conference

[omni]

16 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You've never thought that conference was just too long?  It's painfully too long IMO...I mean, church is already too long IMO at 3 hours...but conference is like going to church three times back to back to back.  I do not like meetings and long talks, so I admit that I lack patience. 😀

I enjoyed conference as a TBM, however I always thought it would be better if the Church held it quarterly and just on Sunday (plus the Saturday night presithood session).  

Let's be honest, 10 hours of conference in one weekend can be a bit much, even for the most faithful among us.  I always viewed conference as a time to recharge my spiritual batteries, as a way to spiritually motivate me for the next six months.

So why not hold it more often and in smaller, more impactful doses, where members will be more likely to watch and internalize the messages the leaders their leaders are trying to impart?

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Thatta boy, that's the winning attitude that is sure to lead success in all facets of life.  

Honesty?  Yes, in fact it is...

Or should I just sugarcoat everything else like lots of Mormons I know and go along with what the group wants?  The OP asked a question, and I gave my honest answer...I think conference is painfully boring.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Mars]

just tuned in.  yes, i am excited.  spiritual excitement.  mormonism is useful to me, therefore i look forward to hearing words and reflecting on ideas and fostering my relationship with God.  i don't wait with bated breath for each word to be spoken and some speakers are less engaging than others, but whatever.  they're human, so am i.  when they're boring i try a little harder to listen.  'bearing up one another's burdens' and what not.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Mars

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

anyone else excited?

More like very much in need for the increase of Spirit right now.  

But always excited for the sunday breakfast my cousin throws for GC!

 

With luv,

BD

[Garden Girl]

36 minutes ago, Mars said:

just tuned in.  yes, i am excited.  spiritual excitement.  mormonism is useful to me, therefore i look forward to hearing words and reflecting on ideas and fostering my relationship with God.  i don't wait with bated breath for each word to be spoken and some speakers are less engaging than others, but whatever.  they're human, so am i.  when they're boring i try a little harder to listen.  'bearing up one another's burdens' and what not.

I agree some speakers are not as engaging as others... but I don't consider them boring... I can always appreciate some thought given...

Even though there are those of us who have been members of the Church for many years... and have heard the same topics time and time again, I think of those who are recent converts who are just fully learning and experiencing the restored gospel... and I'm more patient.  Whether at Church or at Conference, I am so happy for those converts and how they feel as they receive the beautiful tenets of the gospel.  It's all new to them, and it's wonderful to see their happiness as they grow line upon line.  So, yes, I'm more patient when a topic is one that I've heard addressed time and time again... others in the congregation have not... 

Last Monday night I attended our Single Sisters' Fam Home Evening... one sister, who is in her 50's, is a recent convert.  Her enthusiasm just glows forth from her... the Bishop attended and gave a lesson on Patriarchal Blessings.  It was wonderful to see her as she understood that she could receive her blessing.  And I was thankful as I remembered the day I received mine as a girl of 14 so many years ago.

GG

[Paloma]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

An LDS friend on a secular politics board reached out and pled with me to reconsider my deconversion and listen to General Conference with sincerity.

I haven't decided if I will. On the one hand I do have an interest in "checking my answers," but there's a difference between that and giving my mental energy to hours and hours of highly manipulative material.

What the heck, I may give it a go. Surely this won't count as a credible test to anyone other than me, but that's not the point, is it?

In any case I truly appreciate the gentle concern of my friend.

This brings back memories of when I attended a few sessions of General Conference many years ago with  LDS missionaries that I had befriended.

I realized that they were really hoping (and expecting, I think!) that God's spirit would speak to me, a committed non-LDS Christian,  in a unique and convicting way through attending the GC.

My missionary friends were disappointed that I chose to sing some hymns and not others (notably, not Praise to the Man).

They insisted on my honest feedback and again were disappointed when I commented on the sincere, gentle and kind manners and expressions of the GA's which nevertheless failed to move me toward wanting to embrace the LDS faith.  As I recall, they couldn't help but question my own sincerity and openness to new truth, much as they couldn't understand someone taking the Moroni 10:4 challenge and not becoming LDS.

I'm glad that I attended some of General Conference that year as it added to my somewhat in-depth knowledge of the LDS faith (though from an outsider's perspective, of course).

Meadowchik, your post here vividly reminded me of that time because I recall how fervently my LDS friends wanted me to attend GC with sincerity, and how much I felt for them in their disappointment, but also how I felt uncomfortable when my own sincerity was questioned.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Paloma said:

This brings back memories of when I attended a few sessions of General Conference many years ago with  LDS missionaries that I had befriended.

I realized that they were really hoping (and expecting, I think!) that God's spirit would speak to me, a committed non-LDS Christian,  in a unique and convicting way through attending the GC.

My missionary friends were disappointed that I chose to sing some hymns and not others (notably, not Praise to the Man).

They insisted on my honest feedback and again were disappointed when I commented on the sincere, gentle and kind manners and expressions of the GA's which nevertheless failed to move me toward wanting to embrace the LDS faith.  As I recall, they couldn't help but question my own sincerity and openness to new truth, much as they couldn't understand someone taking the Moroni 10:4 challenge and not becoming LDS.

I'm glad that I attended some of General Conference that year as it added to my somewhat in-depth knowledge of the LDS faith (though from an outsider's perspective, of course).

Meadowchik, your post here vividly reminded me of that time because I recall how fervently my LDS friends wanted me to attend GC with sincerity, and how much I felt for them in their disappointment, but also how I felt uncomfortable when my own sincerity was questioned.

Good to see you again Paloma!  

I think that some people misunderstand what sincerity means. It definitely doesn't mean "so you'll be able to see things my way" but sometimes people view a lack of seeing things their way as an indication of a lack of sincerity. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, that's not the point so it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks.  

I don't mean to be confrontational at all in my questions.  I am honestly wondering though, how can you hope to 'check your answers' if you go in sincerely believing that it's going to be 'hours of manipulating material'?  Is that what you believe your friend meant when she asked you to listen with sincerity?

I was really touched by the letter and can honestly say that I could have written such a one in times past. Yet, you point accurately to the crux: I can honestly review my decision in light of conference, but I cannot do what was asked. I can only do what I can do.

To help you understand my perspective,  imagine that I grew up a flat-Earther and, having denounced such beliefs after being able to objectively see the evidence against it, my good friend asks me to attend a flat-Earther conference. In such a case I could honestly review my decision in such a context but could never experience it as intended. I cannot unsee what I've seen.

Indeed, since my heart broke over the church, I emotionally detached myself and as a result, I continually see things differently as I review them. I realise that, if a person wants to believe something they can find a way to do so. Thus, that Mormon scripture imploring us to, without any other reason, to desire to believe because it is sufficient to seed "faith" is essentially persuading us to ignore objectivity, to allow ourselves to be led by feeling.

I have learned that feeling is not enough, especially in the face of contradictory evidence. So, you're right, I cannot do what my friend asked. I can only be honest.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, omni said:

I enjoyed conference as a TBM, however I always thought it would be better if the Church held it quarterly and just on Sunday (plus the Saturday night presithood session).  

Let's be honest, 10 hours of conference in one weekend can be a bit much, even for the most faithful among us.  I always viewed conference as a time to recharge my spiritual batteries, as a way to spiritually motivate me for the next six months.

So why not hold it more often and in smaller, more impactful doses, where members will be more likely to watch and internalize the messages the leaders their leaders are trying to impart?

On the other hand, we also have stake, ward, and regional conferences, which are already in some sense disruptive of the normal schedule of life and church activity.  I like them all, but quarterly general conferences might be a bit much.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was really touched by the letter and can honestly say that I could have written such a one in times past. Yet, you point accurately to the crux: I can honestly review my decision in light of conference, but I cannot do what was asked. I can only do what I can do.

To help you understand my perspective,  imagine that I grew up a flat-Earther and, having denounced such beliefs after being able to objectively see the evidence against it, my good friend asks me to attend a flat-Earther conference. In such a case I could honestly review my decision in such a context but could never experience it as intended. I cannot unsee what I've seen.

Indeed, since my heart broke over the church, I emotionally detached myself and as a result, I continually see things differently as I review them. I realise that, if a person wants to believe something they can find a way to do so. Thus, that Mormon scripture imploring us to, without any other reason, to desire to believe because it is sufficient to seed "faith" is essentially persuading us to ignore objectivity, to allow ourselves to be led by feeling.

I have learned that feeling is not enough, especially in the face of contradictory evidence. So, you're right, I cannot do what my friend asked. I can only be honest.

I think you've successfully outlined the problem.  Our perceptions are our reality.  Our reality is not based on what is accurate but what we perceive is accurate.  We can't force ourselves out of our biases because someone else wants us to do so.  

We can't be objective (or neutral) toward a subject when our perceptions of the subject aren't neutral.  As you pointed out, it's impossible for us to do on our own.

 

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was really touched by the letter and can honestly say that I could have written such a one in times past. Yet, you point accurately to the crux: I can honestly review my decision in light of conference, but I cannot do what was asked. I can only do what I can do.

To help you understand my perspective,  imagine that I grew up a flat-Earther and, having denounced such beliefs after being able to objectively see the evidence against it, my good friend asks me to attend a flat-Earther conference. In such a case I could honestly review my decision in such a context but could never experience it as intended. I cannot unsee what I've seen.

Indeed, since my heart broke over the church, I emotionally detached myself and as a result, I continually see things differently as I review them. I realise that, if a person wants to believe something they can find a way to do so. Thus, that Mormon scripture imploring us to, without any other reason, to desire to believe because it is sufficient to seed "faith" is essentially persuading us to ignore objectivity, to allow ourselves to be led by feeling.

I have learned that feeling is not enough, especially in the face of contradictory evidence. So, you're right, I cannot do what my friend asked. I can only be honest.

I think though there is a difference in going, feeling you have learned something more than what the flat earthers understand and going in with the idea that the flat earthers are going to try to manipulate you. 

[Paloma]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good to see you again Paloma!  

I think that some people misunderstand what sincerity means. It definitely doesn't mean "so you'll be able to see things my way" but sometimes people view a lack of seeing things their way as an indication of a lack of sincerity. 

Good to see you too, Bluebell.

I understand what you're saying.  

And thinking back to the missionaries, I also understand that their desire to push me to more and more "sincerity" came from their loving concern for me and their fervent desire that I would have a conversion experience.  Having known that deep, loving desire for others to come to a faith experience in God, I could appreciate and empathize with where they were coming from.

[mfbukowski]

Pretty cool to see Elder Mark Bragg speak- keep your eye on him- definite apostle material.

He is from a neighboring stake and I have had an opportunity to receive an interview from him.  That is probably totally usual for Utahns but it is pretty cool to see a local boy make it to the major leagues.

VERY smart man, very personable and totally committed to the gospel.  Cool stuff.

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was really touched by the letter and can honestly say that I could have written such a one in times past. Yet, you point accurately to the crux: I can honestly review my decision in light of conference, but I cannot do what was asked. I can only do what I can do.

To help you understand my perspective,  imagine that I grew up a flat-Earther and, having denounced such beliefs after being able to objectively see the evidence against it, my good friend asks me to attend a flat-Earther conference. In such a case I could honestly review my decision in such a context but could never experience it as intended. I cannot unsee what I've seen.

Indeed, since my heart broke over the church, I emotionally detached myself and as a result, I continually see things differently as I review them. I realise that, if a person wants to believe something they can find a way to do so. Thus, that Mormon scripture imploring us to, without any other reason, to desire to believe because it is sufficient to seed "faith" is essentially persuading us to ignore objectivity, to allow ourselves to be led by feeling.

I have learned that feeling is not enough, especially in the face of contradictory evidence. So, you're right, I cannot do what my friend asked. I can only be honest.

How do you feel about your family?

Is your love for them based on objective evidence?  

Did you find your husband through objective evidence?  Have you ever made ONE IMPORTANT decision- where to live, this house over that house, that school over this one, where to move, when to move, to figure out what was right or wrong or important or not important through objective evidence?

The church is not supposed to be "objectively true"- there might have been no Adam and Eve, there might be no Kolob or the Book of Abraham might have come out of thin air.

Humans are faulty, period, end of story

But should you consider your self as Eve figuratively?   Have you fallen from innocence and desire a road back to solve that problem?

Do you desire peace in your life?  Where is your evidence that peace is "good"?

So you believe that the whole human family is ONE family with one "Father" even if that is figurative?

Do you believe we should be kind to each other- where is the objective evidence for that?  Do you feel it is wrong to kill millions in concentration camps?   Where is your objective evidence?

These questions are nothing like flat earth questions - they are not about science - they are about what is IMPORTANT in your life.

If you feel deep in your heart that you have made the right decision then fine, but do not make those IMPORTANT decisions based on "evidence" as if it is based on "flat earth" thinking- base them correctly on the FEELINGS of your heart.

Knowing that is more important than anything.  Follow your "gut" in these matters- NEVER objective evidence where none exists.

[omni]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, we also have stake, ward, and regional conferences, which are already in some sense disruptive of the normal schedule of life and church activity.  I like them all, but quarterly general conferences might be a bit much.

Interesting perspective.  To you it could become a disruption of a sense of normalcy while I saw it as a break from normalcy...or at least monotony.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How do you feel about your family?

Is your love for them based on objective evidence?  

Did you find your husband through objective evidence?  Have you ever made ONE IMPORTANT decision- where to live, this house over that house, that school over this one, where to move, when to move, to figure out what was right or wrong or important or not important through objective evidence?

The church is not supposed to be "objectively true"- there might have been no Adam and Eve, there might be no Kolob or the Book of Abraham might have come out of thin air.

Humans are faulty, period, end of story

But should you consider your self as Eve figuratively?   Have you fallen from innocence and desire a road back to solve that problem?

Do you desire peace in your life?  Where is your evidence that peace is "good"?

So you believe that the whole human family is ONE family with one "Father" even if that is figurative?

Do you believe we should be kind to each other- where is the objective evidence for that?  Do you feel it is wrong to kill millions in concentration camps?   Where is your objective evidence?

These questions are nothing like flat earth questions - they are not about science - they are about what is IMPORTANT in your life.

If you feel deep in your heart that you have made the right decision then fine, but do not make those IMPORTANT decisions based on "evidence" as if it is based on "flat earth" thinking- base them correctly on the FEELINGS of your heart.

Knowing that is more important than anything.  Follow your "gut" in these matters- NEVER objective evidence where none exists.

It's definitely important for us to recognize that emotion and decision making are supposed to go hand in hand, even outside of religious decisions.  

I was just reading a paper on the role of emotion in decision making and the author cited research that showed that people who had injured the part of their brain responsible for emotion (and therefore were unable to feel emotions) made really bad decisions, even knowing all the accurate and relevant information that would otherwise be necessary to make good ones.

For example, people with that kind of injury were likely to make risky financial decisions that resulted in bankruptcy even when given all the pertinent information to spell out how risky the decisions were.  It was discovered that emotion plays a significant and vital role in decision making and that a lack of emotional signals (called somatic markers) kept people from being able to interpret the information their brain was receiving accurately.

The people were given information, and were cognitively able to understand it, but without emotion they were unable to interpret the information correctly and therefore made bad decisions.   

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think you've successfully outlined the problem.  Our perceptions are our reality.  Our reality is not based on what is accurate but what we perceive is accurate.  We can't force ourselves out of our biases because someone else wants us to do so.  

We can't be objective (or neutral) toward a subject when our perceptions of the subject aren't neutral.  As you pointed out, it's impossible for us to do on our own.

 

That's why mutual respect for the convictions of others is such a charitable act. Imo sincere conviction of conscience approaches the sacred. I still believe thst charity, or the pure love of Christ, is powerful and when it comes to "dueling" convictions, charity is the most efficacious approach.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Paloma said:

.......................................................

Meadowchik, your post here vividly reminded me of that time because I recall how fervently my LDS friends wanted me to attend GC with sincerity, and how much I felt for them in their disappointment, but also how I felt uncomfortable when my own sincerity was questioned.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

...................................................  

I think that some people misunderstand what sincerity means. It definitely doesn't mean "so you'll be able to see things my way" but sometimes people view a lack of seeing things their way as an indication of a lack of sincerity. 

Young missionaries are just not mature enough to understand what it means to have a sincere connection among friends, without requiring that your friends adopt your point of view.  In the World Report today, for example, I loved the sincere expression of mutual respect between LDS apostles and our Jewish brethren in Jerusalem.  No conversion was expected either way, but there was heartfelt understanding and love between two faiths.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I think though there is a difference in going, feeling you have learned something more than what the flat earthers understand and going in with the idea that the flat earthers are going to try to manipulate you. 

Going as an outsider or even objective observer to General Conference, it is inherently manipulative: the entire social construct of the experience relies on the premise that the church is true. This is the case for a multitude of other promotional presentations.

[Mars]

i was very foolish as a 19 year old missionary.  a lot of heart, desire, and very little sensitivity.  nothing nefarious or overtly offensive...  just young.  and a bit stupid.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Honesty?  Yes, in fact it is...

Or should I just sugarcoat everything else like lots of Mormons I know and go along with what the group wants?  The OP asked a question, and I gave my honest answer...I think conference is painfully boring.

Nonetheless, sometimes particular sermons stand out:  This morning, for example, I was deeply impressed with the pointed comments of Elder Renlund on bigotry.  He was gentle, but he didn't leave any place for the bigots to hide.  He really came into his own as one of the Brethren today.

Authentic Mormons don't engage in group think or sugarcoat everything.  Please don't confuse being kind and considerate with stupidity and painful boredom.  In that connection, today on the LDS World Report (just after the morning session) retired Senator Harry Reid was honored as the Mormon who has achieved the highest ever political position in the United States Gov't.  A well deserved honor for a man of integrity.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Going as an outsider or even objective observer to General Conference, it is inherently manipulative: the entire social construct of the experience relies on the premise that the church is true. This is the case for a multitude of other promotional presentations.

I love to watch great preachers, such as Billy Graham (his old sermons still available on Youtube), or Joel and Victoria Osteen (Lakewood Church in Houston).  They are every bit as "manipulative" as any LDS speaker, and perhaps moreso, but I don't take umbrage -- instead appreciating that they are true believers in their specific tradition.  I always feel that I can learn something from them, as from many other religious traditions, Christian and non-Christian.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

An LDS friend on a secular politics board reached out and pled with me to reconsider my deconversion and listen to General Conference with sincerity.

I haven't decided if I will. On the one hand I do have an interest in "checking my answers," but there's a difference between that and giving my mental energy to hours and hours of highly manipulative material.

What the heck, I may give it a go. Surely this won't count as a credible test to anyone other than me, but that's not the point, is it?

In any case I truly appreciate the gentle concern of my friend.

I've always listened to conference, I listen more intently now with my faith transition. I admit I do want to listen more just to see if they address the problems in the church. This morning I started listening but it was just more of the same. But will maybe listen on the internet later to see if it's any better and I'm not so negative. But do want to listen even more than I did before, before it was a feeling that I better do it because I'm told to, now I listen for other reasons.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find the main problem I had with Conference is that the sitting too long was a distraction. Now I have a schedule. Deep clean my bathrooms while listening to Saturday Morning, deep clean the kitchen Saturday Afternoon, work out for at least half of Priesthood (President Uchtdorf's talks are much better when you have a punching bag). On Sunday I usually go visit my parents and eat breakfast in the Morning session and usually start dozing in the afternoon one.

Then if I miss anything I listen to the most recent conference talks on a loop while jogging over the next six months.

Find a way that works.

If you are going to deep clean during Saturdays Sessions...you are more than welcome to watch conference at my place!!

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's why mutual respect for the convictions of others is such a charitable act. Imo sincere conviction of conscience approaches the sacred. I still believe thst charity, or the pure love of Christ, is powerful and when it comes to "dueling" convictions, charity is the most efficacious approach.

I agree.

Can I ask though, in a spirit of understanding, how you reconcile this idea-that mutual respect for convictions is an act of charity and is the best response to disagreement-with your earlier post where you called people's sacred sincere conviction of conscience "manipulative material"?