The ONLY topic of Mormon talks

[Hagoth]

Every once in a while a NOM relates a story about giving a non-correlated talk in Sacrament Meeting and being shocked at how many people reported that they really enjoyed it. Members are not used to hearing honest, personal differences of thought expressed from the pulpit.

I am becoming more and more aware of the fact that LDS talks, particularly conference talks and the standard mini-conference-talks that people deliver in local meetings, all share the same theme: how you should feel and what you should believe.

The topic of the main speaker for our Easter program was, believe it or not, doubts and questions. I was really encouraged when the bishopric member started talking about how important it is to ask questions of our religion and to not just believe what we're told. Even more encouraging was his admonition to not be judgmental of others who question or doubt.

But hat was the first half of the talk - the setup. I soon realized that he was merely following a well-worn pattern that we have seen recently in conference talks. The rest of the talk was a firm reminder that although it's ok to question, those who don't resolve those questions quickly in favor of the church are on a slippery slope and will quickly be lost to Satan's wiles. He wrapped up with the standard denouncement of the internet and a recitation of the party line about how we are SUPPOSED to feel about the church and what we are SUPPOSED to believe.

I came away realizing that for the most part this is the same talk I have heard over and over again all of my life, repeatedly dressed up in different items from the Emperor's wardrobe.

[StarbucksMom]

Hagoth, that is so true-and truly awful fo have that kind of talk on Easter.

HEY LDS CHURCH---Did you miss the memo--you know--the bible?? Easter is about Jesus' triumph over death--and it means we can all have hope to overcome sin and death and live again. It's about forgiveness and starting over. It's about how much the Savior loves us.

But no--leave it to LDS Inc to turn Easter into "doubt your doubts" and 100% allegiance to a corporation of 15 old rich white guys who ignore the Savior's teachings and keep buying Florida and building malls and condos.

I need to do a separate post--but God's tender mercies (I'm serious) led our whole family to a Christian church on Easter, and we were actually supposed to go to LDS church.

[Hagoth]

I need to do a separate post--but God's tender mercies (I'm serious) led our whole family to a Christian church on Easter, and we were actually supposed to go to LDS church.

Please do!

Here's another revelation I have had. When people come away from church claiming that they have been filled and uplifted by the message they are usually expressing the confirmatory emotions that come from the mutual back-patting that comes from feeling at home in the echo chamber. "Every speaker confirmed what I already believe, so I must be right!" The minute you step out of the box and stop buying into the groupthink it becomes glaringly obvious how manipulative the meetings and lessons really are, and how hostile they are to non-conforming ideas.

[Emower]

I would like to get the opinion of others who have paid attention to Church for longer than I have. I have really noticed that people are just reading their talks nowadays. No one speaks extemporaneously anymore. Has this always been the case? Is it just luck of the draw where you get some people who are comfortable speaking without a written out speech and some who are not?

[redjay]

My observation is that obedience to the brethren is the real message all else is filler. Obedience trumps all other considerations. Everything is changeable when they say it is. They define the rules and mark the path to exaltation. I can't think of a single thing in the Mormon Church that has not changed over time, with the exception of the need for obedience.

For an interesting experiment try and think of a single unchanging facet - Bill Reel had an excellent podcast that touched upon this recently delivered by a poster here.

[Enoch Witty]

I am becoming more and more aware of the fact that LDS talks, particularly conference talks and the standard mini-conference-talks that people deliver in local meetings, all share the same theme: how you should feel and what you should believe.

I have put this in my file of substantive quotations, because it is extremely correct. Well stated.

[Culper Jr.]

No one speaks extemporaneously anymore. Has this always been the case? Is it just luck of the draw where you get some people who are comfortable speaking without a written out speech and some who are not?

No, it used to be that people prepared talks from their own thoughts, and often added details and things extemporaneously. The big thing now is to give a talk on a conference talk. In many cases, the talk that is being read IS the conference talk. It gets confusing when the speaker is quoting the talk, which is in turn quoting someone else. It's like in the movie Inception, but instead of a dream within a dream it's a talk within a talk within a talk, and time moves more slowly. I guess it's all part of controlling the message; the leadership really seems to fear people going outside of the correlated message.

[Palerider]

Hagoth this is the great and devilish sin of lipservice that is performed by the church on a regular basis. They love to say they give their people total freedom to think, believe and question as they will but the reality is much different. I'm reminded of the time leadership were caught with their pants down with the following quote from a church publication:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

When called on the carpet by a local Salt Lake minister regarding the above, George Albert Smith stood on his head to assure him that the message was a fluke that had been accidently passed by leadership and should never have been published.
Knowing what we know about how church publications are reviewed and poured over by leadership I feel fairly secure that this statement was fully vetted by the brethren and was exactly what they wanted the membership to hear. What they hadn't counted on was that it would be read by a non-member clergy and that he would have the audacity to call them on it. They must have been totally embarrassed by how ridiculous the statement looked to the outside world.

Of course members have freedom to ask and to question (but not to doubt). Of course the church supports the rights and respects the contribution of women in the church (As leadership defines it). Of course the church encourages Christian service to others (after all of your service to the church is done, which is never). Of course the family comes first above all other endeavors (unless you're serving in a Bishopric).

Wasn't it those guys who used to be "Lamanites" but aren't anymore, who first coined the term "speaks with forked tongue"?

[Hagoth]

"... To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony..."

Bingo!

When called on the carpet by a local Salt Lake minister regarding the above, George Albert Smith stood on his head to assure him that the message was a fluke that had been accidently passed by leadership and should never have been published.

That's a great story, Palerider. You wouldn't happen to have a reference to a published source?

[Palerider]

"... To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony..."

Bingo!

When called on the carpet by a local Salt Lake minister regarding the above, George Albert Smith stood on his head to assure him that the message was a fluke that had been accidently passed by leadership and should never have been published.

That's a great story, Palerider. You wouldn't happen to have a reference to a published source?

Start here. There are numerous others.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds ... inking.php

https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/ ... been-done/

[achilles]

On Easter.

I have to say that this pattern you've uncovered is one of the major items in the "cons" column of whether I should ever come back. Zero substance. Zero spiritual nourishment. And on Easter, for Thor's sake. The way this Church handles (or rather neglects to handle) Easter is becoming more and more annoying to me as time goes on. As I observe how many other Christians are celebrating Lent and the Holy Week, the spiritual bankruptcy of most of our pulpit doctrines and class discussions is made clear to me for the thousandth time.

Speaking of leader veneration and obedience, today I watched the video of Kim Jong-Un's birthday celebration and wondered: "Is this how we also feel about our prophet at temple celebrations and GC?"

Jong-Un's B-Day Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZSckmv1Ew (I dare you to watch the whole thing, especially if you speak Korean)

Pres Monson's B-Day Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClSzMMjU-nw

[Hagoth]

Jong-Un's B-Day Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZSckmv1Ew (I dare you to watch the whole thing, especially if you speak Korean)

Pres Monson's B-Day Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClSzMMjU-nw

[fh451]

My observation is that obedience to the brethren is the real message all else is filler. Obedience trumps all other considerations.

Obedience isn't the first law of heaven, it's the first law of Mormonism.

fh451

[TestimonyLost]

"... To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony..."

Bingo!

When called on the carpet by a local Salt Lake minister regarding the above, George Albert Smith stood on his head to assure him that the message was a fluke that had been accidently passed by leadership and should never have been published.

That's a great story, Palerider. You wouldn't happen to have a reference to a published source?

Start here. There are numerous others.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds ... inking.php

https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/ ... been-done/

Unfortunately, N. Eldon Tanner resurrected the premise in the 1979 Ensign:

"When the prophet speaks, the debate is over."

Anecdotally, I've heard this sentiment expressed a number of times in the past decade so I hardly think the "doctrine" has faded.

[Corsair]

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

When called on the carpet by a local Salt Lake minister regarding the above, George Albert Smith stood on his head to assure him that the message was a fluke that had been accidently passed by leadership and should never have been published.

It's such a "fluke" that Elaine Cannon, General Young Women's President, repeated the statement in her October 1978 General Conference talk. Perhaps it could be dismissed because it was only the General Women's Meeting. But the following year, August 1979, President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency, continued the fluke in an Ensign First Presidency Message, "The Debate Is Over," in which he reaffirms Cannon's statement. Sister Cannon's quote made it into Aaronic Priesthood manual 1, lesson 12 and in the 2001 D&C curriculum for seminary teachers. With lucky flukes like this, LDS leadership should play the lottery.