GC Talk and The Rest of the Story

:think: Should we hold the stories shared during general conference to a higher standard than the stories we’ve canonized in scripture?

I think many stories in scripture are about establishing an ideal. If we could step into a time machine and witness the events firsthand we might not be as impressed in knowing the rest of the stories… provided the stories took place at all.

I take all general conference stories with a grain of salt. They aren’t relating something that happened so much as they are relating what they want to be the ideal, a standard for the saints.

It’s one of the reasons why (and this was recently shared in my ward so it’s fresh on my mind) I don’t like the story of the laurel that sacrificed a one time life event to attend a relief society meeting, I think it establishes an imbalanced ideal… but I don’t have the rest of the story.

I personally am probably more forgiving then most about historical stories and accuracy.

I am in toastmasters and have studied some the art of story telling. History is academic – story telling is art. There is a concept called “exaggerate for effect” that I use. If I am telling the story of a big fish I caught, then the fish will grow in my retelling.

I will also selectively include elements that bolster my theme and leave out elements that detract from it. To do otherwise would bog down the story and confuse the audience. I need pacing and things that move the story along.

I tend to love movies “based on a true story” for the same reasons. I like to dissect what was fact from what was art. I do this not to tear the movie down but rather to understand (and appreciate) the creative choices that were made in the presentation of the story.

Eventually, they concluded that what their son possessed and they did not was the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and this must be his source of peace and comfort. Following this realization, they invited the missionaries to teach their family the gospel. As a result, they received their own witness and testimony of the great plan of happiness, which brought them the sweet peace and calming comfort they were desperately seeking.

I notice that he does not say that this family was baptized or joined the church. Perhaps this family only gained a new appreciation for LDS church teachings as having some value. Brother Stevenson phrases his sentences in a way that may lead the hearer to conclude that they were baptized without him actually saying that.

This written talk makes it look so simple … I can imagine being curled up with my young child and getting to the last page, “And they all got baptized and lived happily ever after. The End.”

Yes, and yet stories have value. Last night I was reading Aesop’s fables with my 9 year old.

As others have said, I also always take these “faith promoting” stories with a grain of salt – or many grains of salt. It does trouble me a bit that most of the stories are alleged actual events, and Elder Stevenson’s stories each seem to contain elements of truth at their cores (the main events really happened). I agree that there is some confirmation bias involved, and It’s unlikely Elder Stevenson knows all the details about the events themselves or everything that happened afterwards. Some of the faith promoting stories in scripture are clearly not true or actual events – yet we revere them as the “word of God.” I think stories and parables can be effective teaching tools whether or not they actually happened. Nevertheless, I don’t appreciate things that didn’t happen being presented as if they did. I loved Paul H. Dunn’s stories and I think he was a good man and did much good and I felt very bad about what happened to him in the end. I never really know where to draw the line, so I get out the salt shaker (which gets fairly heavily used in most F&TMs).

In GC (usually in the weeks that follow) I pick out talks I like :thumbup: , talks I don’t like :thumbdown: , and leave the rest in a heap in the middle never to be heard from again (which is also what happens to the ones I don’t like). Stevenson’s went in the middle.

Side note: I’m not afraid to point out a story I know to be false. One such example is the story after 9/11 about missionaries being held up in traffic etc. and therefore not being at the WTC for the meeting they were supposed to be at when the planes hit. That one is total hogwash, no elements of truth. Another is the story that was quote popular last year involving Pres. Benson saying a a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil (meaning I have voted for evil my entire voting history because I have never viewed it otherwise). It was presented in a fifth Sunday lesson as “a prophet said.” Benson could have said it, but if he did it was in private and there is no proof he did say it – and most certainly not “as a prophet.” Someone else beat me to that one and the teacher did apologize the next week for saying it was spoken by a prophet when it may not have been (and I admire her for that integrity). Lastly the story of the old man standing up and saying that not one of the Willy handcart company ever left the church. Nobody knows that for sure, they scattered across the West like the other immigrants did. It’s pretty unlikely that this man kept track of all of them and would know, and it’s pretty unlikely that none left the church or lost their testimonies. And who knows if the story actually ever happened. In all of these cases I redirect to Christ and the core principles of the gospel – that’s what we’re there to learn about and discuss and we have plenty of scriptural evidence to support the simple truths therein.

Old-Timer wrote:

Elder Stephenson never said all the missionaries throughout the entire coastal regions attended the meeting. He said what would have been a district meeting was extended to all missionaries in that zone (including those from “several coastal cities”, NOT all of the coastal cities). The online discussion accounts confirm that.

You are correct. DH and I had that conversation as I was frothing at the mouth and venting about this particular GC talk.

He insinuates many things but doesn’t actually say them. That habit increased my discomfort and annoyance.

Such speaking habits from high church officials cause members to hear the wonderful and miraculous conclusion without noticing or examining the careful phrasing that preceded the conclusion.

Such trickster habits are expected when promoting shady loans and business practices. In certain public speaking venues, hyperbole and dramatic license are expected and encouraged. I expect a different and better standard out of ecclesiastical leaders who claim to represent God, who are speaking in an ecclesiastical setting and who are called the Lords Appointed.

Comments state that GC talks should all be read with a grain of salt, an entire shaker, or a salt truck or two. What does that say about the authorities of the entire religion? At what point do we put church authority publications down on the Sci Fi/Fantasy shelf?

AP, I can tell that this has really got you bothered.

Let me try to recap.

1) Elder Stephenson told some faith inspiring stories.

2) He was selective in what he included in his stories to only highlight his theme.

3) His words implied a few things that he did not actually say.

The righteousness=blessings model has been a topic of frequent discussion between DW and me. It comes down to perspective/opinion/personal narrative. My wife was recounting to an LDS friend about an old clunker car that we drive that had lasted much longer than expected. The friend exclaimed, “tithing blessings!” We do not pay tithing so we know that this could not be a connection. It is provably false.

However if we had been paying tithing then it would be improvable one way or the other – a matter of opinion or speculation.

I expect a different and better standard out of ecclesiastical leaders who claim to represent God, who are speaking in an ecclesiastical setting and who are called the Lords Appointed.

Religion is much more like art than science. It speaks to a spiritual need. In the legal sense of contracts and false advertising – the world of religion is considered “buyer beware.” If a religious representative makes promises to get you to do things and that representative is 1) not directly and personally enriched by your compliance and 2) does not know the things he is saying to be untrue (IOW he could plausibly have believed them to be true – then he is standing on safe ground.

Just yesterday I heard a female missionary say to an investigator that if he were to read the BoM for just 5 minutes per day that he would have 3 times the level of energy, clarity, and focus throughout the day. She said the words “I know” and “I promise.” I remember thinking, “How can she possibly promise that?”

This is not exactly unusual in the LDS church or in the world or religion generally. Not a lie … but certainly not the objective truth.

There’s the content of a story and the source. When it comes to connecting with our spiritual side why do we hold the contents of the sci fi/fantasy shelf in lower regard than scripture or the words of ecclesiastical leaders?

I can’t speak for anybody but myself, and maybe for other Mormons if my experiences generalize. I would say we hold the contents of the sci-fi/fantasy shelf in lower regard because it’s full of things that are obviously not true. (I’ll get nuanced in a bit.) We’re taught in the Church that only truth can save, only truth makes us free, only truth is really worth knowing.

Of course, there are a lot of ways for something to be true. There’s being factual. The parable of the prodigal son is true, even if not factual, in that it teaches truth about the human condition (and we hope about God). I’ve read a lot of true science fiction, which is better at illustrating some kinds of truth precisely because it’s fantastic instead of factual – the kind of truth that’s best shown using a hypothetical situation that just can’t happen in real life. This isn’t an outlook common in the Church, though. Usually, truth = factual.

When it comes to other people teaching me in matters of faith, I personally have an additional reason besides Mormon training to disfavor anything but facts. I want to believe in things as they really were, as they really are, and as they really will be. I need my mental model of reality to be consistent with actual reality. If getting a certain model into my head requires heavily selecting and editing of the facts, or especially outright fabrication, then I regard the model as being weak. Sure, it’s approximate, like all models are, but wouldn’t having more facts allow me to construct a less approximate one?

I don’t think Church leaders do it intentionally. I think they just have extremely strong biases, tell the facts they think are relevant, and interpret the facts for us so we don’t construct the “wrong” models. Like nearly everyone in the world, they see getting their models into our heads as equivalent to ensuring we have the right models.

I was much more okay with this when I thought their models were right. I was bugged a bit by selecting and editing, and was fairly bothered by outright fabrications being retold as factual. It didn’t get so under my skin, though.

Growing up in the LDS church, I still look for a higher standard of integrity and honesty in the local LDS clergy and higher ecclesiastical leaders than in the larger Christian population. (I know .. I need to get over that). As I take a step back and look at the information with a more critical eye, it annoys be to see so much hyperbole, so many half-truths, and outright dishonesty done in the name of The One True Church. Seems even more dishonest when they are claiming prophecy.

In my case, the thing that makes it so hard to get over is a contradiction: they tell us that we can and should hold them to a higher standard, when it’s obvious to anyone who peeks around the blinders that they can’t meet it better than anyone else. In fact, always having to appear to have been right about everything makes them meet a lower standard.

I’m fine with paradox, competing interpretations, wildly different outlooks on life, etc., etc. I truly enjoy questions as much as answers. What I can’t stand is an obvious, irreconcilable contradiction.

IOW, I can appreciate anything that makes sense and is consistent from within a TBM worldview. “You can trust us completely because Only True Church” obviously contradicts Church history and the lived experience of thousands upon thousands. It’s not a delicious paradox, it’s a moldy old untruth.

I even understand the aspects of human psychology that make it so hard for members to peek around the blinders, and it still drives me nuts.