Should Bishops turn the microphone off on "other" testimonies?

[The Nehor]

My biggest pet peeve is when testimony givers (and even just regular speakers) start making promises on behalf of God to the congregation. "I know if you do A then B will happen." There are people with authority to make those kinds of promises and most speakers are not them. They tend to be mimicking apostles and other leaders. The hubris of making such a promise (usually almost casually) annoys me.

[Thinking]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My biggest pet peeve is when testimony givers (and even just regular speakers) start making promises on behalf of God to the congregation. "I know if you do A then B will happen." There are people with authority to make those kinds of promises and most speakers are not them. They tend to be mimicking apostles and other leaders. The hubris of making such a promise (usually almost casually) annoys me.

It's like they think they are trying out to be a GA.

Once in an BYU singles ward a brother came up to the podium and upon arriving he pounded it hard with his hand. He then proclaimed, "The spirit of the Lord is in this room." I turned to my roommate and whispered, "Not anymore."

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/16/2017 at 6:48 PM, SteveO said:

I've mentioned before that there are a lot of members in my ward (young married student) that struggle with depression.  There are a few testimonies where I can't bear to even look at the person out of the sheer akwardness of it all--but I've found that it seems to be therapeutic for those who are struggling.  And as my wife has said, maybe struggling along with them and being a group of people who listen to their problems--might be one of the more Christian things we do during our 3 hour block.  It's not ideal, but we get through it fine.

I'm not saying you're not aware of this scripture, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read your post:

Quote

 

Mosiah 18:8-10

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

 

Just sayin'!  

[hagoth7]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's like they think they are trying out to be a GA....

Or, instead of being a general authority, they are simply being a specific authority.

Someone who knows the specific blessing of missionary work, or the sabbath, or fast offering, etc. can rightfully testify to what they know from experience, and can remind listeners that the promised blessing attached to *that* law will be gained if hearers simply live/seek it in faith.

Or is that not how it comes across for some reason?

Edited June 23, 2017 by hagoth7

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's like they think they are trying out to be a GA.

Once in an BYU singles ward a brother came up to the podium and upon arriving he pounded it hard with his hand. He then proclaimed, "The spirit of the Lord is in this room." I turned to my roommate and whispered, "Not anymore."

The people who think they can command God are also funny in a sad way. I mean, it is okay to state that you feel the Spirit but to tell God he has to come into the room right now because you said so......that is getting into struck by lightning for impudence territory.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Or, instead of being a general authority, they are simply being a specific authority.

Someone who knows the specific blessing of missionary work, or the sabbath, or fast offering, etc. can rightfully testify to what they know from experience, and can remind listeners that the promised blessing attached to *that* law will be gained if hearers simply live/seek it in faith.

Or is that not how it comes across for some reason?

If they are quoting a scriptural promise or a promise from someone with authority to do so that is fine. Too many go beyond that or try to broaden the promise.

[MormonVideoGame]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 There are people with authority to make those kinds of promises and most speakers are not them

Can you name a general authority in recent years that has made a new unambigious promise? What promise? 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Can you name a general authority in recent years that has made a new unambigious promise? What promise? 

The last apostle to visit my stake made a specific promise with specific blessings attached to it if the individuals in the stake did a certain thing. Since it was only for the people living here I should not share specifics.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My biggest pet peeve is when testimony givers (and even just regular speakers) start making promises on behalf of God to the congregation. "I know if you do A then B will happen." There are people with authority to make those kinds of promises and most speakers are not them. They tend to be mimicking apostles and other leaders. The hubris of making such a promise (usually almost casually) annoys me.

I so agree with this.

[MormonVideoGame]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The last apostle to visit my stake made a specific promise with specific blessings attached to it if the individuals in the stake did a certain thing. Since it was only for the people living here I should not share specifics.

Let me guess "stake will grow" "you will prosper" "more stakes and wards "  "new temple" "peace"  

Edited June 23, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Let me guess "stake will grow" "you will prosper" "more stakes and wards "  "new temple" "peace"  

Nope.

[why me]

This is a tough one. I think that we are living in a very marginalizing and alienating system which creates a great deal of loneliness in people. And these people want to speak and talk on many things that they may have in their minds. And testimony meeting is when they attempt to connect to humanity. Hard to shut the mic down on such people. Much better for the bishop to set up a time limit: a four minute testimony.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The last apostle to visit my stake made a specific promise with specific blessings attached to it if the individuals in the stake did a certain thing. Since it was only for the people living here I should not share specifics.

Why not? Did he specifically say not to share?

[Calm]

Church leadership has asked in general not to record or take notes for anything but personal use.  LDS are often prone to getting excited about what was heard in some meeting and this has cause some problems in the past.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why not? Did he specifically say not to share?

No, but the general instruction is not to.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Church leadership has asked in general not to record or take notes for anything but personal use.  LDS are often prone to getting excited about what was heard in some meeting and this has cause some problems in the past.

This. People would publish their notes online or distribute them. In some cases the message and/or instruction was area-specific and not for distribution. In some cases they distorted what was said (usually in a well-meaning way). I know of one weird case where an Apostle was travelling through a group of areas and gave an apostolic blessing in one area and not in another and people in the latter area were offended. If LDS were all sane well-adjusted reasonable people it would not be a problem but this counsel helps prevent problems with our lowest common denominators.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, but the general instruction is not to.

This. People would publish their notes online or distribute them. In some cases the message and/or instruction was area-specific and not for distribution. In some cases they distorted what was said (usually in a well-meaning way). I know of one weird case where an Apostle was travelling through a group of areas and gave an apostolic blessing in one area and not in another and people in the latter area were offended. If LDS were all sane well-adjusted reasonable people it would not be a problem but this counsel helps prevent problems with our lowest common denominators.

More the ones who think they are the highest....;)

[Robert F. Smith]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/microphone-cut-mormon-girl-reveals-shes-gay-church-224318160.html .  This was the lead on Yahoo News this morning, so it is going viral in a big way.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/microphone-cut-mormon-girl-reveals-shes-gay-church-224318160.html .  This was the lead on Yahoo News this morning, so it is going viral in a big way.

Yeah, but give it a week and almost no one will remember.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but give it a week and almost no one will remember.

What they probably won't forget is how they perceive the Mormon church treats gay members.

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

What they probably won't forget is how they perceive the Mormon church treats gay members.

Most of them probably already have a caricatured idea of that. A few might even have an accurate one.

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What they probably won't forget is how they perceive the Mormon church treats gay members.

You're probably right.  Many people do believe that what's in the news is true, and if there is another side, how could it outweigh what they have read?  Fortunately in our day, there is an awareness building among many that just because it's in the news doesn't make it true.  Mormons are more tolerant and accepting than some would have us believe.  I felt that, under the circumstances, the article handled the subject in an even handed manner:  "the Mormon church is trying to foster an empathetic stance toward LGBT people."  We don't often hear that in articles like this.  Maybe that will color people's perception of how many Mormons actually feel about and treat gay members.

"Judd Law, the lay bishop who leads the congregation south of Salt Lake City, said in a statement distributed by church headquarters that Savannah is a "brave young girl" and that the congregation is making sure she and her family feel loved. But he called problematic the unauthorized recording and the "disruptive demonstration" by a group of non-Mormon adults who were there.  Law said they exploited the events to politicize worship services and violate church decorum. "We do not politic in our chapels, and exploiting this recording for political purposes is inconsistent with the nature of our worship services," he said."

Bishop Law's response was kind and wise.  I believe many sincere people who know Mormons will accept that.  They may be sympathetic to the desire of many gays to marry.  But many of their own churches and members feel a greater duty to conform to the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles, as do our members by and large.  I think most people will be fair minded in their perception of Mormons and gays.

[JulieM]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but give it a week and almost no one will remember.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The story has made it to the UK and the videos were published in The Guardian yesterday along with some history of this issue in the church (prop 8, the recent policy, etc.):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/24/video-mormon-girl-savannah-gay-microphone-cut-off

[why me]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The story has made it to the UK and the videos were published in The Guardian yesterday along with some history of this issue in the church (prop 8, the recent policy, etc.):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/24/video-mormon-girl-savannah-gay-microphone-cut-off

I do believe that the intent was to gain as much publicity as possible. And it was set up for such a happening. The sly recording was just one example of a well planned event. Make it look sneaky etc. If I were the bishop I would call in the person who taped the testimony and give that person a reprimand. And then I would talk with the family to see just how much they knew about the event. The releasing of the recording was done to harm the lds church and the turning off the mic played right into their hands.

[Damien the Leper]

On 6/16/2017 at 3:38 PM, JLHPROF said:

Personally, I'd be happy if they'd just get rid of F&T meeting.
They are beyond repetitive, most of the "testimonies" aren't testimonies, and so much content is inappropriate.

Or at least redesign the format.  Testimony meetings have always been part of the Church.  It seems like they lost their way some time ago.

Long before I left the church, I had concluded that F&T was not the meeting to bring non-member friends or investigators to church. Many of the more peculiar of the already peculiar would bring the weird.

[USU78]

It occurred to me this morning that there may be hope for the little girl: Madeline Murray O'Hare!