- Not a Cougar on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Kent, c’mon man. First, you’re badly misconstruing my point about the audience. To be very clear, I said that blaming the audience for not being raised in a culture that is prepared to do the heavy lifting you want them to do is not a helpful criticism. Your response to that was to suggest I was somehow accusing you of of the position that “it’s their fault that the talks aren’t good.” That’s clearly not what I wrote. Second, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. In the very first sentence of your reply to me, you claim to not be “blaming the audience” and in the very next sentence you say “I AM asking the audience to take responsibility for their actions.” Maybe you don’t recognize it as such, but that is definitely blaming the audience for not engaging with a boring talk. Ultimately, we see the same problem, but we have very different opinions on what the solution should be. I also happen to think that my proposed solution is the more workable solution. Do we need to limit who speaks? I think that bishoprics can certainly be more intentional about whom they select for a given topic, but I don’t think we have to artificially limit who gets to speak, especially if leadership provides training and emphasis on becoming a better speaker.” Aug 6, 19:21
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Kent, if I’m not mistaken, you are old enough to remember talks from Marion G Romney, who was in the first presidency in the 60s and 70s. His talks were basically just a concordance. He would read verbatim scripture after scripture with almost no interpretation or comment or insight. I remember thinking as a very young man how little I was getting out of anything he said. And I think that’s what PWS is referring to. Basing a talk on a general conference address is so much different than literally reading that talk. I can read the talk on my own anytime I want to. I don’t need someone to stand up in sacrament meeting and read it to me.” Aug 6, 18:27
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Sorry—read a couple of chapters” Aug 6, 14:17
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “I think there are likely at least 2 reasons for the difference. The address is already in a format that seems appropriate for a talk or lesson, so it doesn’t seem to need as much work to make it fit the occasion. I also think our current culture of prophet worship makes it harder for some traditional members to think it’s acceptable to make any changes at all to something said in conference.” Aug 6, 14:15
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “The difference is that I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone simply stand up and a couple of chapters of Isaiah. As I said, the talks are lessons are not based on the address. They ARE the address with a minimal amount of filler.” Aug 6, 14:05
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “PWS: How is basing talks on General Conference talks different from basing the talks on the scriptures (especially since we actively teach that the words of the prophets today are scripture!!). IMO, what you base the talk on isn’t the problem. It’s HOW it is done. If you are actively thinking and reacting to what the talk says —giving it a “the talk/scripture says” so “I say” or “I think” approach, you can have a good talk regardless. This is what I’m asking all of us to do mentally, react to what is said. If they say something wrong, think out in your head “this is wrong because”, or “they didn’t think about xx or yy”. And if they say something correct, “this is right because”… If we are thinking that way, then our talks will end up that way as well.” Aug 6, 13:22
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Not a Cougar: Where exactly was I “blaming the audience”?? I AM asking the audience to take responsibility for their actions. I am NOT saying it’s their fault that the talks aren’t good (whatever that means). I must say it sounds like you are trying to avoid any responsibility yourself for how you listen to meetings. I listen to a lot of talks you would call boring, but I always manage to find some offhand comment that makes me think again about what is said. It can be a “boring” statement, but I manage to think about it differently than what was intended, and get something out of it. EVERYONE involved in a meeting has responsibility for what they add to and what they get out of the meeting. I’m very frustrated with the attitude of “they didn’t prepare well, so I didn’t get anything out of church.” I know that is a common attitude. I sincerely wish I could fix the problem with the lack of preparation and the lack of work by leaders in ensuring good talks. THAT IS NOT IN OUR CONTROL. Complaining about it, blaming the speaker or the leaders, doesn’t give you what you need. The only option that any of us (who aren’t speaking or who aren’t leaders) have is to change ourselves and how we think about what we hear. The problem you are complaining about is a cultural problem. It means changing the training of speakers, the training and mindset of leaders, and it may mean some potentially bad things—like robbing newer or less educated members of the opportunity to speak in church. Is that really what we want? I don’t doubt that many things could be done to improve our meetings. I have NEVER claimed that improvements weren’t possible. BUT, I think we can do a lot ourselves to improve how WE listen and participate in church. And, I suspect that doing so will actually lead to changing the culture in the way you are seeking.” Aug 6, 13:18
- on Unnecessary Spiritual Hierarchies: Leaders Receiving the Sacrament First: “Somewhere earlier in my life, I got the idea that presiding is more of a responsibility than it is an honor. As such, I’ve always viewed the presiding authority who receives the sacrament first as a taster. :)” Aug 6, 09:48
- on Extreme Pacifism and the Moriori: The Anti-Nephi Lehites of the South Pacific : “As a Latter-day Saint with Mennonite ancestry, the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites has particularly resonated with me. I personally lean toward non-resistance, and do not keep guns in my home; if asked, what would you do in a theoretical attack (the proverbial-how-would-you-defend-your-food-storage scenario), I would probably do as the Anti-Nephi-Lehis did. But at the same time, if I had young children to protect, the Mama Bear in me would probably resort to violence. I resolve the moral quandary, I guess, by looking at what im protecting and whose agency is involved. It is interesting to me that the Book of Mormon offers ethical value for both covenantal non-resistance AND self defense, that bith positions can be holy. Mormon the abridger must have felt the story of Ammon’s people to have been deeply moving and of poignant contrast to his life. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon seems to place an obligation on those who take the self-defense position to protect and defend persons who are in the position of covenental non-resistance.” Aug 6, 06:38
- on Extreme Pacifism and the Moriori: The Anti-Nephi Lehites of the South Pacific : “I’m no pacifist. I think the US military ended great evils in the Civil War and WW2, and there was no other way to do so. When I look at North and South Korea today, I’m proud of what we were able to do for the people of South Korea and wish there had been some way to do more for the people of North Korea. And yet… Killing in war or self-defense is inevitably adjacent to murder, and it is easy to cross the line. One of the minor themes of the Book of Mormon is that to use violence, even in self-defense, is to put your soul at risk. (The book also tells you how to protect it.) Leaders who order unjust wars are accountable for the blood shed. Leaders are also accountable for how a war is fought. That includes the moral environment they create: soldiers need to be clearly taught what the rules are and see that there are consequences for breaking them. It also includes the leader’s own decisions: for example, God knows to what extent the Allied “bomber barons” of WW2 really believed that deliberately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians could win the war, and to what extent they were influenced by wanting to win bureaucratic battles for resources. (No one after them can plausibly claim they thought air strikes alone can win wars.) (Needless to say I’m very concerned about the morality of our current wars.) But individuals are responsible for their own choices. I trust the Lord will take into account the adrenaline rush of fighting for your life, and the desensitization that results from long-term combat, but they can’t fully excuse murder. Given all that, I think deciding you’d rather die than take that risk is a valid choice. Letting others die is a tougher choice, but that very much depends on the circumstances. My version of just war theory includes a requirement that you have a realistic chance of winning, or at least doing some good. What the Anti-Nephi-Lehies had in common with the Jews under Roman occupation (whom Jesus told to “resist not evil”) is that they couldn’t save themselves or anyone else by fighting. For the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, dying peacefully was not really giving up their life (it was forfeit anyway), but giving up their anger, however justified. But for a Nephite in Moroni’s army, or an an American infantryman on Omaha Beach, fighting is justified, but in some ways the greater sacrifice. “Dying is easy, son, living is harder.”” Aug 5, 23:07
