Who heard the disruption?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/15/2020 at 8:11 AM, bluebell said:

You're assumption about Pres. Nelson's attitude is not self evident either.  The obvious thing is that he doesn't want them happening <any more>.  

The attitude you ascribe to President Nelson regarding spontaneous outbursts seems to be more applicable to the occasional appreciative laughter that comes from the congregation when a speaker makes a humorous remark. For most of us, it goes without saying that such a thing on occasion is OK, but, in keeping with reverence, it ought to be “held in check” and not allowed to get “out of hand.” 
 

The difference, of course, is that spontaneous cheers and hoots during the meeting have now been expressly discouraged; that has never happened with regard to moderate and appreciative laughter at a speaker’s remarks. All of which supports my perception that the latter is tolerable while the former is not. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The attitude you ascribe to President Nelson regarding spontaneous outbursts seems to be more applicable to the occasional appreciative laughter that comes from the congregation when a speaker makes a humorous remark. For most of us, it goes without saying that such a thing on occasion is OK, but, in keeping with reverence, it ought to be “held in check” and not allowed to get “out of hand.” 
 

The difference, of course, is that spontaneous cheers and hoots during the meeting have now been expressly discouraged; that has never happened with regard to moderate and appreciative laughter at a speaker’s remarks. All of which supports my perception that the latter is tolerable while the former is not. 

I think we've both said everything that can be said.  Probably time to just agree to disagree on it.  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The attitude you ascribe to President Nelson regarding spontaneous outbursts seems to be more applicable to the occasional appreciative laughter that comes from the congregation when a speaker makes a humorous remark. For most of us, it goes without saying that such a thing on occasion is OK, but, in keeping with reverence, it ought to be “held in check” and not allowed to get “out of hand.” 

The difference, of course, is that spontaneous cheers and hoots during the meeting have now been expressly discouraged; that has never happened with regard to moderate and appreciative laughter at a speaker’s remarks. All of which supports my perception that the latter is tolerable while the former is not. 

As an attorney, I often attend hearings in court (I've been practicing for 15 years, so the number must be in the many hundreds by now).  Most are in state court, but I have also attended many hearings in the federal courthouse in Salt Lake.  

The posture taken by both state and federal judges in such proceedings is very uniform and predictable.  Decorum is extremely important.  The courts are a vital part of our society.  Important decisions are made about disputed issues, the ramifications of which can be very profound.  To that end, judges are studious in maintaining solemnity and decorum in the proceedings. 

Formalities of conduct are observed, but not quite as stringently as prohibitions against unseemly behavior.  Consequently, the judge may waive the need for everyone to stand when she takes the bench.  Or the judge may let the attorneys present argument from their tables, rather than from the podium.  However, the lessening of formal observances never goes very far.  The judge is still always "Your Honor."  The parties still need to follow all instructions.  No profanity is allowed.  No rudeness to any person.  No threats.  No sarcasm or taunts or insults.  No raised voices.  The parties take their turn in the proceedings.  People in the gallery are allowed to observe only.  No participation at all.  They can't say anything, or do anything that is distracting or disruptive.

These measures really help participants take the process seriously.  Maintaining respect for this process is an important part of our ideals about ordered liberty.

If civil courtrooms can require solemnity and decorum, how much more so should the Church be entitled to maintain decorum and solemnity in semi-annual genereal conferences.  We believe the work being carried on by the Church, and the counsel being provided, in these meetings is very important.  Even sacred.  So I think there is a pretty big difference between a gentle chuckle at a mildly humorous comment made during a talk, and a whoop and holler because someone is getting a temple in their home town.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If civil courtrooms can require solemnity and decorum, how much more so should the Church be entitled to maintain decorum and solemnity in semi-annual genereal conferences.  We believe the work being carried on by the Church, and the counsel being provided, in these meetings is very important.  Even sacred.  So I think there is a pretty big difference between a gentle chuckle at a mildly humorous comment made during a talk, and a whoop and holler because someone is getting a temple in their home town.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Even the Apostles will laugh and tell funny stories during GC.  I just don't think they feel the same way about the absolute necessity of decorum of propriety as you and Scott do.

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

Even the Apostles will laugh and tell funny stories during GC.  

While still maintaining the sanctity and decorum of the proceedings.

Just now, bluebell said:

I just don't think they feel the same way about the absolute necessity of decorum of propriety as you and Scott do.

Every facet of General Conference suggests, to me, that they are working very hard to maintain decorum and reverence.  The Conference Center is subdued in its structure, decor, lighting, and so on.  The music is constrained.  The prayers are quiet and contemplative.  Everyone is dressed in "Sunday Best."  The talks are calm and measured.  The speakers do not pace back and forth (as is popular these days, a la Ted Talks and such), and instead stand behind a large podium.  There is no "call and response" or other comparable interaction between the speaker and the audience.  The audience members quietly file in at the beginning of the session, and quietly file out at the end.  The general authorities do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

While still maintaining the sanctity and decorum of the proceedings.

Every facet of General Conference suggests, to me, that they are working very hard to maintain decorum and reverence.  The Conference Center is subdued in its structure, decor, lighting, and so on.  The music is constrained.  The prayers are quiet and contemplative.  Everyone is dressed in "Sunday Best."  The talks are calm and measured.  The speakers do not pace back and forth (as is popular these days, a la Ted Talks and such), and instead stand behind a large podium.  There is no "call and response" or other comparable interaction between the speaker and the audience.  The audience members quietly file in at the beginning of the session, and quietly file out at the end.  The general authorities do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it’s your argument that exclamations of joy over temples does not maintain sanctity or decorum but laughter at a funny story does, so that’s why one is not allowed and the other is?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it’s your argument that exclamations of joy over temples does not maintain sanctity or decorum but laughter at a funny story does, so that’s why one is not allowed and the other is?

I'm not sure we can draw hard distinctions here.  My sense is that the Brethren detected a growing propensity toward whoops/hollers during the announcement of temples, and made a simple and basic request to limit such exclamations.

If and when quiet chuckles get out of hand (or perhaps GAs start injecting a bit too much levity into their talks), then similar corrective counsel will be provided.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My sense is that the Brethren detected a growing propensity toward whoops/hollers during the announcement of temples, and made a simple and basic request to limit such exclamations.I

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my posts to Scott.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my posts to Scott.  

 

To which I in effect responded that if the whoops and hollers are indiscreet enough to warrant an outright ban after one or two occurrences, it’s hard to imagine that they were not just as intolerable in the first instance. 
 

This contrasts with gentle and controlled laughter, which is allowed to transpire occasionally without drawing any prohibitive injunction from the podium. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To which I in effect responded that if the whoops and hollers are indiscrete enough to warrant an outright ban, it’s hard to imagine that they were not just as intolerable in the first instance. 
 

To which I responded that we would have to agree to disagree.   

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To which I responded that we would have to agree to disagree.   

I was merely giving a reminder of my position — just as you had done just before that in your response to Smac. 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure we can draw hard distinctions here.  My sense is that the Brethren detected a growing propensity toward whoops/hollers during the announcement of temples, and made a simple and basic request to limit such exclamations.

If and when quiet chuckles get out of hand (or perhaps GAs start injecting a bit too much levity into their talks), then similar corrective counsel will be provided.

Thanks,

-Smac

In fact I do recall an instance when President Harold B. Lee (I think it was) did just that. 
 

Elder Paul H. Dunn, who was nothing if not an entertaining speaker (or it may have been Hartman Rector Jr.), had just addressed the conference session and had drawn laughter from the congregation. President Lee, before announcing the next speaker, cautioned everyone against too much hilarity during the meetings. He did not reference the speaker by name nor refer specifically to what had just happened. But it was fairly clear he was admonishing the speakers in general from putting too much levity into their talks and members of the congregation from reacting with unrestrained laughter. Yet even he on that occasion did not outrightly forbid laughter of any sort. 
 

It’s not difficult to conceive that the president of the Church even today would call a halt if there were ever a conference speaker who began to behave more like a stand-up comic than a minister of the gospel, prompting rollicking laughter from the congregation. <That> would be more akin to the hoots and hollers during temple announcements. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/14/2020 at 11:19 AM, bluebell said:

I know we disagree on this, and that's o.k.  My perspective is that  spontaneous outbursts of celebration are appropriate on occasion, but planned ones (such as those that followed in later months) are not.    

And there were other exclamations of excitement at other GCs.  The Layton and Russian temples were announced in April 2018 and with them we get our first excited noises.  The next time Pres. Nelson announced temples, during the October 2018 conference, we got more exclamations.  The following conference, in April 2019, was the first time that the prophet specifically asked people to celebrate silently.  I'm guessing he saw a trend coming on.

Quote

Scott Lloyd said:
I think we have seen a demonstration of crowd psychology at work: The spontaneous outburst happens the first time, seemingly with no repercussions, and people get the idea it is OK to do it the next time, and the next, and so on. For the sake of reverence there need to be certain standards of decorum maintained, lest the conference sessions grow as boisterous as British Parliament. I think the prophet knows that, and that’s why he put a stop to the outbursts. 

People sense the need for decorum, as evidenced by the fact that, prior to 2018, the outbursts during temple announcements were unheard of — at least in my recollection. What President Nelson has done is to get us back to the prior expectation. 

Our school superintendent and HS principal always ask the audience to save their celebrations for the end of the graduation ceremony. Family and friends whooping, cheering,  clapping, whistling, calling the graduate’s name, and blowing canned air horns obliterates some student names that may be read during the tumult and makes the ceremony much, much longer (over 400 graduates). Their  requests are usually respected for about 10 names, but then it starts up slowly and progresses quickly to bedlam. I stopped going after a number years of that. I think the Conference celebrations would escalate if left unchecked, but of course not to that extreme.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Our school superintendent and HS principal always ask the audience to save their celebrations for the end of the graduation ceremony. Family and friends whooping, cheering,  clapping, whistling, calling the graduate’s name, and blowing canned air horns obliterates some student names that may be read during the tumult and makes the ceremony much, much longer (over 400 graduates). Their  requests are usually respected for about 10 names, but then it starts up slowly and progresses quickly to bedlam. I stopped going after a number years of that. I think the Conference celebrations would escalate if left unchecked, but of course not to that extreme.

Yes, I think so as well.  People mean well but things like that do usually take on a life of their own.  Best to nip it in the bud before it has a chance to escalate.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/14/2020 at 2:38 PM, JAHS said:

But of course it is OK to cry out loud when doing the Hosanna Shout inside the Temple when it is dedicated.  I have been to some and the members just can't seem to get in to it loud enough like it was meant to be done. 

I’ve observed the same thing. I think it is because we conflate reverence with total silence in our temple and church meetings, so when we have a chance to let go, it’s kind of tepid. Except at BYU games.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/14/2020 at 4:00 PM, JAHS said:

Maybe when members hear of a temple announced in conference they could all shout out,   "Hosanna!"  If it were to become a traditional thing to do it would not be disruptive.

Or “Praise the Lord!”We have a convert sister in our ward who speaks out in sacrament meeting and lessons.
I used to play in an orchestra for a Methodist congregation. They had a ceremony similar to our baby name and blessing where the parents brought the infant up to be blessed by the minister. After the blessing the congregation celebrated by respectfully applauding the family. I thought it was kinda cool.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve observed the same thing. I think it is because we conflate reverence with total silence in our temple and church meetings, so when we have a chance to let go, it’s kind of tepid. Except at BYU games.

I have my own complaints on that matter. 
 

I lead the singing in sacrament meeting every other month. How I have wished on frequent occasions that we could somehow influence the Latter-day Saints to sing the hymns of Zion with greater fervor and, when appropriate, more gusto. 
 

Last Sunday, the high council speaker began his talk by saying he had never heard the hymn we had just sung and that the person he was sitting next to on the stand had whispered to him, “I bet that one doesn’t make it into the new hymn book.” 
 

The remark got a laugh from the congregation. I myself was a tad annoyed. I don’t approve of speakers at our meetings openly disparaging the hymns we sing. 
 

It was a fine hymn, “God Moves in a Mysterious Way,” with beautiful text. It is unfamiliar to us, I believe, due to what I call the sealed-book syndrome. That is to say, we as a people are such sticks-in-the-mud that we sing the same 30 or 40 hymns over and over again, the rest of our hymnal being as it were a sealed book to us. 
 

I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before: Many of us are looking forward to a revised hymnal for which new compositions have been solicited. How can we expect to learn any new hymns when we refuse to get out of our collective rut whereby we resist learning the ones we already have that are unfamiliar to us? 
 

And, as I indicated above, we don’t even sing the ones we know with much energy. 
 

Disclaimer: I don’t choose the hymns we sing in our sacrament meetings. It is left to the organists to do that, so I did not choose the one the high councilor was complaining about. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have my own complaints on that matter. 
 

I lead the singing in sacrament meeting every other month. How I have wished on frequent occasions that we could somehow influence the Latter-day Saints to sing the hymns of Zion with greater fervor and, when appropriate, more gusto. 
 

Last Sunday, the high council speaker began his talk by saying he had never heard the hymn we had just sung and that the person he was sitting next to on the stand had whispered to him, “I bet that one doesn’t make it into the new hymn book.” 
 

The remark got a laugh from the congregation. I myself was a tad annoyed. I don’t approve of speakers at our meetings openly disparaging the hymns we sing. 
 

It was a fine hymn, “God Moves in a Mysterious Way,” with beautiful text. It is unfamiliar to us, I believe, due to what I call the sealed-book syndrome. That is to say, we as a people are such sticks-in-the-mud that we sing the same 30 or 40 hymns over and over again, the rest of our hymnal being as it were a sealed book to us. 
 

I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before: Many of us are looking forward to a revised hymnal for which new compositions have been solicited. How can we expect to learn any new hymns when we refuse to get out of our collective rut whereby we resist learning the ones we already have that are unfamiliar to us? 
 

And, as I indicated above, we don’t even sing the ones we know with much energy. 
 

Disclaimer: I don’t choose the hymns we sing in our sacrament meetings. It is left to the organists to do that, so I did not choose the one the high councilor was complaining about. 

We are on the same page here. A while back we tried to introduce new hymns by singing the same one two or three weeks in a row.

I wonder if there will be a mechanism to learn the new hymns when the book comes out. We are so pressed for time in our meetings now that we often sing only one verse of the closing hymn. If we have an extra hymn or special music, the meeting usually goes over time.  I do my best to keep tempos up.