Best Talk of Conference

[Rivers]

I'm surprised to admit this but I can honestly say that may favorite talk of this entire General Conference came from one of the sisters.  It was Bonnie Oscarson's talk on service.  Hands down.  She touched on what it really means to be a member of the church and a disciple of Christ. 

Anybody else have a favorite talk.?

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I'm surprised to admit this but I can honestly say that may favorite talk of this entire General Conference came from one of the sisters.  It was Bonnie Oscarson's talk on service.  Hands down.  She touched on what it really means to be a member of the church and a disciple of Christ. 

Anybody else have a favorite talk.?

When Rain posted some of Bonnie Oscarsons talk..I, too was impressed.

[Gillebre]

Elder Holland, hands down.

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, Gillebre said:

Elder Holland, hands down.

He gave an all right talk.

[Scott Lloyd]

In addition to those mentioned here, the addresses by Elder Oaks, Elder Ballard and Brother Callister for their timely, important and unequivocal instruction on the family proclamation, being wary of foolish trends and attitudes,  and recognizing the truthfulness and authenticity of the Book of Mormon, respectively. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

My 14 y old made a comment about how the speakers shared some macabre stories! hahahha! I guess for me I don't have one particular talk that struck me but I liked bits and bobs of the talks

[Avatar4321]

Elder callister or elder rasband

Edited October 3, 2017 by Avatar4321
Stupid autocorrect

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My 14 y old made a comment about how the speakers shared some macabre stories! hahahha! I guess for me I don't have one particular talk that struck me but I liked bits and bobs of the talks

I don't like the stories about tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death. There's plenty of that around us. I was confused by the talk on miracles. Elder Oaks was primo! Many great talks.

[Rain]

I can't say what is the best talk,  but the 2 that touched me most were from Elders Pingree (Pinegar? I,didn't have my glasses on when he got up) and Eyring. 

I liked Sister Oscarson's, but I admit my fears while listening to it made it so I didn't listen as carefully as I should have. She is totally right in what she said.  I'm just afraid, because of past experience, that many from my stake will use it as justification. That we don't need to serve anyone outside of our homes or limited groups of people. Now I am totally in agreement that our priority is home, but it seems like for many,  service can't be done outside the home or ward. 

In fact, I just started feeling that I am finally getting somewhere with encouraging service in our stake. I was asked to speak at a leadership meeting about it and I was excited to share how serving others can bring family, ward and stake members closer together, but this morning they let me know they have changed their minds and will be focusing on VTing instead.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't like the stories about tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death.  There's plenty of that around us.

I don't necessarily like the "tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death" parts, but I do like to hear about faithfulness notwithstanding the "tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death" parts.

Quote

I was confused by the talk on miracles.

I wasn't.  

See Elder Hallstrom's address here (this and all other links last accessed October 3, 2017): https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/media/session_4_talk_5/5594907556001?lang=eng. After relating the several miraculous circumstances which had to align for Clark to be rescued—the fact that Clark survived in the first place, the presence of a party whose members included those with emergency medical training, the fact that they were testing a communications device where cell service is not available and were able to summon help, the availability of the helicopter (I got the impression that we aren't talking about a fully-equipped medevac helicopter here), the fact that the wind direction shifted so that the helicopter could land after two unsuccessful attempts, the neurotrauma surgeon's presence at the hospital that day—Elder Hallstrom says this, which, I think is the key: 

Quote

I had a profound impression, a spiritual witness, that Holly and each of the five beautiful children who sat in the living room around their parents had such faith that they could have accepted whatever the outcome might have been that day, and they still would have spiritually prospered. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]

It's not because God doesn't love us or because we're not good enough for Him that He doesn't remove so many of what the Apostle Paul called our “thorn(s) in the flesh” (see 2 Corinthians 12:7).  As Rabbi Harold Kushner, later quoted approvingly by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, so memorably put it, “Expecting to have a trouble-free life because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you're a vegetarian.”

Perhaps Elder Hallstrom's points can be understood best in light of another address delivered by Elder Neal A. Maxwell 32 ½ years ago, “Willing to Submit,” available here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/04/willing-to-submit?lang=eng.  Here is a hopefully-helpful (yes, I like alliteration! ) excerpt: 

Quote

 

We have been given three special words—but if not—by three submissive young men who entered their fiery furnace, knowing “our God … is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, … But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods.” (Dan. 3:17–18; italics added.)

Moreover, our prayers should allow for three more special words: “And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.” (3 Ne. 18:20; italics added.)

It is only by yielding to God that we can begin to realize His will for us. And if we truly trust God, why not yield to His loving omniscience? After all, He knows us and our possibilities much better than do we.

 

Echoes of Elder Hallstrom's and Elder Maxwell's point can also be found in Elder Dallin H. Oaks's address from April 2010, “Healing the Sick.”  See here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng. In part, he said (heading removed): 

Quote

 

Fortunately, the words spoken in a healing blessing are not essential to its healing effect. If faith is sufficient and if the Lord wills it, the afflicted person will be healed or blessed whether the officiator speaks those words or not. Conversely, if the officiator yields to personal desire or inexperience and gives commands or words of blessing in excess of what the Lord chooses to bestow according to the faith of the individual, those words will not be fulfilled. Consequently, brethren, no elder should ever hesitate to participate in a healing blessing because of fear that he will not know what to say. The words spoken in a healing blessing can edify and energize the faith of those who hear them, but the effect of the blessing is dependent upon faith and the Lord’s will, not upon the words spoken by the elder who officiated.

Young men and older men, please take special note of what I will say now. As we exercise the undoubted power of the priesthood of God and as we treasure His promise that He will hear and answer the prayer of faith, we must always remember that faith and the healing power of the priesthood cannot produce a result contrary to the will of Him whose priesthood it is. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

I'm reminded of the thread from a few weeks ago, the basic theme/thesis of which is that God loves “only the special” (my phrase).  Here's that thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69531-god-gives-special-attention-and-help-to-certain-people/. 

I told my own story (which I've shared so many times before) of two failed hip reconstructions, each followed by a painful and grueling (yet ultimately fruitless) postoperative course, which then were then followed by three successful operations in a span of the next eighteen months, the whole ordeal spanning about 44 months in total.It wasn't two separate accounts—one of an 11-12 year old whom God didn't like, or toward whom He was ill-disposed, or toward whom He was, at best, apathetic, on the one hand, and another of a 14-15 year old whom God did like, or toward whom He was well-disposed, or toward whom he was not apathetic, on the other hand.  The young man who went through all of that, the initial two dismal failures as well as the three subsequent successes?  Same kid.  I don't know why those first two operations didn't result in a better outcome, but I choose to believe that God does.  I don't know why God has not, as yet, removed some of my other “thorns in the flesh”—an ongoing behavioral health challenge, continuing underemployment, job dissatisfaction, and resulting economic challenges—but I choose to believe that God does.

 

Hope this helps.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't like the stories about tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death. There's plenty of that around us. I was confused by the talk on miracles. Elder Oaks was primo! Many great talks.

It's so funny how we all react differently to things.  The talk on miracles was probably my favorite talk.  I know so members who struggle with understand why God intervenes sometimes and not in others, and their answer is to believe that He actually never intervenes.  I love that the speaker (who's name I can't remember right now off of the top of my head) addressed that and paved a way for believing in a God of miracles and a God who's will is sometimes not to intervene (at least not in the way we would want).

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I can't say what is the best talk,  but the 2 that touched me most were from Elders Pingree (Pinegar? I,didn't have my glasses on when he got up) and Eyring. 

I liked Sister Oscarson's, but I admit my fears while listening to it made it so I didn't listen as carefully as I should have. She is totally right in what she said.  I'm just afraid, because of past experience, that many from my stake will use it as justification. That we don't need to serve anyone outside of our homes or limited groups of people. Now I am totally in agreement that our priority is home, but it seems like for many,  service can't be done outside the home or ward. 

In fact, I just started feeling that I am finally getting somewhere with encouraging service in our stake. I was asked to speak at a leadership meeting about it and I was excited to share how serving others can bring family, ward and stake members closer together, but this morning they let me know they have changed their minds and will be focusing on VTing instead.

That's too bad.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't necessarily like the "tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death" parts, but I do like to hear about faithfulness notwithstanding the "tragedy, sickness, suffering, and death" parts.

I wasn't.  

See Elder Hallstrom's address here (this and all other links last accessed October 3, 2017): https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/media/session_4_talk_5/5594907556001?lang=eng. After relating the several miraculous circumstances which had to align for Clark to be rescued—the fact that Clark survived in the first place, the presence of a party whose members included those with emergency medical training, the fact that they were testing a communications device where cell service is not available and were able to summon help, the availability of the helicopter (I got the impression that we aren't talking about a fully-equipped medevac helicopter here), the fact that the wind direction shifted so that the helicopter could land after two unsuccessful attempts, the neurotrauma surgeon's presence at the hospital that day—Elder Hallstrom says this, which, I think is the key: 

It's not because God doesn't love us or because we're not good enough for Him that He doesn't remove so many of what the Apostle Paul called our “thorn(s) in the flesh” (see 2 Corinthians 12:7).  As Rabbi Harold Kushner, later quoted approvingly by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, so memorably put it, “Expecting to have a trouble-free life because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you're a vegetarian.”

Perhaps Elder Hallstrom's points can be understood best in light of another address delivered by Elder Neal A. Maxwell 32 ½ years ago, “Willing to Submit,” available here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/04/willing-to-submit?lang=eng.  Here is a hopefully-helpful (yes, I like alliteration! ) excerpt: 

Echoes of Elder Hallstrom's and Elder Maxwell's point can also be found in Elder Dallin H. Oaks's address from April 2010, “Healing the Sick.”  See here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng. In part, he said (heading removed): 

I'm reminded of the thread from a few weeks ago, the basic theme/thesis of which is that God loves “only the special” (my phrase).  Here's that thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69531-god-gives-special-attention-and-help-to-certain-people/. 

I told my own story (which I've shared so many times before) of two failed hip reconstructions, each followed by a painful and grueling (yet ultimately fruitless) postoperative course, which then were then followed by three successful operations in a span of the next eighteen months, the whole ordeal spanning about 44 months in total.It wasn't two separate accounts—one of an 11-12 year old whom God didn't like, or toward whom He was ill-disposed, or toward whom He was, at best, apathetic, on the one hand, and another of a 14-15 year old whom God did like, or toward whom He was well-disposed, or toward whom he was not apathetic, on the other hand.  The young man who went through all of that, the initial two dismal failures as well as the three subsequent successes?  Same kid.  I don't know why those first two operations didn't result in a better outcome, but I choose to believe that God does.  I don't know why God has not, as yet, removed some of my other “thorns in the flesh”—an ongoing behavioral health challenge, continuing underemployment, job dissatisfaction, and resulting economic challenges—but I choose to believe that God does.

 

Hope this helps.  

Muchas gracias, hermano! You went the extra mile! I will have to review the talk and consider your words to further clarify what I didn't understand. I'm confused about whether or not he believes such things as the Clark story are really miracles, or that we must redefine what a miracle is., i.e., resurrection, forgiveness of sins. I understood him to say what we commonly call miracles, i.e., healings, food on the doorstep, accident prevention, etc., aren't what we should consider miracles, in which case I don't understand why he told the Clark story, or why so many talks feature "miracles" that follow tragedy, illness, etc. I probably misunderstood, so I'll have to reread it

Edited October 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Muchas gracias, hermano! You went the extra mile! I will have to review the talk and consider your words to further clarify what I didn't understand. 

De nada.

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

De nada.

See my edit for expansion. I considered not expanding my comments because I don't want to appear contentious.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Muchas gracias, hermano! You went the extra mile! I will have to review the talk and consider your words to further clarify what I didn't understand. I'm confused about whether or not he believes such things as the Clark story are really miracles, or that we must redefine what a miracle is., i.e., resurrection, forgiveness of sins. I understood him to say what we commonly call miracles, i.e., healings, food on the doorstep, accident prevention, etc., aren't what we should consider miracles, in which case I don't understand why he told the Clark story, or why so many talks feature "miracles" that follow tragedy, illness, etc. I probably misunderstood, so I'll have to reread it

It's not that he didn't consider them miracles or that we shouldn't consider them miracles.  It was that we should understand that the best and greatest miracles come from the atonement. If we are not healed in this life then we will be healed by resurrection after this life etc. If we only define a miracle in the traditional sense then we miss the greater miracles.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Rain

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Muchas gracias, hermano! You went the extra mile! I will have to review the talk and consider your words to further clarify what I didn't understand. I'm confused about whether or not he believes such things as the Clark story are really miracles, or that we must redefine what a miracle is., i.e., resurrection, forgiveness of sins. I understood him to say what we commonly call miracles, i.e., healings, food on the doorstep, accident prevention, etc., aren't what we should consider miracles, in which case I don't understand why he told the Clark story, or why so many talks feature "miracles" that follow tragedy, illness, etc. I probably misunderstood, so I'll have to reread it

The human tendency is to want to draw nice, neat, clear lines and to say that this is a miracle, while that is simply the result of normal, everyday processes, or that this person was granted a miracle because he did [x], while that person was not because he did not do [x], and so on.  I don't know that it's even possible (let alone necessary) for the mortal, finite mind to draw those kinds of lines.

With respect to my own experience, I'm not sure that God didn't intervene in the first two attempts at reconstructing my hip:  Perhaps He did, and His intervention was more subtle and/or was more dimly perceived.  (Could things have turned out even worse?  That's a distinct possibility.  Frankly, whenever I lament any of my own seemingly less-than-ideal circumstances, that's my constant mantra: "Could things be worse?"  And, as much as I hate to admit it, the answer's always, "Yes.") 

And whatever misgivings might remain about the outcome of those failed hip reconstructions, I'm absolutely certain that He intervened in three subsequent operations, because He told me  He did so.  Would I have preferred a better outcome for those first two failures?  Yes, but any time I have told God so, or have lamented various of my other seemingly less-than-optimal circumstances, He has said simply, "Ken, don't forget how you felt on January 24 and February 14, 1984, and on June 7, 1985."  As He told Oliver Cowdery, "Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?  What greater witness can you have than from God?" (Doctrine & Covenants 6:23).

Would my niece, my nephew, and my brother prefer that their mother and wife, respectively, have been granted the miracle of her cure and continuing survival for a few more decades?  Without question.  But can the Lord sustain those she left behind, even through her untimely death to have faith that, one day, they will be reunited, and that any questions about her seemingly (in mortal terms) untimely passing will be resolved?  Absolutely.  I'm not prepared to say, however, that only the desired outcome would have been the miracle, while what actually did happen was not.

P.S.: Essentially, Rain said what I did more succinctly than I did.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

It's not that he didn't consider them miracles or that we shouldn't consider them miracles.  It was that we should understand that the best and greatest miracles come from the atonement. If we are not healed in this life then we will be healed by resurrection after this life etc. If we only define a miracle in the traditional sense then we miss the greater miracles.

Hmmmm. I didn't get that from the talk, but I'll check it out in its entirety later. Sister Gui had the same confusion as I. I'm not sure we miss the greater miracles. We talk about them all the time.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmmm. I didn't get that from the talk, but I'll check it out in its entirety later. Sister Gui had the same confusion as I. I'm not sure we miss the greater miracles. We talk about them all the time.

We do talk about them, but we don't normally call them "miracles".

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmmm. I didn't get that from the talk, but I'll check it out in its entirety later. Sister Gui had the same confusion as I. I'm not sure we miss the greater miracles. We talk about them all the time.

Just listened again. This was either at around 4:30 or 5:30. He doesn't say he is changing the definition. He says we should "expand" the definition - which is why he can consider both types as miracles. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/media/session_4_talk_5/5594907556001?lang=eng

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Muchas gracias, hermano! You went the extra mile! I will have to review the talk and consider your words to further clarify what I didn't understand. I'm confused about whether or not he believes such things as the Clark story are really miracles, or that we must redefine what a miracle is., i.e., resurrection, forgiveness of sins. I understood him to say what we commonly call miracles, i.e., healings, food on the doorstep, accident prevention, etc., aren't what we should consider miracles [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969], in which case I don't understand why he told the Clark story, or why so many talks feature "miracles" that follow tragedy, illness, etc. I probably misunderstood, so I'll have to reread it

Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood, but I don't think he's drawing a line between more common, everyday miracles (e.g., food on the doorstep), their more-dramatic-but-less-common counterparts (e.g., healing), and miraculous occurrences which, notwithstanding their miraculous nature, will eventually happen to everyone (i.e., resurrection).  I don't think there's any question that what happened to Clark is a miracle, or that Elder Hallstrom believes it is a miracle.  And, by any definition, resurrection is a miracle because empiricists, scientists, skeptics, et cetera say it's impossible. 

Indeed, I think one implication of Elder Hallstrom's address is that we shouldn't discount the Lord's tender mercies such as food on a doorstep even if, like my sister-in-law, brother, niece, and nephew, we don't happen to receive the fervently-prayed-for, earnestly-desired miraculous healing.  And I think another implication of Elder Hallstrom's address is that the development of the humble, "but-if-not" faith that Elder Hallstrom received a spiritual witness that Clark's family would have displayed even if the fervently-prayed-for, earnestly-sought miracle hadn't come is, in itself, a miracle, or, if not a miracle, at least it's a worthwhile thing.

If we believe one of the purposes in being here is to develop "all-things-are-possible-to-him-that-believeth" faith, then we'd best take the advice that Westley/"The Dread Pirate Roberts" gave Inigo Montoya when the latter demanded to know the former's true identity as the two prepare to duel: "Get used to disappointment."  There are qualifiers attached to the "all-things-are-possible" promise: What we ask must be expedient (that is, it must be best for us in a spiritual, as opposed to a strictly temporal, sense; of course, other scriptures qualify the "whatsoever-ye-shall-ask-the-Father-in-My-name-shall-be-given-you" clause with the proviso which is right, compare John 16:23 with 3 Nephi 18:20); and, as Elder Oaks points out in the address I linked to in my previous post, what we ask must be consistent with the Lord's will.

"All-things-are-possible" faith, a la Mark 9:23, is faith, but perhaps it can benefit from increased maturity, wisdom, and seasoning, including an understanding of the caveats I discuss in my previous paragraph.  Better still is the "I-know-not-the-meaning-of-all-things-nevertheless-I-know-that-God-loveth-His-children" faith of a Nephi (1 Nephi 11:17); and perhaps better still is the "though-he-slay-me-yet-will-I-trust-in-Him" faith of a Job (Job 13:15), and the "but-if-not" faith of a Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego (Daniel 3:17-18).

 

[The Mean Farmer]

Just my opinion on miracles.

I have a small but insanely expensive metal plate in my left wrist due to it being VERY broken.  I was sedated, they cut me open, installed the thing, and I again have a mostly functioning hand.  

I have a son who we would have lost 4 times or more if it wasn't for medications that have been developed in only the past 50ish years.

My Dad had his prostate partially removed by a doctor using a robot!

I have the ability to not only listed to a prophet (or nearly anyone else), live in my home on a digitized signal that either comes in either through a cable into my home and then wirelessly to any of a number of devices, or it decodes the signal from a invisible wave that has returned from OUTER SPACE!!!

 

I believe there are miracles all round us!  God works through people more now than he every could have in the past!!!   It is AWESOME!

 

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Just listened again. This was either at around 4:30 or 5:30. He doesn't say he is changing the definition. He says we should "expand" the definition - which is why he can consider both types as miracles. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/media/session_4_talk_5/5594907556001?lang=eng

Thanks. I've always considered the greater things such as resurrection, forgiveness, etc., miracles. Don't know how else to describe them.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui