So this happened in Church today...

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

This is the only place I have heard talk about it. Nothing on facebook. No in person conversations etc. Edited to add: even though I heard about it, you would have heard crickets from me as well.

I would have made an audible chuckle, as i normally do when something really funny is said.  Only ignorant busybodies would, of course, explicitly bring up something like that at Church, and we just don't have many of those in my ward.  A specialized blog like ours is the appropriate place to discuss the matter.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, why me said:

I think that between the video and its release and also that her mother seems not be a member anymore, I can see a publicity stunt designed to hurt the lds church. Or at least a stunt to gain publicity for 15 minutes. It was going to be a sucker punch regardless of the outcome of the speech. I believe that the mic was cut off because someone or the congregation were uncomfortable listening to this in a sacrament type meeting.

And now looking into the future, will this girl now be a pride young woman of honor duing Pride Day. Will she get an Ellen invite? How much media will she now get? I hope very littlle. But I won't be surprised it she does get some TV or public acclamation. .

Ellen has already tweeted her.

Savannah's life will forever be changed by it. Imagine Dragons is putting on a concert in Provo coming up on Aug. 26th called "Love Loud". Steve and Barb young are supportive or behind it. I bet they'll invite Savannah to speak. She may be the new poster child. I hope her parents will be able to intervene if any of it is not in her best interest. But when you think of it, we have "America's Got Talent" that recently featured a LDS young woman about the same age I believe, so if Savannah is front and center what is really the difference? 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/7842023/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-evolve-bigotry-mormonism-interview 

C/P'd from the article:

"As a spotlight Mormon, I felt the heavy weight to speak out now and do something about it; otherwise I’d just be sitting back being an activist for bigotry. So I got together with progressive activists Steve and Barb Young in the Mormon community to put on Love Loud on Aug. 26 for all orthodox religions that teach children it’s sinful to be LGBTQ and that It’s hurting our youth. This Love Loud festival is going to get out people of all types -- the LGBTQ community as well as the orthodox religion community and people with no faiths -- and have them all come together to listen to music and to speakers who will talk about how important it is for families to not just accept it, but let their children know they’re beautiful the way they are, and if there is a God, then God is all for it. I believe in Mormons and I believe in people in orthodox religion and I believe they have good hearts. But I believe we all can be educated on the matter to create positive change. This is about awareness more than anything."

[mnn727]

16 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I am so weary of speakers' lame openings that involve references to the time that is left in the meeting and what of it they will/will not take or leave/not leave for Brother Fishbreath who is following them or how they became suicidal when they saw the bishop's number on their caller ID and new he was going to ask them to speak. Can you just give your dad-gum talk and take responsibility yourself for using an appropriate amount of time and/or ending the meeting on time?

Yes, at one time I was "the most hated Mormon in the Chapel" Yes, the Ward Exec Secretary - the guy that hands out speaking assignments. I would literally have people turn and run when they saw me headed their way. Anyway it got tiring to hear speakers constantly say something like " Brother mnn ambushed me two weeks ago", or I sure didn't want Brother mnn to call me, but..."

Just give your talk!!

Another pet peeve: Do it in your words, don't quote an entire GC talk. What does that particular Gospel message mean to you? And yes, that was explained to every speaker when the talk was assigned, but it did little good in many cases. Surprisingly to me at least, the youth speakers did the best job of putting into their own words.

Edited June 26, 2017 by mnn727

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ellen has already tweeted her.

Savannah's life will forever be changed by it. Imagine Dragons is putting on a concert in Provo coming up on Aug. 26th called "Love Loud". Steve and Barb young are supportive or behind it. I bet they'll invite Savannah to speak. She may be the new poster child. I hope her parents will be able to intervene if any of it is not in her best interest. But when you think of it, we have "America's Got Talent" that recently featured a LDS young woman about the same age I believe, so if Savannah is front and center what is really the difference?

Too bad it's not for something worthwhile.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Did they actually understand the reference?  Could this just be an illustration of internet Mormonism (to which you & the speaker are attuned) vs. chapel Mormonism?  Serious question, seems like this one could go either way.

It's a pretty old joke from well before the current situation (that I suspect many haven't heard of). I've heard people make the same joke. At best it usually gets a bit of polite laughter. Most openings to a sacrament talk seem to make an inordinate number of bad jokes. Not sure why that is. It can't help the mindset of the speaker who starts off with little response. Part of the problem though is that the social norm is to not have a lot of feedback during sacrament. (No clapping at ends of talks for instance) The one exception is Hawaiians who get to yell out "aloha" at the begging of talks. And the congregation always yells back. <grin>

Edited June 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Yes, at one time I was "the most hated Mormon in the Chapel" Yes, the Ward Exec Secretary - the guy that hands out speaking assignments. I would literally have people turn and run when they saw me headed their way. Anyway it got tiring to hear speakers constantly say something like " Brother mnn ambushed me two weeks ago", or I sure didn't want Brother mnn to call me, but..."

Just give your talk!!

Another pet peeve: Do it in your words, don't quote an entire GC talk. What does that particular Gospel message mean to you? And yes, that was explained to every speaker when the talk was assigned, but it did little good in many cases. Surprisingly to me at least, the youth speakers did the best job of putting into their own words.

If that's a problem (and I agree that it is), why tie the topic, when assigning it, to a general conference talk or any other talk? Why not just assign the topic itself, whatever the topic might be? It's not as if the General Authority has proprietorship over the topic just because he gave a talk on it.

This practice of having people base their sacrament meeting talks on general conference talks appears to be a current fad in the Church, one that I hope soon runs its course. (I hold open the possibility that the practice is in line with a directive from Church headquarters. If that is the case, I would welcome being enlightened on it.)

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Too bad it's not for something worthwhile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724697/Together-48-years-couple-fights-NC-marriage-ban.html It's about love. I think that's what Savannah's message was.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724697/Together-48-years-couple-fights-NC-marriage-ban.html It's about love. I think that's what Savannah's message was.

I like how saying "it's about love" can be used to cover a multitude of sins.
As if everything done for "love" is the right choice.

Just because something is done for love doesn't make it right.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I like how saying "it's about love" can be used to cover a multitude of sins.
As if everything done for "love" is the right choice.

Just because something is done for love doesn't make it right.

I know, you're right. I happen to have seen a youtube on FB a bit ago about these women because I follow UPWorthy and it popped up, made me think of Savannah and how we shouldn't paint a terrible picture of her. Not naming names. 

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724697/Together-48-years-couple-fights-NC-marriage-ban.html It's about love. I think that's what Savannah's message was.

The Lord has delcared "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  (see John 14:15)  The Lord has commanded us that sexual relations are only appropriate within the bonds of marriage.  He has also declared, through the united voice of his modern day prophets and apostles, that marriage in between a man and woman. (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World)  As we are obedient to His commandments we show our love for the Lord and qualify for eternal blessings.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's a problem (and I agree that it is), why tie the topic, when assigning it, to a general conference talk or any other talk? Why not just assign the topic itself, whatever the topic might be. It's not as if the General Authority has proprietorship over the topic just because he gave a talk on it.

This practice of having people base their sacrament meeting talks on general conference talks appears to be current fad in the Church, one that I hope soon runs its course. (I hold open the possibility that the practice is in line with a directive from Church headquarters. If that is the case, I would welcome being enlightened on it.)

 

"We sometimes go to sacrament meeting in which all the speakers are assigned to repeat the same general conference talk. What we get are the best-crafted talks in the history of the Church and fewer people listening than ever before. In my judgment, the reason we have fewer people listening is not because of the quality of what is being said, but because the speaker is bringing nothing to the altar that constitutes his own offering. It is just a handoff: this man said something, and we have picked it up and handed it to you as though nothing went through us." Joseph Fielding McConkie

https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/es/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/becoming-master-teachers

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's a problem (and I agree that it is), why tie the topic, when assigning it, to a general conference talk or any other talk? Why not just assign the topic itself, whatever the topic might be? It's not as if the General Authority has proprietorship over the topic just because he gave a talk on it.

This practice of having people base their sacrament meeting talks on general conference talks appears to be current fad in the Church, one that I hope soon runs its course. (I hold open the possibility that the practice is in line with a directive from Church headquarters. If that is the case, I would welcome being enlightened on it.)

 

I recently spoke, and when the assignment was given, I warned them that if they asked me to speak "about a talk", I would do just that.  I would give a history and bio of the speaker, an overview of the conference (the weather etc.), and then describe how the talk was given and delivered in great detail.

I was given a subject.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I like how saying "it's about love" can be used to cover a multitude of sins.
As if everything done for "love" is the right choice.

Just because something is done for love doesn't make it right.

Ralph Hancock, a speaker at last year's FairMormon Conference, addressed this topic in his talk about the "love wins" mentality among some members of the Church.

Hancock said:

Quote

Progressive liberalism claims the authority of reason and of openness to a “diversity” of views and ways of life. But the Love Wins mantra reveals the sacred dogma that underlies the pose of open-minded rationalism: “love” understood as boundless acceptance and empathy, excluding all moral judgment, is the new, unquestioned standard of moral judgment. And the prestige of this secular love, impatient with all boundaries and standards, is clearly a residue (however distorted and misapplied) of the very Christianity that secularism must overcome. Secularism is the secularized residue of Christianity. And this residue, in the form of the ideology of “love,” wields amazing dogmatic authority in our supposedly free-thinking secular age. Question every authority, progressive liberalism entices us, but do not even think about questioning “love,” meaning absolute acceptance and non-judgmental empathy, as the sole standard of human goodness. Never in the darkest of Christian “Dark Ages” did an ideological authority envision such a total domination over the human mind and heart as that asserted by the post-Christian humanistic religion of “love.”

The entire talk is worth a read. Click on the link.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"We sometimes go to sacrament meeting in which all the speakers are assigned to repeat the same general conference talk. What we get are the best-crafted talks in the history of the Church and fewer people listening than ever before. In my judgment, the reason we have fewer people listening is not because of the quality of what is being said, but because the speaker is bringing nothing to the altar that constitutes his own offering. It is just a handoff: this man said something, and we have picked it up and handed it to you as though nothing went through us." Joseph Fielding McConkie

https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/es/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/becoming-master-teachers

Amen to that.

Joseph Fielding McConkie has gone on to his reward. I miss him and the candor with which he addressed gospel topics and Church practices.

I wish the above quote could be distributed to every bishopric, branch presidency and stake presidency in the Church.

 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amen to that.

Joseph Fielding McConkie has gone on to his reward. I miss him and the candor with which he addressed gospel topics and Church practices.

I wish the above quote could be distributed to every bishopric, branch presidency and stake presidency in the Church.

 

I heartily agree to that!

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"We sometimes go to sacrament meeting in which all the speakers are assigned to repeat the same general conference talk. What we get are the best-crafted talks in the history of the Church and fewer people listening than ever before. In my judgment, the reason we have fewer people listening is not because of the quality of what is being said, but because the speaker is bringing nothing to the altar that constitutes his own offering. It is just a handoff: this man said something, and we have picked it up and handed it to you as though nothing went through us." Joseph Fielding McConkie

https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/es/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/becoming-master-teachers

I love this Duncan.  Unless a speaker can find a way to relate a conference talk to his own life experience..there is no offering and without that..the substance of a talk is lost to deaf ears..  (this is so me)...anyway, although I do not relate to conference/talks anymore, this above speaks to me. It relates to many areas outside the church.

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"We sometimes go to sacrament meeting in which all the speakers are assigned to repeat the same general conference talk. What we get are the best-crafted talks in the history of the Church and fewer people listening than ever before. In my judgment, the reason we have fewer people listening is not because of the quality of what is being said, but because the speaker is bringing nothing to the altar that constitutes his own offering. It is just a handoff: this man said something, and we have picked it up and handed it to you as though nothing went through us." Joseph Fielding McConkie

https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/es/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/becoming-master-teachers

It is sometimes surprising to me how this is handled.  The same thing happens in lessons, but then it happens with lessons that are not conference talks as well.  I've always pulled out quotes that I felt the Spirit was directing me to, but then used scripture and my own experiences or thoughts to give the talk or lesson. I've never felt like someone was telling me that I just have to read everything.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is sometimes surprising to me how this is handled.  The same thing happens in lessons, but then it happens with lessons that are not conference talks as well.  I've always pulled out quotes that I felt the Spirit was directing me to, but then used scripture and my own experiences or thoughts to give the talk or lesson. I've never felt like someone was telling me that I just have to read everything.

quotes are one thing, reading someone else's talk is another and i'm sure we've all seen that

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is sometimes surprising to me how this is handled.  The same thing happens in lessons, but then it happens with lessons that are not conference talks as well.  I've always pulled out quotes that I felt the Spirit was directing me to, but then used scripture and my own experiences or thoughts to give the talk or lesson. I've never felt like someone was telling me that I just have to read everything.

Ceasing to frame the assignment as a mandate to give a talk on someone else's talk frees the prospective speaker of the implied or inferred confinement of being slavishly tethered to what the prior speaker said and how he said it.

That's why I say that the better thing to do would be to assign Sister Jones to speak on, say, the subject of repentance, not on what Elder Joseph J. Kimball said about repentance in the talk he gave at the last general conference. Sister Jones thus remains free to express her own inspired thoughts within a gospel framework, selecting from whatever appropriate supplemental resources are at her disposal, including Elder Joseph J. Kimball's address at the last general conference.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 Sister Jones thus remains free to express her own...thoughts

Sometimes that's what you're afraid of

(Yes, I did edit your quote to suit my own purpose.)

Edited June 26, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sometimes that's what you're afraid of

(Yes, I did edit your quote to suit my own purpose.)

Well then, you probably understand that I used the modifier "inspired" advisedly.

[Scott Lloyd]

On this subject, I'm reminded of what Moses said: "Would that all God's people were prophets and that he would put his Spirit on every one."

Assigning someone to give a talk on somebody else's talk signals to me that you don't trust the person to exercise his own initiative to seek the best gifts of the Spirit -- including the gift of prophecy -- in the preparation and delivery of his own talk.

 

[cinepro]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amen to that.

Joseph Fielding McConkie has gone on to his reward. I miss him and the candor with which he addressed gospel topics and Church practices.

I wish the above quote could be distributed to every bishopric, branch presidency and stake presidency in the Church.

 

I hadn't heard he had died.  That's too bad.  I recently picked up his bio of his dad at a thrift store and really enjoyed it.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well then, you probably understand that I used the modifier "inspired" advisedly.

Yes, I did. 

I was just thinking of the difficulty at times, when you have a clear gospel topic that you would like addressed in sacrament meeting, of finding someone in whom you have confidence.  Perhaps in the mythical Utah County wards with 101% attendance, but it can be a struggle at times.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's a problem (and I agree that it is), why tie the topic, when assigning it, to a general conference talk or any other talk? Why not just assign the topic itself, whatever the topic might be? It's not as if the General Authority has proprietorship over the topic just because he gave a talk on it.

This practice of having people base their sacrament meeting talks on general conference talks appears to be a current fad in the Church, one that I hope soon runs its course. (I hold open the possibility that the practice is in line with a directive from Church headquarters. If that is the case, I would welcome being enlightened on it.)

 

I think the "give a talk based on a talk" phenomena is rooted in an effort to extend correlation into sacrament meetings. If people stick closely to the words of the prophet(s) then they can't go too wrong, right? You add that desire for correlation to an ever beating drum about following the prophet, Teachings for Our Times lessons based on conference talks, and manuals based on teachings of the prophets and I think the environment is created to have members parrot the leaders.

Yesterday we had 3 talks in sacrament meeting all based on the same talk. We had a similar topic for Gospel Doctrine (happy coincidence  ) and then the exact same talk assigned for 3rd hour. It was a fine talk and all but geesh. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Edited June 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon