Conference Favorite – Not Favorite

Sis. Eubank’s talk was amazing.

Elder Anderson’s was not.

Due to personal questions that I’ve been needing answers to, Elder Christopherson, Callister and Bednar (and Holland, but as a bonus) were my favorites. They are usually not the ones I appreciate in conference but their talks spoke to my soul and I’ve gained a greater understanding of my purpose.

Least favorite would probably be Elder Anderson, interestingly enough I fell sleep during his so I haven’t actually heard it yet but my wife told me what he talked bout so I probably wouldn’t have liked that. I also didn’t like Stevenson’s talk during Priesthood. I’ve never enjoyed sports (and the gender bias toward it with men) so it felt very stereotypical plus he was “only focused on the deacons” anyway.

Going into this GC, I was consciously giving two of my less-favorite Apostles my ear and the benefit of the doubt. I fear that I have in the past shut them out and wanted to listen to what they had to say to see if it could ease my angst about them; knowing that the attempt would be better for me than simply going in the other room for awhile. The two are Elder Andersen and Elder Holland.

NLA – Wow. What a disappointment. When this talk comes out in the Ensign next month, it should be titled, “How the World is Bad OR Defining Ourselves by What We Are Not”. This talk makes me think more than before, that NLA and DFU probably experience more awkward silence than heart-felt conversation when the two find themselves together at parties. NLA again cemented himself in my mind as the anti-modernization Apostle.

JRH – Hmmm… Well… Uh… I appreciated the focus on the sacrament as the most important event in Sunday Services. I agree completely with that idea. I thought his talk was good and he communicated well. My criticism might sound nit-picky, but I assure you that it is at the heart of the Theology of the Sacrament for me, so as minor as it might seem, to me it’s a big deal. JRH reminded us of how terrible the atonement was for Jesus, and implored us to remember his suffering when we take the Sacrament. I get it, it’s OK, I understand. It’s just that to me, IMO, that is an unnecessary focus that detracts from the purpose of the Sacrament. It relies on a notion that we OWE our allegiance to Jesus because he gave so much for us, instead of leveraging our DESIRE to align ourselves to Jesus to be better people. To a lesser extent, I also kind of lament that it is now an Apostolic Directive not to talk to each other before the meeting. There is no place, apparently, for smiles, hugs and handshakes. I had to kind of smile and shake my head at the notion that investigators are shocked in a negative way that we are too friendly to each other before the meeting begins. Two-hour Church just became two-hour-and-five-minute Church.

It’s actually a bit hard to pick out a favorite. There were many really good talks. I’d say that in a lot of ways, it was one of the better GC’s in a while, if we simply discount 3-4 talks that were downers (Sister Craven, Elder Andersen). If I had to pick a fave, I’d go with DFU, because, as usual, it seems to communicate to people very well; understanding them, and acknowledging them, and then making it all seem possible.

Elder Holland’s talk was another one where I’ve seen inconsistencies in how it has been received. I just listened to the talk, first talk I’ve heard this conf.

I can appreciate the first half of his talk. I like the style where the speaker fleshes scriptural narratives out a little. I find it aids with the process of projecting myself into the narrative.

I agree with OON on some points. I’m not sure how I feel about approaching the atonement as though we owe something to or are otherwise indebted to Jesus. I feel it makes for an uneven playing field and elevates Jesus to where he becomes less relatable. At one point Holland uses the phrase, “demands our respect.” I bristle a little because I prefer the gentler ‘come follow me’ Jesus to the ‘because I have given much, you too must give’ Jesus. It’s an invitation to follow, not an obligation.

The middle third of the talk after the retellings of biblical/PoGP narritives didn’t do much for me. He spent a good portion of his talk on what I feel are the more Pharisaical elements of our worship. Being reverent, being early, wearing our best, restoring tradition. I don’t think Jesus would care what I wear… at least not as much as my neighbor will care after this talk. Maybe I’m wrong. I think reverence is a state of mind, but we like to measure it externally. I just worry that this could become a talk people use to police other people’s Sabbath observance.

The calls to be extra reverent even got elevated to the status of an “apostolic plea.” Holland cites visitors being shocked (heaven even being shocked) by noisy irreverence but my experience as a convert was quite the opposite. Why isn’t anyone applauding after that beautiful musical solo? Why is everyone dead silent? And this is why I fear that the talk will become the go-to source to suck every scrap of joy and humanity out of our worship. Worship doesn’t have to mean dead silence. What if worship took the form of joyous socializing? Why can’t we accept worship in other formats?

I don’t know. Maybe I can imagine Zachariah chatting with his community about the pinewood derby before performing an ordinance. Who’s to say?

He reeled it back in for the closing third. People need help. We can help them. If I wear sweatpants to church is someone quoting this talk at me going to help me?

I liked Sis. Eubanks talk.

My husband was already getting depressed about our family not being together forever and on Sunday, Nelson just confirmed that he’s right, we won’t. According to him being a good person isn’t enough so I guess me and my sons don’t deserve to live with their Dad in the afterlife. I guess he’ll get his pick of as many wives (and kids) as he wants in eternity.

What a punch in the gut.

My sister asked her bishop what happens to her because her husband is inactive and he told her that he won’t be with her and the kids in the CK but don’t worry she’ll get a more righteous man to be her husband. She told me she’s hoping for James Dean. :wtf:

I am turning an interesting corner. I don’t know how it’s all going to play out. I have been soaking up the Beatitudes for Lent. I have even broken out the BoM version. I feel a call to anchor a life in them. (It’s super hard to do). GC – doubles that struggle. I find myself listening from multiple vantage points.

24 hours later I don’t have a favorite. There are a handful that fight for the top – Eubanks, Uchtdorf, Ballard, Holland, Bednar (crazy as that is), Soares.

Not favorites are multiple. I know too many hurting people, in and out of our church who yearn for gifts we can give.

My favorite parts were the parts where love was the anchor. I grew up in a part member family. My grandparents were members of record but entirely inactive. My grandfather did return – on his own in the final year of his life – no one knows why, he never offered/we never asked. We never treated or looked at them differently. They were my heroes. The echoes of their lives course through me. Naturally we did their temple work. I still didn’t love them any differently. Nothing about the church made them different to me. – I wish we could love like that.

I heard it a bunch. My goal is to write every quote from this conference that says that, and start verbalizing it until it takes effect. Love really is the key.

Not so much a talk but I thought President Nelson’s concluding remarks a bit odd. His instructions to the congregation at the Conference Center regarding reactions to temple announcements just seemed a bit harsh. I’m not sure what is wrong with a few expressions of joy or surprise breaking up the (in my opinion) overly stage managed meeting that is General Conference. As I recall, President Hinckley seemed to enjoy the verbal reactions to his announcements (I still remember what happened when he announced the Las Vegas Temple…). Obviously you don’t want things to get raucous but if you’re that concerned about it, why not simply disseminate that information via press release? Just askin’…..

I am with you Gerald!!!. I think one of the reasons it was easy to love President Hinckley was that warmth he let us have. He even made cracks and gestures to help initiate it. Joseph Smith would have loved the enthusiasm. Brigham Young instructed the Saints to dance every evening, to be “joyful”. I myself was “meh” about the temples. Some of them take so long to fulfill that it looses it’s excitement – but I don’t begrudge anyone who was excited. We preach temples till it’s cliche – a moment of “Singing and Shouting” with the “Armies of Heaven” wouldn’t be amiss.