The Reliability of General Conference Talks

[Thinking]

I just think it's noteworthy that there is a thread discussing the reliability of the Journal of Discourses and also a thread discussing an old GC talk by Ezra Taft Benson. It seems that sometimes those general authorities say things that they maybe shouldn't have, but unfortunately is recorded forever.

[cdowis]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I just think it's noteworthy that there is a thread discussing the reliability of the Journal of Discourses and also a thread discussing an old GC talk by Ezra Taft Benson. It seems that sometimes those general authorities say things that they maybe shouldn't have, but unfortunately is recorded forever.

I seem to remember a few years ago that a conference talk was actually re-recorded in order to correct some possible misunderstandings.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

I think this forum has dealt with this issue in a number of threads.  It seems that the majority opinion here is that conference talks are not infallible. That seems right to me. If everything said in conference talks was reliable then going off the top of my head...

• Emma Smith is in danger of going to hell for poisoning Joseph Smith's coffee.  
• April 6th really is Jesus's birthday.  
• The civil rights movement had something to do with a communist plot.  
• A kid's puppy is to be blamed for its disobedience when a motorist intentionally runs it over in front of the 8 year old kid.
• The Elder Paul H. Dunn was one amazing war hero and baseball player.

I guess if I thought about it some more I could come up with more, but I think we probably mostly agree that just because it was said in conference doesn't make it true.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Marmonboy]

Well, the puppy was told to stay out of the road...

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

I just think it's noteworthy that there is a thread discussing the reliability of the Journal of Discourses and also a thread discussing an old GC talk by Ezra Taft Benson. It seems that sometimes those general authorities say things that they maybe shouldn't have, but unfortunately is recorded forever.

Actually the point of the JoD thread is not the reliability of the GAs saying stuff, but how reliable was the JoD in reporting it given what was apparently heavy editing by George Watts.  It is being debated if what was presented as recorded talks was actually their talks...so recording forever is the opposite of the actual issue.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Calm

[rongo]

Unfortunately, our climate today of being hypercritical of what GAs say (coupled with social media) has led to them "playing it safe" a lot more in what they say --- being very cautious and bland, so as not give any fodder. 

When Brethren in the past have said things that are problematic (or may be problematic), it stood anyway as something they said.

Between these two, I would choose the latter, if it were up to me. If someone recorded everything we taught and said, we would come up with some non-correlated things, too. But, people would have what we thought and said. 

I would prefer to have people's actual thoughts and sayings, even if/when I sometimes disagree with them. That no one is perfect should be a given, but we tread so carefully nowadays as to be very bland, safe, and timid. I include speculations in this. What's wrong with hearing what others think, even if there is no Church position on it? We ought to be mature enough to be able to classify things as speculation or opinion when they are. Shouldn't we?

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Unfortunately, our climate today of being hypercritical of what GAs say (coupled with social media) has led to them "playing it safe" a lot more in what they say --- being very cautious and bland, so as not give any fodder.

That's putting it mildly.

Some people have even expressed offense at Elder Holland's "picking marigolds" metaphor.  They'd flip their lids if a current GA preached a little hellfire and damnation as Joseph and Brigham occasionally did.   Anything that is preached that makes us feel bad about ourselves is generally rejected these days.  Calls to repentance that are any stronger than "we need to repent" aren't even embraced these days.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's putting it mildly.

Some people have even expressed offense at Elder Holland's "picking marigolds" metaphor.  They'd flip their lids if a current GA preached a little hellfire and damnation as Joseph and Brigham occasionally did.   Anything that is preached that makes us feel bad about ourselves is generally rejected these days.  Calls to repentance that are any stronger than "we need to repent" aren't even embraced these days.

I think they've been "playing it safe" longer than social media has been around.

Quote

Unfortunately, our climate today of being hypercritical of what GAs say (coupled with social media) has led to them "playing it safe" a lot more in what they say --- being very cautious and bland, so as not give any fodder.

If their main goal is to prevent fodder, they are not succeeding  

[mnn727]

Oliver_Cowdry

If you actually read the puppy story, you'll see your sentence is a mis-characterization of what the story was about.

He said he had tried to train the dog to not chase cars, but the dog wouldn't obey. Had the dog not been chasing the truck, the jerk would not have been able to run it over.  The mother used that as a cautionary tale about disobedience -- entirely appropriate IMHO

A couple of your other examples are mis-characterizations of what was said also.

Edited December 9, 2016 by mnn727

[Bernard Gui]

It would be refreshing if critics took a little time to acknowledge just a few good and inspiring thoughts from Conference or other General Authority messages. They feverishly scrutinize every jot and tittle for something that gives them heartburn even before the talks are published. No turn of phrase goes unstoned. Or unSunstoned.

This thrives in our modern culture as it seeks to ferret out anything that could be even remotely considered offensive even if it is ripped out of context. The goal is to shut down the source. Politicians and others complain about this, but it's been SOP for anti-Mormons for almost 200 years and now even supposedly faithful members fervently join the cause.

Nary a Conference passes that some folks don't recoil in horror and flee to their safe place for refuge from some awful thing a leader uttered....and then express their outrage from the safety of social media. Perhaps all talks should be given and written in some obscure foreign language like Tewa, Basque, or Latin. 

I enjoy reading the Journal of Discourses. The robust language, fearless calls to repentance, defiance of enemies, admonitions, sense of communal cohesion, absolute dedication to building Zion are a wonderful window through which we can connect with the early years of the Restoration. I know times and issues change and so must the substance and tone of responses by Church leaders. Even so, not many leaders speak like Marion Romney, Legrand Richards, or Neal Maxwell today. My sig line is one of my favorite GA quotes of all time. I'm sure it makes some folks cringe. And that's just fine.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[thesometimesaint]

Stones and Glass houses come to mind.

[Thinking]

On 12/8/2016 at 1:56 AM, Calm said:

Actually the point of the JoD thread is not the reliability of the GAs saying stuff, but how reliable was the JoD in reporting it given what was apparently heavy editing by George Watts.  It is being debated if what was presented as recorded talks was actually their talks...so recording forever is the opposite of the actual issue.

In other words, if you don't like what they reportedly said, try to figure out a way to question whether they said it.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Oliver_Cowdry

If you actually read the puppy story, you'll see your sentence is a mis-characterization of what the story was about.

He said he had tried to train the dog to not chase cars, but the dog wouldn't obey. Had the dog not been chasing the truck, the jerk would not have been able to run it over.  The mother used that as a cautionary tale about disobedience -- entirely appropriate IMHO

A couple of your other examples are mis-characterizations of what was said also.

I thought it was a pretty good one line summary, but I provided a link so everyone could read it.

You say the talk was entirely appropriate? I disagree. Is that really the message you would teach your kids if those events played out in their life?  In that story there was a person who intentionally killed a puppy in front of a child. And then the story is used to illustrate the puppy's disobedience?!  What about the adult puppy-killing driver?  Surely, if this is a story about disobedience the driver's disobedience ought to be the point of interest.

If a girl is disobedient by wearing clothing that exposes her shoulders and she is raped, should that become a cautionary tale about the girl's disobedience?  Are we going to blame the victim?  After all the controversies BYU's honor code office has been through, have we really not learned this lesson yet? Are we still blind to the victim blaming culture that we have permitted to exist in the church?

If the kids younger brother was disobediently playing in the road and a motorist then intentionally kill the younger brother, should that be a  cautionary tale about the younger brother's disobedience too?  At the boy's funeral would we having something to say about the boy's disobedience?

Are we so blind when it comes to commandments and obedience that we can't see the problem with any of this?

Whatever message that talk was trying to communicate it did so very poorly. 

Quote

As we washed the blood from his head, it soon became apparent that Spot’s disobedient act had dealt him a fatal blow. As the burial of Spot was completed and the tears dried, my mother then taught me one of the great lessons of life as she explained the principle of obedience and its application in my life. She made clear that seemingly small acts of disobedience can result in longer-term consequences of unhappiness, regrets, and even fatal results.

How is what was said by the mother or by the speaker at all appropriate for the situation?  It's a transparent and poor attempt at scaring kids straight.

Not too different from teaching kids lessons like this:

My intention was to show that it is obvious that not everything said in conference is correct.  Which I assume isn't really being contested in this thread.  There have been all sorts of mistakes made in conference.  And that really isn't a big deal in the big picture.  We hopefully acknowledge the mistake, learn from it, and move forward.  That was the real lesson I learned from the conference talk.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

In other words, if you don't like what they reportedly said, try to figure out a way to question whether they said it.

Not my POV.  I am just as concerned with ensuring that something they said that I like was accurate.  I would automatically question everything and then try to find other comments they made that would clarify their thought, if I was wondering about something I liked or disliked.  An unreliable source is as unreliable for the stuff you agree with as the stuff you don't.

And given the decrease in usage across the board for the JoD in conference talks and manuals where it was material that was agreed with since it was being used to support positions, not attack them, it seems to me church leadership is making the same approach.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

She made clear that seemingly small acts of disobedience can result in longer-term consequences of unhappiness, regrets, and even fatal results.

I have no issues with this talk. Given Bro Staheli's circumstances as a child and youth in a small rural Utah town, he would be quite familiar with the death of animals. I reckon death was not something from which his folks shielded him. We might try to understand the man in order to better understand his words. 

We all have personal experience where seemingly small acts of disobedience really do result in long-term consequences, sorrow, and death. Some hit very close to home. Have we cradled a loved one in our arms whose disobedience has dealt him or her a fatal blow or brought chaos into our families? It's called life. We try to shelter ourselves from reality at our own peril.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

I've had cyber conversations with people who have become offended at something this or that speaker said in General Conference, here and/or elsewhere.  In a nutshell, my advice is always, "If the glass slipper fits, Cinderella/Cinderfella, wear it; if not ..."  Can the Spirit tailor counsel given to a general audience so that it fits individual circumstances?  Yes.  Of necessity, it happens to me all the time.  My life and circumstances are nowhere close to fitting the "typical LDS mold."  We can either: (1) tune out messages which, we quickly determine, are for those other folks, or (2) try to allow the Spirit to tailor something which, on the surface, does not seem to apply to us to our own individual, unique circumstances. And, with respect to those who are concerned about the "reliability" of General Conference messages, perhaps that's the key (or at least, one viable approach).

I recently had a dream.  I have absolutely no idea what it was about (I rarely remember my dreams, anyway ), but I awoke with the thoughts, "Treasure the ore, cast the dross aside,"  and "Treasure the grain, cast the chaff aside."  Perhaps those thoughts are appropos of this discussion, as well as of numerous other life circumstances in which we might find ourselves.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

... Nary a Conference passes that some folks don't recoil in horror and flee to their safe place for refuge from some awful thing a leader uttered....and then express their outrage from the safety social media. Perhaps all talks should be given and written in some obscure foreign language like Tewa, Basque, or Latin. ...

Hey, I'm down!

Nahuatl would get my vote!  

(Klingon, maybe? )

[Oliver_Cowdery]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no issues with this talk. Given Bro Staheli's circumstances as a child and youth in a small rural Utah town, he would be quite familiar with the death of animals. I reckon death was not something from which his folks shielded him. We might try to understand the man in order to better understand his words. 

We all have personal experience where seemingly small acts of disobedience really do result in long-term consequences, sorrow, and death. Some hit very close to home. Have we cradled a loved one in our arms whose disobedience has dealt him or her a fatal blow or brought chaos into our families? It's called life. We try to shelter ourselves from reality at our own peril.

See me above comment to mnn727.  I don't take issue with appropriately teaching kids about death or reality.  That is not the issue with that talk.  In that story the child's emotions are manipulated to teach that the blame falls on the puppy.  The relating of that story seems consistent with those who buy into the just-world theory.

The idea of the just-world theory is that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Calm]

It comes across to me as a big bad wolf story...make wise, obedient choices so that when the big, bad wolf...or psycho dog hating neighbor in this case...comes around, you will be safe.

Something very similar happened to my dad, but the accident was an accident.  The moral of the story remains the same, IMO, the psycho neighbor is a distraction and could have been left out, though he makes a decent symbolic stand in for temptations if one can get past the horror of the cruelty.  My dad's dog got hit by a car because it wasn't obedient nor was my dad in being sure it was inside when he elsewhere playing.

Now perhaps I am giving the speaker too much of the benefit of the doubt, but having heard numerous stories of dogs being hit due to them not coming when called or being carelessly let loose rather than being obedient to parents or now the law where dogs are not supposed to wander off leash, I see no reason not to assume he meant the story in the usual way.  I give him the benefit of the doubt that like my dad when he tells the story, he is not advocating cruelty to animals when he doesn't focus on the fact the driver (his mother who did not see the dog behind her when backing out of the driveway) was probably as responsible as he was for the dog since he was a minor and she had agreed to take the dog into their care.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

See me above comment to mnn727.  I don't take issue with appropriately teaching kids about death or reality.  That is not the issue with that talk.  In that story the child's emotions are manipulated to teach that the blame falls on the puppy.  The relating of that story seems consistent with those who buy into the just-world theory.

The idea of the just-world theory is that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it.

Maybe. Maybe not. It probably was just a life lesson a Utah country lad was taught by his Utah country mother. My Colorado cowboy uncle asked me (a teenager at the time) if I was over Fool's Hill yet. I doubt he or she had any deep esoteric hidden message in mind.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've had cyber conversations with people who have become offended at something this or that speaker said in General Conference, here and/or elsewhere.  In a nutshell, my advice is always, "If the glass slipper fits, Cinderella/Cinderfella, wear it; if not ..."  Can the Spirit tailor counsel given to a general audience so that it fits individual circumstances?  Yes.  Of necessity, it happens to me all the time.  My life and circumstances are nowhere close to fitting the "typical LDS mold."  We can either: (1) tune out messages which, we quickly determine, are for those other folks, or (2) try to allow the Spirit to tailor something which, on the surface, does not seem to apply to us to our own individual, unique circumstances. And, with respect to those who are concerned about the "reliability" of General Conference messages, perhaps that's the key (or at least, one viable approach).

I recently had a dream.  I have absolutely no idea what it was about (I rarely remember my dreams, anyway ), but I awoke with the thoughts, "Treasure the ore, cast the dross aside,"  and "Treasure the grain, cast the chaff aside."  Perhaps those thoughts are appropos of this discussion, as well as of numerous other life circumstances in which we might find ourselves.

Indeed...the "menace to society" message that some found offensive years ago (and probably still do today) fit me like a glove, shook me out of a mid-twenties social stupor, and led me to the blissful shores of Sister Gui.

[JAHS]

Normally, what actually ends up in the Ensign representing the talks they give is pretty reliable, since they have had time to make any needed corrections before it goes into print.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed...the "menace to society" message that some found offensive years ago (and probably still do today) fit me like a glove, shook me out of a mid-twenties social stupor, and led me to the blissful shores of Sister Gui.

Can't beat that!  ¡Felicitaciones!  Myself?  I don't know that I'm in a social stupor ... I'm not sure how one might describe my social state.  It's not as though I have ever been anti-marriage as much as it is that that particular step seems, for me and for whatever reason, rather like crossing the Rubicon.  It's not as though I haven't had (at least) one opportunity: I loved that girl as much as I've ever loved anyone, but in hindsight, I'm sooo glad I didn't marry into that family! Soap-Opera City!  Drama, Yo Mama!   As I mentioned on another thread, my brother recently met someone on e-Harmony.  Money's a little tight, and even on-line options have never really paid any dividends for me, but, who knows?  

As for not really attracting sustained attention from anyone else, my thinking on that has evolved somewhat, as well.  I used to think, "Well, one-date-and-out.  All of those occasions were (and are) pretty much a waste of time and money, then, weren't they (aren't they)?" Now I think, "Well, Ken, the reality is that you've gone out with some girls that you had absolutely no business going out with" (read, "They're waaay out of your league, Dude!" ).  "Sure, one date's only one date, but, by rights, they didn't have to pay you even that much attention.  You could count yourself blessed that they had enough class and grace at least to give you even that much, when they probably should simply have said, 'No.'"  And I do.  Because, if not for them and others (others, who, perhaps, were closer to being in my own league), perhaps nobody would have paid me any attention ... even if only for one date.  It might not sound like much, but I'll take it.

For more on the subject, see here (though some of this was written, perhaps, before my thinking had evolved as described above):

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/on-objectifying-women/

P.S.:  Your "Blissful Shores" comment reminded me of the chorus of a favorite hymn:

Quote

 

Blessed Savior, thou wilt guide us,

Till we reach that blissful shore

Where the angels wait to join us

In thy praise forevermore.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Can't beat that!  ¡Felicitaciones!  Myself?  I don't know that I'm in a social stupor ... I'm not sure how one might describe my social state.  It's not as though I have ever been anti-marriage as much as it is that that particular step seems, for me and for whatever reason, rather like crossing the Rubicon.  It's not as though I haven't had (at least) one opportunity: I loved that girl as much as I've ever loved anyone, but in hindsight, I'm sooo glad I didn't marry into that family! Soap-Opera City!  Drama, Yo Mama!   As I mentioned on another thread, my brother recently met someone on e-Harmony.  Money's a little tight, and even on-line options have never really paid any dividends for me, but, who knows?  

As for not really attracting sustained attention from anyone else, my thinking on that has evolved somewhat, as well.  I used to think, "Well, one-date-and-out.  All of those occasions were (and are) pretty much a waste of time and money, then, weren't they (aren't they)?" Now I think, "Well, Ken, the reality is that you've gone out with some girls that you had absolutely no business going out with" (read, "They're waaay out of your league, Dude!" ).  "Sure, one date's only one date, but, by rights, they didn't have to pay you even that much attention.  You could count yourself blessed that they had enough class and grace at least to give you even that much, when they probably should simply have said, 'No.'"  And I do.  Because, if not for them and others (others, who, perhaps, were closer to being in my own league), perhaps nobody would have paid me any attention ... even if only for one date.  It might not sound like much, but I'll take it.

For more on the subject, see here (though some of this was written, perhaps, before my thinking had evolved as described above):

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/on-objectifying-women/

P.S.:  Your "Blissful Shores" comment reminded me of the chorus of a favorite hymn:

 

I'm way out of Sister Gui's league, but God is merciful.

Remember, even a poor tailor deserves some happiness!

Edited December 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm way out of Sister Gui's league, but God is merciful.

Remember, even a poor tailor deserves some happiness!

Quite so, Good Sir, quite so.  I am learning, though, the pitfalls of making one's happiness contingent upon certain conditions being met, upon certain circumstances changing, and so on.  My eyes are open.  I try, likewise, to keep my heart open.  "Never say never," and so on.  At the same time, the achievement of certain goals, of a certain goal ... OK, I'll say it: Finding/becoming an Eternal Companion ... is contingent upon someone else choosing to exercise her agency in a certain manner.  No matter how much I might want something, I cannot, would not, abridge someone else's agency to bring about that something. Christ died to give others the opportunity to exercise that agency, even if they might choose to do so in ways I might find, in some way, objectionable.   As Paul wrote the Philippians, "I have learned, in whatever state I am, therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11).