Panel About The Conference

[rockpond]

Any of which might be expected to be surfing the net or sleeping during meetings.

 

I agree... unless the NOM happens to be teaching.  

 

But I agree with your main point that bland/boring is in the eye of the beholder.  And, with the exception of Sacrament Meeting, we often have the ability to help make lessons not be bland/boring through meaningful questions, comments, and experiences.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree... unless the NOM happens to be teaching.  

 

But I agree with your main point that bland/boring is in the eye of the beholder.  And, with the exception of Sacrament Meeting, we often have the ability to help make lessons not be bland/boring through meaningful questions, comments, and experiences.

I don't see that we need to except sacrament meeting from that.

[jkwilliams]

Maybe those are largely the disengaged "new-order Mormons" I keep hearing about who attend meetings just to keep up appearances.

Not from my experience, they aren't. And I certainly wouldn't reduce the reason they attend to "just to keep up appearances." Some do, but most of the NOMs I know genuinely want to be there, albeit for different reasons than belief. I have friends who find participation in the church uplifting and good for them spiritually; other friends believe that, even if the church isn't true, they can serve others and be a force for good in the world by attending; and there are many other reasons people stay.

I attend church not to keep up appearances (it's pronounced "bouquet," btw) but to protect my wife. It was not a pleasant experience for her when I wasn't attending.

[rockpond]

I don't see that we need to except sacrament meeting from that.

 

Well, you can't really share comments/questions/experiences with others during sacrament meeting.  Unless yours is different than ours?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, you can't really share comments/questions/experiences with others during sacrament meeting.  Unless yours is different than ours?  

There isn't that two-way interaction and feedback that there typically is in, say, Sunday School. But I don't know why the speaker at the pulpit couldn't do that for his part.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Not from my experience, they aren't. And I certainly wouldn't reduce the reason they attend to "just to keep up appearances." Some do, but most of the NOMs I know genuinely want to be there, albeit for different reasons than belief. I have friends who find participation in the church uplifting and good for them spiritually; other friends believe that, even if the church isn't true, they can serve others and be a force for good in the world by attending; and there are many other reasons people stay.

I attend church not to keep up appearances (it's pronounced "bouquet," btw) but to protect my wife. It was not a pleasant experience for her when I wasn't attending.

All l'm saying is that if you don't really embrace the beliefs and teachings but are there for other reasons, you are more apt to be bored and find the content of the sermons and lessons bland.

 

But in truth, I don't see all that many people sleeping or surfing the net. Maybe it's because I'm too interested in the talk or lesson to be peeping around at what others are doing.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

There isn't that two-way interaction that there typically is in, say, Sunday School. But I don't know why the speaker at the pulpit couldn't do that.

 

I agree... didn't think of what you were saying in the context of correlated material since there really isn't much "correlation" to Sacrament meeting talks.  We give a topic but not much in the way of restriction beyond that (other than asking them to approach the topic in the spirit of prayer and to testify of Christ).

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree... didn't think of what you were saying in the context of correlated material since there really isn't much "correlation" to Sacrament meeting talks.  We give a topic but not much in the way of restriction beyond that (other than asking them to approach the topic in the spirit of prayer and to testify of Christ).

Granted, they don't work from printed manuals or outlines, but Church members generally are encouraged to maintain doctrinal purity in prepared sermons in sacrament meetings as they do in auxiliary lessons. Maybe this doesn't always happen as it should, but to the extent that it does, I have to think it is at least in part due to priesthood correlation.

 

I doubt you encourage talks that are speculative in nature or that contradict established teachings. You shouldn't, at any rate. Part of the bishop's duty is to ensure the doctrinal purity of what is taught in the ward, and that includes sacrament meeting.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

All l'm saying is that if you don't really embrace the beliefs and teachings but are there for other reasons, you are more apt to be bored and find the content of the sermons and lessons bland.

Back when I was elders quorum president, it was generally the most gung-ho who would complain about the boring meetings and lessons. A relative of mine who is a stake president has told me many times that he's glad he has a testimony, because otherwise he would probably stay home. He calls the meetings "brutal" and "excruciating." Sometimes they are.

 

But in truth, I don't see all that many people sleeping or surfing the net. Maybe it's because I'm too interested in the talk or lesson to be peeping around at what others are doing.

Then you should be glad that an apostate like me is there to tell you what's going on while you're paying attention to the meetings.

[rockpond]

Granted, they don't work from printed manuals or outlines, but Church members generally are encouraged to maintain doctrinal purity in prepared sermons in sacrament meetings as they do in auxiliary lessons. Maybe this doesn't always happen as it should, but to the extent that it does, I have to think it is at least in part due to priesthood correlation.

 

I doubt you encourage talks that are speculative in nature or that contradict established teachings. You shouldn't, at any rate. Part of the bishop's duty is to ensure the doctrinal purity of what is purveyed in the ward, and that includes sacrament meeting.

 

No, we would not encourage speculation and wouldn't even invite someone to speak if we thought that they were gonna go off the rails.  I was just saying that the talks come from their own prayer & study, not manuals.

 

And I think our current set of manuals (youth & RS/PH), while still correlated, encourage that same approach to teaching a lesson.

[rongo]

There isn't that two-way interaction and feedback that there typically is in, say, Sunday School. But I don't know why the speaker at the pulpit couldn't do that for his part.

Church policy discourages it (audience participation solicited from the pulpit, etc.).

 

I would love it if we were never again "held hostage" by an "Aloha" speaker who insists on continuing to say "Aloha" until the audience's "Aloha" is judged to be satisfactory.

 

[Stone holm]

Maybe those are largely the disengaged "new-order Mormons" I keep hearing about who attend meetings just to keep up appearances.

 

Nope, I think its quite a few people -- but it does cut down on the snoring.

[CV75]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was politics.

 

Is your assessment then that "councils" are responsible for women praying in conference?

Where politics is a secular method of influencing people, I see campaigning as being political in comparison to councils that use the Spirit to discover the Lord's will in meeting His chidlren's needs.

 

But yes, I think the Church's "councils" and council method are responsible for women praying in conference--rather, the leaders responding to the Lord's will in the councils; I see councils as where the decision was made, where the discussions leading up to it took place, where the need to consider it was brought up, where the idea was formulated, etc. I don't believe campaigns conducted outside the council process had any influence or placed any pressure upon it; nor that they were somehow integrated into the process.

 

Now of course the Church consults, discusses, seeks to resolve conflict and builds bridges over various matters with other groups quite a bit, but this is not the same council process as described in D&C 50 and 88. Church leaders also do their own research, have staff do research, and hold off-line counsel, etc. for consideration in council  I'm inclined to go with calmoriah's conversation with Mark Tuttle as representing how things work.

[rongo]

Granted, they don't work from printed manuals or outlines, but Church members generally are encouraged to maintain doctrinal purity in prepared sermons in sacrament meetings as they do in auxiliary lessons. Maybe this doesn't always happen as it should, but to the extent that it does, I have to think it is at least in part due to priesthood correlation.

 

I doubt you encourage talks that are speculative in nature or that contradict established teachings. You shouldn't, at any rate. Part of the bishop's duty is to ensure the doctrinal purity of what is purveyed in the ward, and that includes sacrament meeting.

One thing I can't stand is when the topic of "Elder ______'s conference talk" is assigned in sacrament meeting. Invariably, most people say "Elder _____ says it so much better than I ever could . . .," and proceeds to read to us a talk I have already read. I want people's thoughts, experiences, and even ruminations on topics. 

 

I don't care for it when an entire month's speakers are given the same topic, either, but that's up to the bishop.

 

When I was a bishop, the three members of the bishopric rotated each week and were responsible for giving their own topics to the people they asked to speak. This resulted in a wide range of topics over 5+ years, and often reflected what those individual men felt and perceived to be needs or important topics. 

 

I took my responsibility for ensuring doctrinal integrity seriously, but I agree with jkwilliams and the stake president he quoted that our meetings and manuals are "brutal" and have been correlated to death. On several occasions, I gave talks which were not in this mold. Once, at ward conference, I spoke about the "terrible questions" and gave some things that prophets have said that can help people facing the "terrible questions" (e.g., progression between kingdoms, efficacy of sealing, etc.). I emphasized that these are open questions that are not settled doctrinally, either way, and pointed out quotations from Brethren on both ends. I also emphasized that the stake president was present and would correct me if needed. This was very meaningful to many people who I knew were struggling with the "terrible questions" and didn't have satisfactory answers. On another occasion, I distilled this paper

 

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

 

into a talk (again, with the stake president present), and had a good response ---- one from an elderly visitor who came up after and said he wished we had more talks like that now. 

 

While I agree with President Kimball that if people are bored at Church, it's their own fault, I also think that things have become so "brutally" boring that some of it is structural (much of it is cultural ---- the cultural softness and "foofiness" in society at large). 

[Scott Lloyd]

Church policy discourages it (audience participation solicited from the pulpit, etc.).

 

I would love it if we were never again "held hostage" by an "Aloha" speaker who insists on continuing to say "Aloha" until the audience's "Aloha" is judged to be satisfactory.

 

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying the pulpit speaker should solicit audience participation, just that he can share his own insights experiences, etc. as he gives his talk. My point is that the sacrament meeting talk needn't be dry and boring; the speaker can make a lot of difference in that respect.

 

And I share your annoyance about the typical "aloha speaker," although I was softened a bit about that during my trip a few weeks ago to Laie, Hawaii, where I covered the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Polynesian Cultural Center. There really is a delightfully warm spirit there, among Church members as well as people in general.

[rockpond]

Where politics is a secular method of influencing people, I see campaigning as being political in comparison to councils that use the Spirit to discover the Lord's will in meeting His chidlren's needs.

 

But yes, I think the Church's "councils" and council method are responsible for women praying in conference--rather, the leaders responding to the Lord's will in the councils; I see councils as where the decision was made, where the discussions leading up to it took place, where the need to consider it was brought up, where the idea was formulated, etc. I don't believe campaigns conducted outside the council process had any influence or placed any pressure upon it; nor that they were somehow integrated into the process.

 

Now of course the Church consults, discusses, seeks to resolve conflict and builds bridges over various matters with other groups quite a bit, but this is not the same council process as described in D&C 50 and 88. Church leaders also do their own research, have staff do research, and hold off-line counsel, etc. for consideration in council  I'm inclined to go with calmoriah's conversation with Mark Tuttle as representing how things work.

 

That is truly fascinating that after 180 years of conferences, the council process decided to have women pray in conference completely independent of the external requests that were happening.  Truly an amazing coincidence.

 

Calmoriah's experience with Mark Tuttle does not contradict that the movement had an influence in getting the decision made.  He only said that they were not responding to the "media frenzy".  Well, the public movement started long before the media frenzy.

[Stone holm]

One thing I can't stand is when the topic of "Elder ______'s conference talk" is assigned in sacrament meeting. Invariably, most people say "Elder _____ says it so much better than I ever could . . .," and proceeds to read to us a talk I have already read. I want people's thoughts, experiences, and even ruminations on topics. 

 

I don't care for it when an entire month's speakers are given the same topic, either, but that's up to the bishop.

 

When I was a bishop, the three members of the bishopric rotated each week and were responsible for giving their own topics to the people they asked to speak. This resulted in a wide range of topics over 5+ years, and often reflected what those individual men felt and perceived to be needs or important topics. 

 

I took my responsibility for ensuring doctrinal integrity seriously, but I agree with jkwilliams and the stake president he quoted that our meetings and manuals are "brutal" and have been correlated to death. On several occasions, I gave talks which were not in this mold. Once, at ward conference, I spoke about the "terrible questions" and gave some things that prophets have said that can help people facing the "terrible questions" (e.g., progression between kingdoms, efficacy of sealing, etc.). I emphasized that these are open questions that are not settled doctrinally, either way, and pointed out quotations from Brethren on both ends. I also emphasized that the stake president was present and would correct me if needed. This was very meaningful to many people who I knew were struggling with the "terrible questions" and didn't have satisfactory answers. On another occasion, I distilled this paper

 

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

 

into a talk (again, with the stake president present), and had a good response ---- one from an elderly visitor who came up after and said he wished we had more talks like that now. 

 

While I agree with President Kimball that if people are bored at Church, it's their own fault, I also think that things have become so "brutally" boring that some of it is structural (much of it is cultural ---- the cultural softness and "foofiness" in society at large). 

 

I remember once when serving in a Branch Presidency and having a Branch Music Director who was basically impossible to please and who wanted us to pick out the songs in advance and have them all coordinated to the topic, that we decided to have her pick three months of songs with each month on a theme of her choice and then we would assign talks to fit her music.  Yeah, that didn't work so well either -- makes me wonder what might happen if we call women to be the Bishops...sigh...then we have some Bishoprics who have so many people on their don't ask to talk list that we hear the same dozen people over and over again -- you can almost guess what is going to come out of their mouths.  Just so they don't start up with the 12 Step Program cheerleading sermons again -- they interrupt my naps with frustration.  Not sure why people have to consider Sacrament meeting some kind of colossal AA meeting.

[rongo]

 

 

And I share your annoyance about the typical "aloha speaker," although I was softened a bit about that during my trip a few weeks ago to Laie, Hawaii, where I covered the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Polynesian Cultural Center. There really is a delightfully warm spirit there, among Church members as well as people in general.

I find that the typical aloha speaker is white and has a minimal connection to the Islands. They just like to hold the audience hostage for a suitable aloha.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find that the typical aloha speaker is white and has a minimal connection to the Islands. They just like to hold the audience hostage for a suitable aloha.

A good many indigenous Hawaiians are white these days.

 

 

But I understand what you're saying about holding the audience hostage, and I, too, find it uncomfortable.

[rongo]

I remember once when serving in a Branch Presidency and having a Branch Music Director who was basically impossible to please and who wanted us to pick out the songs in advance and have them all coordinated to the topic, that we decided to have her pick three months of songs with each month on a theme of her choice and then we would assign talks to fit her music.  Yeah, that didn't work so well either

Our music director when we were released in November had free reign to choose songs ---- and she loved it! She did a really good job of "spreading the wealth" and giving good coverage to the songs in the hymn book. Based on her life situation, this was a really good calling for her, and meant a lot to her (she also did the program that was printed on Sunday). A sister once remarked that she was flabbergasted that she could pick the songs each Sunday completely autonymously, and the sister said, tongue-in-cheek, "I know ---- I have absolute power, don't I?" She really did do an outstanding job of choosing good and appropriate songs that often (but not always) matched the topics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

One thing I can't stand is when the topic of "Elder ______'s conference talk" is assigned in sacrament meeting. Invariably, most people say "Elder _____ says it so much better than I ever could . . .," and proceeds to read to us a talk I have already read. I want people's thoughts, experiences, and even ruminations on topics. 

But even when that is the assigned topic, the skill and effort of the speaker can make a great deal of difference, in my observation.

 

I don't care for it when an entire month's speakers are given the same topic, either, but that's up to the bishop.

 

I haven't seen that happen in quite a while. Maybe it has fallen out of fashion.

 

 

I took my responsibility for ensuring doctrinal integrity seriously, but I agree with jkwilliams and the stake president he quoted that our meetings and manuals are "brutal" and have been correlated to death.

 

Hmm. When I taught gospel doctrine class, I found that with effort and with pleading for the Spirit's guidance, there was  much scope for preparing an engaging lesson and facilitating a stimulating discussion. And I don't mean that I just ignored what was in the manual and went off on my own. From personal experience, I don't agree that a lesson prepared from it must needs be "brutally boring."

 

Maybe they're boring when the teacher gets so tied to the printed lesson that he or she feels bound to cover everything in it. The lesson manual itself discourages this, and says the teacher should prayerfully and under inspiration select the points the class needs most.

 

I very rarely, if ever, covered even most of what was in a given lesson.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Our music director when we were released in November had free reign to choose songs ---- and she loved it! She did a really good job of "spreading the wealth" and giving good coverage to the songs in the hymn book. Based on her life situation, this was a really good calling for her, and meant a lot to her (she also did the program that was printed on Sunday). A sister once remarked that she was flabbergasted that she could pick the songs each Sunday completely autonymously, and the sister said, tongue-in-cheek, "I know ---- I have absolute power, don't I?" She really did do an outstanding job of choosing good and appropriate songs that often (but not always) matched the topics. 

 

Yes, I always got assigned to deal with the members of the Branch that the rest of the Branch Presidency were afraid of like the music director and the librarian...and the Branch President was a prosecutor...once when the librarian was verbally killing the clerk in a connected room we had to pick a lock to get out a back door...those were the days...

[CV75]

That is truly fascinating that after 180 years of conferences, the council process decided to have women pray in conference completely independent of the external requests that were happening.  Truly an amazing coincidence.

 

Calmoriah's experience with Mark Tuttle does not contradict that the movement had an influence in getting the decision made.  He only said that they were not responding to the "media frenzy".  Well, the public movement started long before the media frenzy.

During 180 years of conferences, the prayer assignment practices have changed quite a bit.

 

i've been talking about campaigning vs. councils; you presented LWP in the conext of a campaign and I replied accordingly. Are you now talking about the LWP as a movement, or of some movement underlying it? Everybody is aware of movements and no one can really pin down who the originators are (just the loudmouths taking credit for it!).

 

You wish to point out that "public movements" (is LWP one of those?) influence the outcome of LDS leadership decisions. I would say no; rather, when the time for change arises, inspired solutions come out of councils, not movements. Those decisions can inspire movements and campaigns, but not vice-versa.

[rockpond]

During 180 years of conferences, the prayer assignment practices have changed quite a bit.

i've been talking about campaigning vs. councils; you presented LWP in the conext of a campaign and I replied accordingly. Are you now talking about the LWP as a movement, or of some movement underlying it? Everybody is aware of movements and no one can really pin down who the originators are (just the loudmouths taking credit for it!).

You wish to point out that "public movements" (is LWP one of those?) influence the outcome of LDS leadership decisions. I would say no; rather, when the time for change arises, inspired solutions come out of councils, not movements. Those decisions can inspire movements and campaigns, but not vice-versa.

The time for change arose 35 years ago when President Kimball formally said (in a letter published to the church) that women should pray in all meetings which they attend. Do you disagree with that being the point at which the change should have happened? When the Prophet said to do it?

These "councils" you speak of didn't make the change for 34 years. Is that a pace you are comfortable with?

You can go ahead and parse words however you'd like... Movement... Campaign... Social Media initiative. Whatever you want to name it and whoever actually started it, it seemed to get the job done. I think that the Brethren were listening to what these sisters had to say. And we're all better for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened at that point (have not had time to hear the whole podcast yet). I was saddened to see he is still propounding the line that last year's purge at the Maxwell Institute was directed by high-level Church leaders.

 

This has been denied by people in a position to know, and, I, for one, disbelieve him.

So as it happens, our friend Daniel Peterson has been alerted to Dehlin's on-air sniping and has elected to set the record straight in a very enlightening blog post.

 

The long and short of it is that Dan and Dehlin can't both be right.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd