October 2014 General Conference

[Anonymous]

I loved conference. But I also feel like I have moved past a faith crisis and am well into a faith refinement phase. (though I sometimes visit the crisis terrain)

Here are the talks that spoke best to me.

Jorg Klebingat – Sat afternoon, How to gain spiritual confidence. I really felt like this will help me grow where I want to grow.

Dieter F. Uctdorf – Priesthood session – open my eyes to where I am in my obedience, I loved the dandelion story.

All the talks about sustaining the prophet and President Monson pointing us to Jesus as our example. Somehow this contrast stood out to me. And my mind went to how Jesus always points to the Father. It feels so right that any person focused on such as the prophet or Jesus, that they should refocus our attention on another or correct principles. Rather than make it about hero worship. Even though we should worship God. The fact that God is humble or correct in directing our attention where it should be rather than empty hero idols; this is a reason why God is worthy of our worship.

I wonder how the Father handles empty hero worship when He receives it. Maybe he points us back to Jesus, since He is supposed to be our example. I am not sure how that works. I just thought it was interesting that President Monson didn’t even acknowledge all the talks about sustaining him and that he focused on our Exemplar.

Also the fact that, from what I gather, no topics are assigned to the speakers in GC. They choose the topic with no input from anyone else.

[Anonymous]

I just watched Oaks and Holland’s talks. Oaks was very good, a surprising message from him i thought, since he comes across as a hard liner to me. I was glad to hear how he feels about loving others, which is of course a very Christ centered message.

Holland’s was amazing! I am so glad there are some leaders who still focus on and teach the true gospel. He’s been hit or miss for me the last few conferences, but this was my favorite from him I’ve ever heard. I loved how he humbly admitted that he doesn’t really know what it’s like to be poor. I’ve felt that this message has been missing for a while, so I’m so glad he presented it at conference for all the church to hear.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

President Monson’s talk is wonderful. I really love that man.

The sentence that is going to show up on Facebook and other online places is:

Quote:

Walking where (Jesus) walked is less important than walking AS he walked.

Haha Ray! I saw it on my fb feed this morning!

[Anonymous]

This conference has gotten me wondering more about exactly who hears/reads whose talks ahead of time. I know it’s been described, but I’ve never paid close attention to the details.

[Anonymous]

From what I understand, whoever is chosen to speak chooses what they want to talk about. I would guess that they give a transcript ahead of time to help translators perform better. Does anyone else know?

[Anonymous]

The talks are translated before conference begins. The translators are reading a script just like the person giving the talk. The translator’s job is to make sure that they keep the same pace as the person giving the talk, that they do not get too far ahead or too far behind the speaker.

Only the prayers are translated live.

I don’t know how far in advance the talks are written but certainly well enough in advance for the translators to pour over them for a while.

The speaker selects the topic.

I find myself curious as to whether the talks are vetted by some department or other to make sure they are doctrinally/legally sound.

[Anonymous]

I was listening to Sister McConkie in my bedroom and turned off the radio. I didn’t know my wife was in the hall listening. She asked why I turned it off and I kind of flipped out. I told her I got sick of hearing philosophies mingled with scripture and being told prophets can’t lead us astray, etc. Wife wasn’t happy about that. Sigh…

[Anonymous]

The talks are not vetted beforehand. Occasionally, changes are made afterward – prior to being recorded in print.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The talks are not vetted beforehand. Occasionally, changes are made afterward – prior to being recorded in print.

Do you have a source?

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I was listening to Sister McConkie in my bedroom and turned off the radio. I didn’t know my wife was in the hall listening. She asked why I turned it off and I kind of flipped out. I told her I got sick of hearing philosophies mingled with scripture and being told prophets can’t lead us astray, etc. Wife wasn’t happy about that. Sigh…

I had to go to the bathroom during her talk. Seriously, one “follow the prophet” was plenty, two in a row was pretty unbearable. I was in a meeting yesterday where we discussed GC talks and each of us could talk about what we liked and why. I shouldn’t have been surprised that hers came up early, but I was nevertheless disappointed. I did manage to keep my mouth shut and none of the others I deemed particularly negative came up. I put in two saying I had several but some had been mentioned, which was true. Mine were BK Packer and Monson’s Sunday morning because of their focus on the Savior. In the discussion about Packer it was noted that his past two talks have been very testimonial and both have had a ring of farewell to them, which elicited a “he has seen the Savior” comment. 🙄 I also liked Oaks which no one brought up so I left it alone.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I was listening to Sister McConkie in my bedroom and turned off the radio. I didn’t know my wife was in the hall listening. She asked why I turned it off and I kind of flipped out. I told her I got sick of hearing philosophies mingled with scripture and being told prophets can’t lead us astray, etc. Wife wasn’t happy about that. Sigh…

Yeah, I think it comes down to differing perspectives. When we communicate displeasure in hearing things that hint at prophets being infallible (in the sense that they only give perfect counsel, not that they are incapable of sin) I think other people outside of that perspective may take it as a direct attack on the person, not the principle. I think other people might also misconstrue the position as being one of defiance or open rebellion. Communication.

The softer approach, which is sometimes communicated in conference, is that a prophet can give counsel but each member is still responsible for obtaining a personal witness of that counsel. Hearing the counsel alone is not obtaining a personal witness. I think most members would agree with that, that the counsel is not blind obedience. Sometimes that isn’t communicated very well.

DarkJedi wrote:

Seriously, one “follow the prophet” was plenty, two in a row was pretty unbearable.

Sunday got off to a rocky start.

1) Praise to the Man.

2)Henry B. Eyring talked about revelation which necessitated talking about the role of a prophet. In rereading the talk I see it was less about prophets than it felt live. If I had to single out a quote:

Quote:

That is not easy to feel continually because the Lord often asks His prophets to give counsel that is hard for people to accept. The enemy of our souls will try to lead us to take offense and to doubt the prophet’s calling from God.

If the prophet asks us to do something that seems morally questionable (not saying he ever will, just for sake of argument) I would hope that the counsel gives us pause and that doubt wouldn’t come from any enemy to our soul… like Nephi killing Laban, if there’s one plus it’s that Nephi initially doubted enough to confirm the will of the lord before potentially making what could have been a very terrible mistake.

3)

Russell Nelson wrote:

Imagine the privilege the Lord has given us of sustaining His prophet, whose counsel will be untainted, unvarnished, unmotivated by any personal aspiration, and utterly true!

Unfortunately this came at the beginning of the talk and it set a bad tone for me. I missed a lot of what he said afterwards because I was busy processing that opening statement.

4)

Carol McConkie wrote:

We heed prophetic word even when it may seem unreasonable, inconvenient, and uncomfortable. According to the world’s standards, following the prophet may be unpopular, politically incorrect, or socially unacceptable. But following the prophet is always right. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Emphasis mine. First one needs to receive witness that the words of a prophet actually are the words of the lord. Otherwise we’re just trading our imperfect understanding for someone else’s imperfect understanding.

Ballard’s talk came later but IIRC there was a “never lead us astray” line in there.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I was in a meeting yesterday where we discussed GC talks and each of us could talk about what we liked and why. I shouldn’t have been surprised that hers came up early, but I was nevertheless disappointed.

Quite often I’ve found that a more orthodox member’s favorite talk was one of my least favorites. That’s just how it is sometimes. Those are the talks that inevitably get revisited on 1st and 4th Sunday PH lessons. I just have to accept that some things that absolutely drain my batteries charge other people’s batteries.

[Anonymous]

It sucks that excessive praise of men is promulgated in the church. Bro. Hinckley said “Adulation is a disease I fight every day” but I don’t see anything he did in an official capacity to discourage adulation. This is really a sore spot for me right now.

The vibe I got is: Hang on every word the prophet speaks. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart”…by following the prophet. If it doesn’t make sense or even feels wrong, then “lean not unto thine own understanding” because the prophet is always right. Build upon the rock of our Redeemer…by following the prophet. Don’t worry so much about following the Spirit, just follow the prophet no matter what. Ignore that man behind the curtain. Here, have some Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

The most famous changing of a talk after it was given was Elder Poehlman (spelling?) back in the 80’s – but Pres. Packer’s printed talk recently was changed from what was given over the pulpit. (The line that appeared to ask why God would cause someone to be born gay was removed.)

Changing talks doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen – and I have no idea who generates the question about whether a talk should be altered. In some cases, it probably is the speaker – but it might be someone else. I have no idea, but I’m sure the speakers know about the changes before they are made.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I was in a meeting yesterday where we discussed GC talks and each of us could talk about what we liked and why. I shouldn’t have been surprised that hers came up early, but I was nevertheless disappointed.

Quite often I’ve found that a more orthodox member’s favorite talk was one of my least favorites. That’s just how it is sometimes. Those are the talks that inevitably get revisited on 1st and 4th Sunday PH lessons. I just have to accept that some things that absolutely drain my batteries charge other people’s batteries.

I have found the same thing, it was a very orthodox group and that’s why I shouldn’t have been surprised. I will say that the overall discussion was very good and I felt what I think is the Spirit during much of the discussion.

[Author]

Posts