibility? JS gave some 76 years for the scene to wind up, and the Lord return... hmm... seems even he gave incorrect opinions. He contradicted himself. So expecting perfection is for me an erroneous concept, but the Church still does it. I pray for guidance where I see differences from scripture, and am content with that. I think our Church has to some extent fallen into the trap of expressing something about essentially every piece of scripture or prophecy, when it was not necessarily theirs to reveal. All this does not make the gospel of the Lord untrue Jean. It is just as true when it was taught some 2000 years ago.

As for history - "real" history cannot really be known. All the versions of history you are talking about are constructed narratives with their own biases. In evaluating them I think it important to remember that assuming the Lord did restore His gospel to the earth, is Satan going to lie down and take it? Or is he going to encourage critics to come up with every idea available against the Church? I think if one believes in Satan, one must conclude the latter, and I think there are fair examples of that in Church history Jean. For example the Spaulding manuscript story is I think a darn good example of Satan at work cooking up lies against the Church - but it was pretty convincing at the time. Now it is very evident that Hurlbut was drafting lies, and expending much effort because he wanted to hurt the Church. I think many of the stories about JS's polygamy are similarly biased. The Church just simply erred on the side of clean, rosy narrative for too long imho without seeing the later damage that would do. But should we allow that to distort our own personal revelation concerning the gospel? I would say obviously no, but that is an issue I think for many people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a good chance that some of it was your responsibility...there is no need to call it "fault" as if it was a mistake.  People have to make choices of what to invest their time and money and attention.  There can be many good things to choose from, studying history might have been "good" for someone, but caring for family might be a "best" choice.

I had to give up genealogy when my youngest was a year old.  Unlike my oldest, she was not happiest when absorbed in playing by herself, but needed a constant social connection...plus she didn't take 3 hour naps like he did, but 20 minute ones.  Genealogy was a "good" choice, but not the "best" one for me at that time.

Mistakes begin to be made, imo, when people are not comfortable enough with their choices to ignore criticism or mildly point out they did the best with what they had and leave it at that and instead feel the need to defend their choices, but do so by refusing to see their behaviour as a personal choice and instead try to shift responsibility on to others.

I will of course take some responsibility...in hindsight, I wish that I had asked more questions..especially in Seminary.  I thought though that all I needed to know was what I was taught..an to  believe and live it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Comes off more as a hit against those who leave because they aren't far enough in. 

Perhaps.  A very mild "hit," tho.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see absolutely nothing to suggest observant Mormons don't pay attention to Conference. 

That is an ongoing joke amongst Mormons.  I hear it all the time.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wish it were as innocuous as that, sure. 

Okay.

Thanks,

Smac

Share this post


Link to post

A note to everyone.  I appreciate and respect all your answers. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't the ' THEN ' be a ' THAN ' ? Help me out Scott.

Yes. And the semicolon after "is" shouldn't be there.

I like it in spite of its problems with mechanics.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I would say it is partially true.  When i first left the church I watch  the first 2 or 3 conferences very intently.  Now, I barely pay attention to it.  I peruse the highlights afterwards and on the rare occasion something piques my interest I will watch that individual talk

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the image contains some fairly mild barbed humor at the expense of both "observant" Mormons (who are teased at the in the image for not paying due attention to General Conference talks) and hostile former members (who end up listening to General Conference, albeit for grist for their complaining-about-the-church mill).

-Smac

 

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

COmes off more as a hit against those who leave because they aren't far enough in.  I see absolutely nothing to suggest observant Mormons don't pay attention to Conference.  I wish it were as innocuous as that, sure. 

I don't think it teases observant Mormon so much as it does some formerly observant ones who are looking for self-vindication for their subsequent choice(s).

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I would say it is partially true.  When i first left the church I watch  the first 2 or 3 conferences very intently.  Now, I barely pay attention to it.  I peruse the highlights afterwards and on the rare occasion something piques my interest I will watch that individual talk

After I left, I avoided conference because it tended to cause conflict in my family, so I don't know that I was ever interested in dissecting the talks intently. When I was a believer, I always watched conference, but I enjoyed reading the talks when they were published because I could spend more time reading the references and pondering the words. This weekend we were so busy getting our daughter off to Texas that we didn't have time to watch. The only thing I've heard was from a friend who said that apparently Elder Oaks said something that had a few people bent out of shape, but my friend didn't know what was said. I'm really not interested in looking into it. 

Maybe that's the final stage of apostasy: apathy. 

Glad you're safe, btw. I was worried this morning. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×