Page 1 of 2

Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:24 am
by _jon
Dieter Uchtdorf gives this 'First Presidency Message' in relation to preparing for the next General Conference of the Church:
A fine member of the Church was talking with a neighbor who was not of our faith. When the topic of discussion turned to general conference, the neighbor asked, “You say you have prophets and apostles? And twice a year in a worldwide conference they reveal the word of God?”

“Absolutely,” the member replied with confidence.

The neighbor thought about that for a moment. He seemed genuinely interested and then asked, “What did they say in the last general conference?”

At this point the good member of the Church went from feeling excited about sharing the gospel to feeling embarrassed. Try as he might, he couldn’t think of the details of a single talk.

His friend found this troubling and said, “You mean to tell me that God speaks to man in our day and you can’t remember what He said?”

The brother felt humbled by this exchange. He vowed that he would do better to remember the words spoken by the Lord’s servants in general conference.

We all know how hard it is to remember every message of general conference, and I’m confident that we need not be embarrassed if we don’t remember everything. Nevertheless, there are messages in each general conference given as a gift and a blessing from heaven specifically for our personal life situations.

In preparation for general conference, let me suggest three basic concepts that may help us to better receive, remember, and apply the words spoken by the Lord’s servants.


This is an important topic, it must be for it to be a 'First Presidency Topic'. It signals that the top echelons of the Church have a problem in that the members just aren't listening to them.

The theme of Dieter's address is to lay the responsibility of that squarely at the door of the individual member - and he makes suggestions as to how 'we' can better prepare to listen to him and his colleagues.

But is it the members fault?

If it's such a big issue wouldn't that, shouldn't that, ring some bells with the Leaders that perhaps they might need to change something themselves?

If his was a corporation...oh...wait....if this was another secular organisation and it's sales conferences were so boring that it's salesmen just didn't listen or remember the content would they address the salesmen and say 'hey, you lot need to pin back your ears, WE are speaking'?

No, they would change the format, content, style etc to make it more interesting, to make it more listenable, as well as perhaps encouraging the sales team to listen up.

Perhaps Dieter's address would come across (to this poster at least) as less arrogant were he to acknowledge joint responsibility and articulate the things that the Leaders are going to do to make Conference talks more rememberable.

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsible?

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:48 am
by _Lost Mystic
The LDS church loves to place blame on the member...always.

Along those same lines....perhaps the member couldn't remember because "God" hasn't said anything new or interesting since BY or Joseph Smith.

But the member could have easily guessed and been right:

"pay tithing, read your scriptures, magnify your calling, pay tithing, get married young and fast, don't look at porn, attend tye temple, pay tithing."

Doesn't deviate from that very much, except for an occasional "don't get tattoos or earrings"

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsible?

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:16 pm
by _Buffalo
Lost Mystic wrote:The LDS church loves to place blame on the member...always.

Along those same lines....perhaps the member couldn't remember because "God" hasn't said anything new or interesting since BY or Joseph Smith.

But the member could have easily guessed and been right:

"pay tithing, read your scriptures, magnify your calling, pay tithing, get married young and fast, don't look at porn, attend tye temple, pay tithing."

Doesn't deviate from that very much, except for an occasional "don't get tattoos or earrings"


Yup. God's messengers delight in platitudes and repetition, but not so much in revelation. The reason we don't remember what was said six months ago is that almost nothing they say stands out or is remarkable in any way. Very rarely does anyone say anything memorable, and often as not it's memorable because it's embarrassing.

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:07 pm
by _harmony
jon wrote:If his was a corporation...oh...wait....if this was another secular organisation and it's sales conferences were so boring that it's salesmen just didn't listen or remember the content would they address the salesmen and say 'hey, you lot need to pin back your ears, WE are speaking'?


No, in business, the ones who are marginal are promoted, the rare ones who succeed are give bonuses but are never asked why or how they managed to succeed in the economic environment today, and they fire the ones who were stupid enough to complain about boring trainings.

No, they would change the format, content, style etc to make it more interesting, to make it more listenable, as well as perhaps encouraging the sales team to listen up.


Uh... no, not really. If what you say was true, Dilbert wouldn't be one of the most popular comics in existence.

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:52 pm
by _Hasa Diga Eebowai
-

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:25 am
by _jon
Hasa,

As I understand it, the last three 'thus saith the Lord' type revelations aren't revelations at all.

You have Joseph F Smiths Dream, in 1911 I think.
The reversal of Polygamy in 1890 (about a decade and a half before polygamy stopped).
The reversal of the Priesthood ban.

That's it for the last 120 years.
Since then? *crickets*

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:04 pm
by _UnicornMan
I'm in full agreement here....we have a cultural value/disease in the Church which I call "itsallthemembersfault-itis". If ANYONE feels disaffected, or unhappy with the way things are going, and feels a pull toward less commitment, we put responsibility squarely on the back of the member. Rarely, if ever, does the formal Church organization take responsibility.

So, the result? We end up teaching hatred of sacrament meeting to children because we aren't open-minded enough to recognize that little kids just don't sit well through adult meetings. We make no attempt to build a kids portion into it.

My young son doesn't want to go to Church because he finds Sacrament meeting so incredibly boring. Yet, if you state this among traditional believers in the Church, you will be mocked, or treated with some kind of disdain for not appreciating the beauty of the meeting.

Same applies to General Conference. I don't go anymore; it's a break from the tedium of the meetings. I read the few talks that interest me when the Ensign comes, and the rest...well....maybe someday.

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:28 pm
by _Corpsegrinder
Uncle Dieter said:
“You say you have prophets and apostles? And twice a year in a worldwide conference they reveal the word of God?”

But the apologists would have us believe that the Prophet rarely, if ever, speaks for the Lord. The only time we can be certain the Prophet has spoken in the name of the Lord is when he hasn’t said something that publicly embarrasses the Church.

Adam-God…speaking as a man.

American Indians are ancient Jews…speaking as a man.

The Golden Plates were made of pure gold…speaking as a man.

African Americans can’t hold the priesthood because they were less valiant in the pre-existance…speaking as a man.

Q: How can you tell when the Prophet is speaking as a man?
A: When his mouth is moving.

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:50 am
by _Hasa Diga Eebowai
-

Re: Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:32 am
by _Corpsegrinder
In addition to the scarcity of modern revelations, modern Prophets and Apostles are also more hesitant to tackle awkward subjects than they were sixty or seventy years ago. Can you imagine hearing the following in a General Conference talk today?

2 Oct, 1952 - Second Counselor J. Reuben Clark warns women of Relief Society general conference against "self-pollution," prostitution, and "homosexuality, which it is tragic to say, is found among both sexes." He cautions LDS women against allowing homsexually oriented males to use them as male-substitutes in dating or marriage: "I wonder if you girls have ever reflected on the thought that was in the mind of the man who first began to praise you for your boyish figures." Clark also tells the ladies, "I forebear to more than mention that abomination and filth and loathsomeness of the ancients - carnal knowledge with beasts."

General Conference talks were a lot more interesting back then than today.