- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Talking about “bishop wannabe’s” we have a guy in our ward who honestly changes his vocal delivery when he is speaking over the pulpit and he sounds like Jeffrey Holland. Seriously if you closed your eyes when he is using the pulpit be it for a prayer, talk, testimony, conducting it’s Brother Jeffrey. Then if you just talk to him in the hall he’s normal. He does wear a dark suit, the full thing every week.
mom3 wrote:Talking about “bishop wannabe’s” we have a guy in our ward who honestly changes his vocal delivery when he is speaking over the pulpit and he sounds like Jeffrey Holland. Seriously if you closed your eyes when he is using the pulpit be it for a prayer, talk, testimony, conducting it’s Brother Jeffrey. Then if you just talk to him in the hall he’s normal.
He does wear a dark suit, the full thing every week.
Look, I will work on the voice thing but please quit calling me out
Sorry Bishop – I thought you wouldn’t figure it out. :clap: mom3 wrote:Talking about “bishop wannabe’s” we have a guy in our ward who honestly changes his vocal delivery when he is speaking over the pulpit and he sounds like Jeffrey Holland. Seriously if you closed your eyes when he is using the pulpit be it for a prayer, talk, testimony, conducting it’s Brother Jeffrey. Then if you just talk to him in the hall he’s normal.
Speaking of testimony timbre, rhythm, and pitch from an anthropological perspective – David Knowlton writes the following:
Quote:At key points it generally drops down a third or a fourth and stays flat to the end of the phrase. Back up, level out, drop. Back up, level out, drop, stay flat. When it flattens that’s the crucial moment of a talk- the moment when people are telling you the most significant spiritual things….Additionally, the tonal range of the expression drops to the middle low range and the timbre becomes husky, indicating to the congregation the speaker is feeling emotional: that she is feeling the spirit. This important form keys native Mormons to the presence of the Spirit.
To some of us this speech pattern may often sound quite dull and dry, but it does key people to the movement of the spirit. I call this “spiritual speech” because the style also typifies how general authorities give talks, in that very same rhythmic, leveled, toned way, dropping down at the end. Most Mormons can reproduce the style, and probably do when they bear testimony, and are not conscious of doing it…
Our ritual performance skill very clearly – indexes – to other members the quality of our belonging, the quality of our personal testimony. If one were to analyze the social hierarchy of almost any ward, she would probably find that the individuals who are best at performing ritual speech are also those who occupy important positions in the hierarchy. They will be the ones in the ward who have tremendous prestige and are recognized for their spirituality. This indexing is necessary among any social group…Some individuals are better performers and some are worse. Performance thereby can index status and spirituality.
The entire paper is found here:
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/081-20-27.pdf It has at times been helpful to me to recognize that I am a member of a group of people with specific ways of organization and interaction. If I were a member of a bee colony, it would do me no good to complain about how I detest the bee dance or the organizational hierarchy. We are poeple – we are social. Part of being social is forming groups with both written and unwritten rules and status. This is not good or bad, it just is. Sometimes remembering this can help me not to take the interactions as seriously.
Roy wrote:mom3 wrote:Talking about “bishop wannabe’s” we have a guy in our ward who honestly changes his vocal delivery when he is speaking over the pulpit and he sounds like Jeffrey Holland. Seriously if you closed your eyes when he is using the pulpit be it for a prayer, talk, testimony, conducting it’s Brother Jeffrey. Then if you just talk to him in the hall he’s normal.
Speaking of testimony timbre, rhythm, and pitch from an anthropological perspective – David Knowlton writes the following:
Quote:At key points it generally drops down a third or a fourth and stays flat to the end of the phrase. Back up, level out, drop. Back up, level out, drop, stay flat. When it flattens that’s the crucial moment of a talk- the moment when people are telling you the most significant spiritual things….Additionally, the tonal range of the expression drops to the middle low range and the timbre becomes husky, indicating to the congregation the speaker is feeling emotional: that she is feeling the spirit. This important form keys native Mormons to the presence of the Spirit.
To some of us this speech pattern may often sound quite dull and dry, but it does key people to the movement of the spirit. I call this “spiritual speech” because the style also typifies how general authorities give talks, in that very same rhythmic, leveled, toned way, dropping down at the end. Most Mormons can reproduce the style, and probably do when they bear testimony, and are not conscious of doing it…
Our ritual performance skill very clearly – indexes – to other members the quality of our belonging, the quality of our personal testimony. If one were to analyze the social hierarchy of almost any ward, she would probably find that the individuals who are best at performing ritual speech are also those who occupy important positions in the hierarchy. They will be the ones in the ward who have tremendous prestige and are recognized for their spirituality. This indexing is necessary among any social group…Some individuals are better performers and some are worse. Performance thereby can index status and spirituality.
The entire paper is found here:
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/081-20-27.pdf It has at times been helpful to me to recognize that I am a member of a group of people with specific ways of organization and interaction. If I were a member of a bee colony, it would do me no good to complain about how I detest the bee dance or the organizational hierarchy. We are poeple – we are social. Part of being social is forming groups with both written and unwritten rules and status. This is not good or bad, it just is. Sometimes remembering this can help me not to take the interactions as seriously.
I heard an RM give a ‘home coming’ talk like that. A friend observed ‘all missionaries seem to speak like that.’ The comment above summed it up perfectly.
I felt like Ann Romney especially talked in General Conference voice. Mitt did as well, but it wasn’t always as pronounced, I wonder if he had coaching to work on it.
I think the leaders could be more bold, but I don’t see why they would need to tell people about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon from a hat. They ought to be more bold about true doctrines. Instead of this mushy stuff they put out about how everyone is doing so great and whatnot, they ought to be calling people to repentance, just like the ancient prophets did. Their message seems to be, you guys are all doing pretty good just because you are members of the church and trying hard, but here’s the little thing here and there you could tweak. Instead they ought to be saying, you are all pretty much hopeless cases unless you come unto Christ; so repent, come to Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit, make sure you are helping your fellow man and that doesn’t mean just paying tithing, and so forth. Doesn’t matter whether they are talking to seasoned members or converts, they could say that and it would apply to everyone. Of they did that they wouldn’t need to worry about whether Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon inside a hat or if he’d had it dictated to him via a green alien with a space ship. All those problems would take care of themselves because people would be directed to the Rock of salvation and would be firm. The truth is though, even that sort of boldness would drive people from the church. The church members are comfortable with their feel good talks and lists of little rules to follow. And so are the leaders.
Called to Serve, while I agree in principle with what you want to hear, I feel compelled to make two points: 1) There always are at least three or four talks every General Conference that are calls to repentance. President Uchtdorf’s latest one (“Stop It” – or whatever the title is) was about as direct as you can get without screaming, “Repent ye, repent ye.”
2) Think of the people who have been the most strident and blunt repentance preachers of the last few decades: Elder McConkie, Pres. Benson, Pres. Packer, etc. Do you really want more of that, proportionately?
Old-Timer wrote:Do you really want more of that, proportionately?
“Not I!” said the duck. Our call to repentence would most likely center around paying tithing, doing HT, accepting calling, attending the temple, etc. I don’t need family planning decisions compared to idolatry – thank you very much.
Old-Timer wrote:Called to Serve, while I agree in principle with what you want to hear, I feel compelled to make two points:
1) There always are at least three or four talks every General Conference that are calls to repentance. President Uchtdorf’s latest one (“Stop It” – or whatever the title is) was about as direct as you can get without screaming, “Repent ye, repent ye.”
2) Think of the people who have been the most strident and blunt repentance preachers of the last few decades: Elder McConkie, Pres. Benson, Pres. Packer, etc. Do you really want more of that, proportionately?
Like Roy pointed out, it depends. If they want to keep telling me to pay tithing and whatnot and not focus on the big things, then no, I don’t want any more of that. But if they are ready to quit worrying about things that are of secondary importance and boldly proclaim the important things of the gospel, then yes, yes, yes! I don’t care if people get upset. They are going to have to face the truth sooner or later. I can’t wait for the time when we do have truth being poured out from the pulpit. Then I won’t have to endure the discomfort of making comments in church or to members.What “important things of the Gospel” have not been preached during General Conference? That’s a sincere question; I can’t think of any, and I’d like to go through the exercise of identifying them.
On the over the pulpit/conference talks – I think more “Christ related” talks. Either strong talks using or deciphering a parable he taught, or examining events in the New Testament that demonstrate the attributes we should be seeking to do. For me we make this verbal stance about telling non-members that Christ is in our name, but I hear more Joseph Smith restoration talks on a local and often GC level. If Christ is really our anchor lets give his life more verbal time. To me that is both front and center, deeply spiritual and personally reflective for all of us. In short a way to touch his wounds with our hearts.
The ces fireside on the church website by elder uchtdorf …called what is truth. I think he is trying to soften up the populace. He even quoted Brigham young saying he worked the membership will start just believing their leaders.
Should give it a watch. I will start a new thread to see if it sparks interest
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
johnh wrote:The ces fireside on the church website by elder uchtdorf …called what is truth.
I think he is trying to soften up the populace. He even quoted Brigham young saying he worked the membership will start just believing their leaders.
Should give it a watch. I will start a new thread to see if it sparks interest
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Sounds interesting, did you post the link yet?
What are the odds on him ever being prophet?
It was good…available to view on the LDS.ORG website. DeseretNews gives a good synopsis:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765620144/President-Uchtdorf-speaks-at-fireside-urges-listeners-to-learn-to-recognize-the-truth.html?pg=all
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.