The Last Mormon Freedom

[Pahoran]

Excellent post Zak. You've hit the nail on the head.

I agree that his bitter outburst captured your spite rather well.

You may take my silence to mean that I have other things to do besides 3 Ne. 14:6.

That's right; you're too busy doing 3 Ne. 11:29.

If explaining what you mean by "The Last Mormon Freedom" -- all with capitals, no less -- is too much like "casting pearls," then maybe it would have been better for you not to have brought it up.

But the fact is that you did bring it up; and furthermore, you have assiduously passed over every opportunity to explain what you meant. Thus, we are left with no option but to accept the only explanation presently on the table: "The Last Mormon Freedom" -- all with capitals, no less -- is a phrase you have chosen to employ to denote the "freedom" to hijack Fast and Testimony meeting at whim.

I can see that you find comfort and security in "well-regulated" F&T meetings. If that inspires you to get up and bear your testimony then so be it.

Would you like me to ask Elder Ballard to come whisper in your ear to help you know what to say?

No.

And you have no valid basis to make such an asinine assumption.

Or Elder Ballard's heart in Pahoran's case.

Hey Mortal: did you tell that brazen lie because you thought it would be insulting, or did you choose that particular insult because you knew it was a lie, and you especially love such things?

Hang on, let me write this down, I think Pahoran can use it.

I don't need it. Contrary to the deliberate falsehood being propagated on this thread, there is no "formula," and everyone who claims that there is is knowingly telling porkies.

But there is a class of statements that can legitimately be regarded as part of a valid testimony; and they are not "all about meeeeee."

Which probably explains why you don't like them.

I did not know that selek. Thanks for sharing.

Oh, I did.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

"The Last Mormon Freedom" -- all with capitals, no less -- is a phrase you have chosen to employ to denote the "freedom" to hijack Fast and Testimony meeting at whim.

The question this begs is WHO is Fast and Testimony meeting being hijacked FROM?

Care to comment?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

The question this begs is WHO is Fast and Testimony meeting being hijacked FROM?

Care to comment?

I think you mean "the question this prompts" or "the question this raises". "Begging the question" is a name for a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

And I would respond simply by saying that the meeting is being hijacked from those who attend expecting to be uplifted and edified in the manner prescribed by the prophets and apostles.

[jwhitlock]

Excellent post Zak. You've hit the nail on the head.

If I were Zak, and found you agreeing with me, I'd reconsider my position posthaste.

[jwhitlock]

And I would respond simply by saying that the meeting is being hijacked from those who attend expecting to be uplifted and edified in the manner prescribed by the prophets and apostles.

Yep, pretty much.

I find it quite interesting that there are those on this thread who don't want to hear real testimony at a fast and testimony meeting. They characterize it as cookie cutter stuff, mandated verbatim out of some obscure manual which can never quite be found. It seems like they'd rather see the entertaining spectacle of the lowest common denominator driving the tone of the meeting. It's really all about people "expressing themselves", a phrase I rather doubt you'll find in any Church publication describing the purpose of fast and testimony meeting.

What's that term for those who undermine the Church in that manner?

[alter idem]

The question this begs is WHO is Fast and Testimony meeting being hijacked FROM?

Care to comment?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It's being hijacked from those of us who come there to bear witness of Christ and to hear others bear witness of Christ, that's who. I think we're being ripped off and our Apostles want to fix it.

When someone gets up and gives a travelogue or tells how they are thankful for their family, their husband or wife, or their new baby, their blessings, I'm happy for them, but still I'm left 'wanting'--because nothing they said was something that the Holy Ghost ought to witness to the truthfulness of.

The Holy Ghost doesn't need to witness to me that some guy loves his wife. Great for him. The Holy Ghost will witness if he testifies that he knows that God lives and Jesus is our Savior and loves us etc. and those things will be of value to me and to others in the congregation--because that is what a 'testimony' is.

Pure Testimony puts the emphasis on God, Jesus Christ, his divine mission, his church, his scriptures etc. And that's the biggest drawback to the Thanktimonies, Travelogues and lectures in that they take the emphasis from God and put it on the person talking at the pulpit--who can only offer their listeners warm-fuzzy feelgoods; IMO, a poor substitute for the real deal.

[nicolasconnault]

It's being hijacked from those of us who come there to bear witness of Christ and to hear others bear witness of Christ, that's who. I think we're being ripped off and our Apostles want to fix it.

When someone gets up and gives a travelogue or tells how they are thankful for their family, their husband or wife, or their new baby, their blessings, I'm happy for them, but still I'm left 'wanting'--because nothing they said was something that the Holy Ghost ought to witness to the truthfulness of.

The Holy Ghost doesn't need to witness to me that some guy loves his wife. Great for him. The Holy Ghost will witness if he testifies that he knows that God lives and Jesus is our Savior and loves us etc. and those things will be of value to me and to others in the congregation--because that is what a 'testimony' is.

Pure Testimony puts the emphasis on God, Jesus Christ, his divine mission, his church, his scriptures etc. And that's the biggest drawback to the Thanktimonies, Travelogues and lectures in that they take the emphasis from God and put it on the person talking at the pulpit--who can only offer their listeners warm-fuzzy feelgoods; IMO, a poor substitute for the real deal.

Amen

The "Formula" doesn't originate from Church instruction or handbooks, it comes from LDS culture and poor, repetitive testimonies, that always end with "Inthenameofthysonjesuschristamen" (which has a tendency to rake on my nerves each time I hear it). I often hear it at the end of a thanktimony, almost as an afterthought ("Oh yeah, I'd better say the usual testimony things to close off.."). I am not edified by the "formula", it does nothing for me. However it's not so much about what is said, as it is about how it is said, and with what intent and sincerity it is said. I remember being extremely touched by someone who simply said "I know that God lives", because they said it with unmistakable sincerity and real intent.

[HMX-1]

I tend to agree, fast and testimony meeting's goal isn't about "being real". Its about bearing your testimony or it better terms witnessing to the truthfulness of the gospel. Its not about your recent vacation, hospital trip, family tree, or other such travelogue. Now there is a sister in our ward who suffers from some emotional or mental tribulation, not so much in a bad way, but she invariably gets up to bear her testimony every fast and testimony Sunday, and the only way she can do it is to make a fairy tale like story out of some biblical story (she starts out "once upon a time....). I appreciate that she is doing the best that she can to bear her testimony, and that her message is specifically for the small children in the ward (they actually grow quiet and listen). I suppose it comes to the question of best intentions more than what is said and done. Some, like this dear sister, do not know better and do the best they can with the ability they have. Most cognizant people, ie most people... know better.

JK,

It's a chance for me to feel humbled in the presence of the Lord!

[alter idem]

Yep, pretty much.

I find it quite interesting that there are those on this thread who don't want to hear real testimony at a fast and testimony meeting. They characterize it as cookie cutter stuff, mandated verbatim out of some obscure manual which can never quite be found. It seems like they'd rather see the entertaining spectacle of the lowest common denominator driving the tone of the meeting. It's really all about people "expressing themselves", a phrase I rather doubt you'll find in any Church publication describing the purpose of fast and testimony meeting.

What's that term for those who undermine the Church in that manner?

I don't know for sure, but I think Mortal Man is not active--I know that Redifined is not. So...that might explain why they would enjoy Fast and Testimony meetings where people tell stories, say funny things and don't actually bring the spirit. If they are not active or no longer believers, I'd assume they would not notice or care if the spirit was not there.

Now, I'm not implying that MM or Red. feel this way(they may be just considering it from an entertainment standpoint), but I do think that some Church critics don't WANT to see us improve the spirituality of our Fast and Tesitmony meetings--It is in their best interests for our meetings to be dominated by members 'expressing themselves'-- talking about asteroids or seeing messages in the clouds, going off on tangents that do nothing to bring the spirit, using up precious time with Thankful/grateful lists, or telling inappropriate stories, etc.--basically making the meeting ineffectual by not bringing the spirit--and in so doing, keeping the spirit from witnessing that the gospel is true.

[HMX-1]

I don't know for sure, but I think Mortal Man is not active--I know that Redifined is not. So...that might explain why they would enjoy Fast and Testimony meetings where people tell stories, say funny things and don't actually bring the spirit. If they are not active or no longer believers, I'd assume they would not notice or care if the spirit was not there.

Now, I'm not implying that MM or Red. feel this way(they may be just considering it from an entertainment standpoint), but I do think that some Church critics don't WANT to see us improve the spirituality of our Fast and Tesitmony meetings--It is in their best interests for our meetings to be dominated by members 'expressing themselves'-- talking about asteroids or seeing messages in the clouds, going off on tangents that do nothing to bring the spirit, using up precious time with Thankful/grateful lists, or telling inappropriate stories, etc.--basically making the meeting ineffectual by not bringing the spirit--and in so doing, keeping the spirit from witnessing that the gospel is true.

Idem,

I'm just pleased to see people who otherwise would not have the courage to speak publicly to humble themselves and stand before their Savior and exort their feelings and beliefs. Some of us are able to discern the difference between those who are up there for the right reasons and those who aren't. I'll let God sort them out!

[nicolasconnault]

Idem,

I'm just pleased to see people who otherwise would not have the courage to speak publicly to humble themselves and stand before their Savior and exort their feelings and beliefs. Some of us are able to discern the difference between those who are up there for the right reasons and those who aren't. I'll let God sort them out!

Absolutely, and, whereas I used to think that it was my problem to correct inappropriate testimonies, I no longer make a big deal out of it. It would be a different story if I was called on the bishopric again.

[Mortal Man]

If I were Zak, and found you agreeing with me, I'd reconsider my position posthaste.

You're absolutely right jwhitlock, I completely agree with you.

[HMX-1]

Absolutely, and, whereas I used to think that it was my problem to correct inappropriate testimonies, I no longer make a big deal out of it. It would be a different story if I was called on the bishopric again.

NCT,

I've only seen a few times in my whole life that F/T meeting was abused. When members speak it is but a personal oral journal. P.S. Welcome aboard! HMX-1

[jwhitlock]

You're absolutely right jwhitlock, I completely agree with you.

Actually, I figured you'd probably say that even as I posted it. Just wanted to see if you would resist posting a rational impossibility or not, and I was not disappointed. In that respect, you've been very consistent on this thread.

[nicolasconnault]

NCT,

I've only seen a few times in my whole life that F/T meeting was abused. When members speak it is but a personal oral journal. P.S. Welcome aboard! HMX-1

I've seen it recently where members used it to promote a play they were doing, and enrol more volunteers. They admittedly never prayed about the choice of the play, which was "The school for scandal" by Sheridan, a very dubious choice for a performance meant to represent the Church during a Telethon fundraiser. Despite that, they would get up in F/T meetings and say things like "This play will bring more people into the Church than all the missionary work done here in the last 10 years put together!", and using guilt trips etc. The bishop was horrified, especially since 80% of the participants in the play were members of the ward council. He didn't say anything during the meeting though, which was probably a wise choice on his part.

[Mortal Man]

I don't know for sure, but I think Mortal Man is not active

Sadly, that is the perception most members have of ward clerks.

that might explain why they would enjoy Fast and Testimony meetings where people tell stories, say funny things and don't actually bring the spirit.

It's very simple alter idem, when someone gets up to the podium I want to hear what they have to say, not what the bishop or Elder Ballard wants them to say, I already know what that is. I'm not particularly interested in banalities and imitation. I want to know what burning issue drove them up to the stand. If they bear a proper well-regulated apostle-approved testimony-by-the-numbers, then that's fine with me, so long as it's their own words. If they go on a bizzare rant about the thing under their bed, which makes no sense whatsoever, but nevertheless opens a window into their soul, then I am equally edified, because I now have a connection and empathy with that person on the podium, whom I may have known nothing about before they got up there. That, to me, is "the spirit." And that's the only concrete definition that's appeared thus far on this thread.

Each person who gets up to the mic has the potential to contribute something unique, something important, which nobody else knows about. No one should ever be criticized for bearing a sincere testimony (sincere according to them, not you). When you criticize someone for not bearing a "proper testimony" (which cannot be defined due to the utter subjectivity of "the spirit") you devalue them as a human being. You decree that there is no spark of intelligence in them and, even if there is, it is of no value. You declare that their only worth as an individual is to serve the institution. When the institution becomes more important than the individual, it's time to find a new church.

Think of the ward as a system of equations. In order to solve the system you have to have as many equations as you have unknowns. Think of the unknowns as people and each original idea as an independent equation. If you try to force everyone into a single identity by not allowing them to express their independent thoughts, then there will not be enough equations to solve the system and it will become degenerate.

keeping the spirit from witnessing that the gospel is true.

The power of the spirit must be weak indeed to be restrained so easily by innocuous comments.

I recommend you read something by Ayn Rand. She will show you a larger world.

[Anijen]

I love all type of testimonies. I loved it when one sister in our ward went on and on how a doctor in our ward helped in a diagnosis that eventually solved the problems she had in the ability to get pregnant. The doctor followed her and said he doesn't want the credit for getting sister _______ pregnant. It was hilarious and one I am glad it broke up the ice. both these members are wonderful spiritual people. I too do not think canned or robotic testimonials are the answer. There is a difference between supporting and sustaining the Bishop and a coerced testimony. I think you can give a good honest testimony as long as it uplifts faith.

I too really would rather not see/hear a scripted testimony. We do need to support our leaders and watch what we say as not to disrupt the spirit of the meeting.

[nicolasconnault]

I like the anecdote by President Eyring of when he was a boy, attending church with his dad:

"Years ago I was sitting in a sacrament meeting with my father. He seemed to be enjoying what I thought was a dull talk, given by a member of the stake high council. I watched my father, and to my amazement his face was beaming as the speaker droned on. I kept stealing looks back at him, and sure enough, through the whole thing he had this beatific smile.

Our home was near enough to the ward meetinghouse that we walked home. I remember walking with my father on the shoulder of the road, which at that time wasn't paved. I kicked a stone ahead of me as I plotted what I would do next. I finally got up enough courage to ask him what he thought of the meeting. He said it was wonderful.

Now I really had a problem. My father had a wonderful sense of humour, but you didn't want to push it too far. I was puzzled. I was trying to summon up enough courage to ask him how I could have such a different opinion of that meeting and that speaker.

Like all good fathers, he must have read my mind, because he started to laugh. He said: "Hal, let me tell you something. Since I was a very young man, I have taught myself to do something in a church meeting. When the speaker begins, I listen carefully and ask myself what is is he/she is trying to say. Then, once I think I know what he/she is trying to accomplish, I give myself a sermon on that subject."

He let that sink in for a moment as we walked along. Then, with that special self-deprecating chuckle of his, he said, "Hal, since then I have never been to a bad meeting."

The simple fact that, from the same meeting, some people will be spiritually uplifted, and others won't, suggests a difference between the listeners, a difference of humility and spiritual sensitivity, as well as other less important and salient variables. I think that, without the need to criticise Church leaders for what they are rightly trying to establish (better meetings), we should be content with good meetings, which can certainly be made better if we bring a good spirit to them.

[Calm]

I think the issue of what a testimony should be can be very often simply addressed by asking oneself "am I about to say this to help myself or to help someone else"? Not that there is anything wrong with feeling like a testimony is benefiting oneself---and I would hope that everyone who makes the effort sits down feeling like they've added something of value to their own life---however, if the focus is on "myself" and not God or others in the congregation, I believe the individual should rethink what they are about to speak in most cases.

[Calm]

The question this begs is WHO is Fast and Testimony meeting being hijacked FROM?

How about God?

Fast and Testimony meeting can be a wonderful experience of coming together and praising the Lord. IMO, this is why the focus should be on witnessing of Christ and his Gospel and speaking of what will invite that particular Spirit into the chapel best.

It is not that other topics have no value or should not be heard in their proper place and time, but what will accomplish what the Lord has required of us that day the best.

[Senator]

How about God?

Fast and Testimony meeting can be a wonderful experience of coming together and praising the Lord. IMO, this is why the focus should be on witnessing of Christ and his Gospel and speaking of what will invite that particular Spirit into the chapel best.

It is not that other topics have no value or should not be heard in their proper place and time, but what will accomplish what the Lord has required of us that day the best.

But is God really just looking for a pep rally for himself?

What if for instance, a sister gets up and expresses what could be labeled a "non-testimony"? She relates that she is in the midst of severe trials and struggles in her life. She feels that she is at the end of her rope. It is very apparent that she is suffering and in pain. She expresses gratitude for certain ward members that have been a support, but there is no mention of the truth of the church or even the knowledge that God lives or Jesus is the Christ. In fact, the feeling is one of uncertainty.

Is this "testimony" inappropriate? It certainly didn't follow the "suggested outline" for appropriate testimony.

As I recall "the spirit" was very strong in the meeting, as I believe a wave of empathy and mourning swept the congregation for this sister.

[consiglieri]

The simple fact that, from the same meeting, some people will be spiritually uplifted, and others won't, suggests a difference between the listeners, a difference of humility and spiritual sensitivity, as well as other less important and salient variables. I think that, without the need to criticise Church leaders for what they are rightly trying to establish (better meetings), we should be content with good meetings, which can certainly be made better if we bring a good spirit to them.

It is remarkable how many different ways one can blame the listener for the speaker's fault.

I think Mormons have it down to an art.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[wenglund]

It is remarkable how many different ways one can blame the listener for the speaker's fault. I think Mormons have it down to an art. All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I viewed his comments not so much as blamming the listener as it was empowering the listener, thus illustrating again his point about how two listeners or readers can be impacted differently by what is said, and this because of how they respectively listen. Some people listen with the intent to be edified, and others listen with the intent to find cause to complain and/or ironicaly blame. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

Senator!

Welcome back!!!

But is God really just looking for a pep rally for himself?

The answer hinges of course entirely on who you ask.

What if for instance, a sister gets up a expresses what could be labeled a "non-testimony"? She relates that she is in the midst of severe trials and struggles in her life. She feels that she is at the end of her rope. It is very apparent that she is suffering and in pain. She expresses gratitude for certain ward members that have been a support, but there is no mention of the truth of the church or even the knowledge that God lives or Jesus is the Christ. In fact, the feeling is one of uncertainty.

Is this "testimony" inappropriate? It certainly didn't follow the "suggested outline" for appropriate testimony.

As I recall "the spirit" was very strong in the meeting, as I believe a wave of empathy and mourning swept the congregation for this sister.

Then the congregation would of course be guilty of mourning with those who mourn.

Last I checked, such a thing goes hand in hand with standing to witness/testify of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is remarkable how many different ways one can blame the listener for the speaker's fault.

I think Mormons have it down to an art.

Perhaps it's because ours is a participatory church. Under the Mormon paradigm, everyone has a duty to see that the worship service succeeds, not just a trained and paid homilist. The implication of that for the listener is that his responsibility, rather than just sitting back and criticizing, is to look for the good and useful in what is offered.