- Not a Cougar on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Kent, I did in fact read your post, quite carefully in fact, and I stand by what I wrote. Blaming the audience for being raised in a culture that doesn’t prepare them to digest a talk from an ill-prepared speaker is just not a useful criticism. You have to take your audience as you find them. As to what I mean by boring, while I don’t think it’s critical to define something we’ve all experienced, I’ll attempt to define it. Boring meetings are often (though not always) characterized by lack of preparation, often relying on simply regurgitating conference talks or other sermons from General Authorities. Even when you can tell a speaker prepared long and hard on a topic, you can also tell that preparation was on learning the topic and not on how to most effectively convey it. Boring speakers display a lack of enthusiasm for either speaking itself (the oft-used trope of explaining how a member of the bishopric how to browbeat them into speaking) or for the topic being presented. The speaker plods along through the written talk in a largely monotone voice, ignoring any cues from the audience and often doesn’t even look up from the paper/device (they aren’t lively, they aren’t engaging). The speaker doesn’t attempt to introduce any novelty to the topic or approach the topic from a different perspective, but rather re-treads the same ground trodden by centuries of Latter-day Saint speakers and quotes the same scriptures and stories everyone else has used (if I have to hear one more talk about the tithing and the windows of heaven…). Boring speakers also fail to respect the time allotted ot them, somehow believing that the sheer length of the talk will somehow make it better. I’m sure there are many more characteristics I could name, but that’s a sufficient list with which to start. Now, as to who’s fault it is, do we blame the leadership? Absolutely. How often and how seriously do our leaders at the Church, area, stake or ward level take training the membership in how to give a talk? It’s something we literally spend a quarter of our time on Sundays doing and yet I struggle to recall much of anything our leaders have done to try to improve the quality of our talks (I’m sure we could dig something up from a talk in the past but the fact that it’s not coming to mind, unlike say training on home teaching/ministering, suggests it has never been much of a priority). I suppose the leadership largely relies on modeling what a talk should look like in General Conference, but then many General Authorities aren’t very engaging either so I’d argue it’s a less than effective way to teach us. As to how to hold training on talks, it would not be that hard to arrange at least one 5th Sunday Lesson a year on effective approaches to giving a talk as well as arranging for feedback after someone gives a talk. Could that lead to offense if the feedback is too harsh or be ineffective if the speaker is given nothing but praise, sure, but with support and imprimatur from the leadership, I believe it’s possible to do. It takes effort, but given how much time we spend together listening to someone else talk, wouldn’t that be time and energy well spent? As to the audience, again, I understand that you want to put much of the burden on them to find something meaningful in any talk, but, I’m sorry, you’re asking too much. Sure, the Kents of the Church can absolutely do that, but most of those in the pews are not Kents. They are children and youth. They are adults who are there simply because their spouse wants them to be there. They are adults who are easily distracted and just looking for a reason to whip out their phone and ignore the speaker. Do we ignore those people and cater only to those able or willing to pay attention to a boring talk? Should the majority of our talks only be an acquired taste that require above average patience, concentration, and contemplation to access? I think not, and I also think that we can and should do better. That said, because we rely on the congregation for the majority of our speakers, there’s always going to be an upper limit to what you can expect, but don’t you think most of the talks we hear could be improved with a little more preparation and training? I certainly do.” Aug 5, 08:20
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: ““Not a Cougar” You are reading more into what I said than is actually there. I never said that “boring meetings are obviously good”. I am saying that I don’t think that whether or not meetings are boring is necessarily the point. We go to church for many reasons, and things happen in church for many reasons. Whether or not you enjoyed the talks isn’t necessarily among those reasons. Please re-read the original post!! You are missing the important point. I have repeatedly said things like “Under the influence of the surrounding culture, we make assumptions about what is important and what makes our experience at church good. And when that doesn’t happen, we assume that the talks or classes are “bad.” Let me challenge you a bit. What do you mean by boring? Or engaging? Is your definition of boring, or engaging something that comes from the gospel or is it from what you see on television or other entertainment venues? Is it possible that what you find boring and what someone else finds boring are different? Why does that happen? If it does happen, what does that mean for how we define “boring”? I’m NOT saying that there isn’t such a thing as boring or engaging. I AM saying that we need to be careful and make sure we have defined what we are talking about. I’m also asking where the responsibility for avoiding “boring” meetings lies? Does it lie with the speaker? With the audience? With those planning the meetings? With those who have trained or failed to train the speaker? If we avoid untrained speakers, how do we get trained speaker? In addition, are we being charitable when we make these claims? Sorry, but you will need to do much better than simply claiming that many talks or classes are “boring” — I need to know why and how they are boring and what should be done to change that.” Aug 4, 23:49
- on A Review: Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony: “I love those illustrations. And I love the Book of Mormon as someone that believes the BOM is evidence of revelation. That doesn’t make me fit in the sceptic camp and I can wave or enjoy the historicity camp but don’t think I’m fully there with examples that may stretch things a little too much. I’ll add this book to the list so not to judge it based on its cover. Thank you.” Aug 4, 22:02
- on A Review: Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony: “It sounds like Chapter 6 is a little weak. The evidence presented in the post doesn’t mention DNA, no evidence of Christ in the Americas, No evidence of major battles. Geography doesn’t match any place in the Americas. The evidence presented might be used to strengthen an existing strong testimony, But it won’t help the doubters or nonmember archeologists. There are also issues with how it was translated. On my mission in the 1960s, we showed an illustration of JS literally translating the plates. Turns out JS didn’t even need the gold plates. The front of the book stated that the BoM was a history of the American Indians. (And it included those awful illustrations by Arnold Freiburg.) The Church will have to address an increasing number of members who believe that the BoM is inspired historical fiction. Can they still have a real testimony?” Aug 4, 20:37
- on A Review: Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony: “Thanks for this very kind review, Chad! In case it’s of interest, I do briefly touch on the Strang plates in Chapter 6, but only in the footnotes. I didn’t want to upset the flow of the chapter by putting it in the main body. I also have some metaphysical discussions in the footnotes of Chapters 1 and 3, specifically on the nature of intelligence and its relation to element. Since I repurposed the classical theism arguments for certain aspects of LDS theology (e.g., light of truth), I wanted to provide those for philosophically-minded people who might initially feel the tension between these arguments and our metaphysics. Thanks again for reading and reviewing!” Aug 4, 12:55
- on A Review: Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony: “Sounds like an interesting book. I spent some time looking at the Voree plates a while back. They’re interesting, but kind of underwhelming as a counterexample.” Aug 4, 12:28
- on The “Irascible Old Pepper Box”: Kerry William Bate on Pioneer John Steele: “He even monologues about the significance of his name? What editor approved this?” Aug 4, 12:16
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: ““That undoubtedly makes the meeting more entertaining, but I’m not sure that’s always good. Are we there for the entertainment? Or for spirit? Of course you can have both, but I worry when you don’t.” Kent, what I am about to say is said with love in my heart for you. This kind of attitude is exactly why so many of our talks, lessons, and meetings are like watching paint dry and why people were praising the Lord when our meetings got cut from 3 to 2 hours. We as a people have decided for some reason that boring meetings are obviously good and invite the Spirit. They aren’t and they don’t. As evidence in support of my position, I’ll point to Jeffrey R. Holland. He was far and away the most popular speaker in General Conference for decades (the last GA to be that good a speaker was Paul Dunn – I know that’s a bit awkward to admit). President Holland dared to be engaging and entertaining because he realized that his audience was all over the spectrum of belief and understanding. If he could get people to pay attention for more than 30 seconds, there was a much better chance that they would take something away from his talk. We need more of that attitude and more entertainment in our Sunday meetings not leas.” Aug 3, 20:11
- on A “Great Work” in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/2: “Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (8/2): I’m on vacation and attended an unfamiliar ward, and I was surprised to see that the deacons were sitting on the stand. At first I wondered if this was some kind of ‘’ Unnecessary Spiritual Hierarchy’’, as Stephen C. recently discussed here. But then I also remembered my own experience as a deacon, and thought it might also help parents and others keep an eye on them. Even for those who are usually on the stand, its harder to spend the entire meeting watching videos on your phone if everyone can see you. A couple of the speakers in Fast and Testimony meeting had quite a lot of personality. That undoubtedly makes the meeting more entertaining, but I’m not sure that’s always good. Are we there for the entertainment? Or for spirit? Of course you can have both, but I worry when you don’t. Another speaker mentioned running into a friend who asked him, “do you really like going to church?” The assumption that seemed to be behind this, as far as I could tell, was that there was something wrong if you didn’t like going to church. I’m not sure it’s that simple. While in these posts I’m suggesting that you can get something out of, and even enjoy, church even when its not as we expect, I also don’t want to put all of the responsibility on the attendee. Those who give talks or lessons, or plan the meetings have a responsibility as well, and they don’t always put the effort in that they should. An RM of a couple of years said that “coming home from my mission was the hardest thing I’ve done.” By chance I asked another recently returned missionary about that later in the day, and was told that the transition home was not a problem at all. And that matched my experience also (of many years ago). This is something specific to each individual — like church — and IMO we should realize that there are a wide spread of experiences, all of which are valid. ” Aug 3, 12:46
- on The “Irascible Old Pepper Box”: Kerry William Bate on Pioneer John Steele: “Dr. Evil McFiendish was aware of the metaphor. “Sooner than I would be driven I would let them all have all the steel that was in me,” he wrote of the Illinois mobbers,” Aug 3, 09:33
