Worst LDS talks ever

[_stemelbow]

I see you are whining again, but if you could see the other POV better you would realize that many here do see that many posts here from believing and non-believing come off very poorly. Some just make me cringe, but it's normal for forums that we get those kind of posts, and very little can be done about it for most posters.

Oh my comments have far less to do with that there are stupid things said by posters here too. If posters here, particularly those who pose a critical posture, take issue with some posts and posters here, as much as they do with LDS comments and posters, then they surely don’t show it—not really at all. My comment here is more along the lines of, its fine to take issue with some things said at conference or said by LDS people, but if you do so, be sure to make mention of the foolishness that comes from those on your side. Otherwise you just come off as hostile and biased to others.

I see the same imbalance over at Mad, but then balance can only come by having equal numbers of each groups. Only the individual can potentially bring balance in their views and posts.

Not very many, if any, individuals are demonstrating much balance at all. The “if any” is where I’m concerned about most of the time. Every once in a while I’ll see some effort at balance though, which is a positive.

The problem I see is not that there are bad talks, that is normal from any group, but that they are viewed as Gods words and taken as such by most members. This is dangerous and can lead to negative consequences for many members. This is why it is a positive thing to challenge beliefs that one thinks is incorrect.

Most members? What gives you the impression that criticizing some leaders words here is something that will be known by most members? Truly if this was to make sense at all, you would have to have these words go beyond those who mock LDS here, and beyond the few LDS defenders here who have already heard it all before. Ah well…many things are easily justified here.

How would it go if I started a website dedicated to mocking and deriding the posts from people here, and their well-documented words? There I could assume the pseudo noble stance that I’m taking the position that I’m doing good, afterall the posters here are presuming to teach the Church how it is wrong. They are in essence speaking as authorities to those who assume a belief in God and the Church. It could be dangerous if their outrages were all wrong and they succeeded to steer people away from truth. That is in effect what you are doing with this type of stuff—all the while letting the egregious and ugly things said by your own go unabated. Afterall according to Kevin, Dr. Peterson is a liar and coward and many other things. Most seem to agree with Kevin’s hostile views, as he explains himself by off the wall explanations of what might have happened—well it might have went this way….therefore Dr. Peterson is really bad. Interestings and yeahs follow. And to think Kevin is quite tame is complaints of Dr. Peterson compared to others.

[_EAllusion]

Stem -

I'm inclined to agree with Schmo.

I don't think I'm nearly as versed in the volume of talks as many of the posters here, but of the sample I have read and heard, it feels akin to the kind of advice that comes out of televangelist shows and religious right radio. Listening to some GA's speak is like listening your slightly nutty uncle who listens to too much evangelical talkshows. And it's not that every you get from that kind of source is bad. A lot of it can be touching, funny, and just generally good advice. I find the need to awkwardly prooftext what amounts to a lot of simple modern living advice to ancient scriptures to be weird, but it doesn't rile me up or anything.

The problem is that there also is a lot of terrible things that come across the microphone. Religious right radio is not the first or second or third place you should be looking to for moral lessons. You'd get better advice by going other places to get your aesops. But beyond that, because these people purport to speak for God, people take their opinions, sometimes badly thought out, and treat it way more seriously than they should. Look at Simon in is thread. That's a nice benefit when the advice is good, but an ugly thing when it is not. People would be better served developing intellectual autonomy for evaluating people's offerings on how to manage the challenges and moral difficulties of life. But fundamentalist cultures, which Mormonism has in spades, do not do well with that. Who are you to question God's mouthpiece?

[_stemelbow]

Stem -

I'm inclined to agree with Schmo.
<snip>

I'm inclined to agree with Schmo's latest post too, but I don't' know what your post has to do with my comments.

[_EAllusion]

I'm inclined to agree with Schmo's latest post too, but I don't' know what your post has to do with my comments.

Heh. I meant Themis. I misread who wrote that post. I thought it was atypical of Schmo's style...

[_jon]

She went into the closet to cry.

She hid her suffering.

So how was the husband supposed to know about it?

Another possibility is that they couldn't afford the machine, they had to save for it.

Again, because this story was told by an LDS member, everyone here must assume the worst possible scenario.

Simon, from the original posting of the actual talk:

Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that.

Do you want to amend your post in light of the troublesome little detail that the Dad did in fact know all about the suffering for a full year before he did anything material to alleviate it?

Bumped to allow Simon the second chance to correct his post...

[_truth dancer]

Hey Mok,

While this is a good analogy for that story, the GA's who give these talks mean well.

Yes, I agree. However, IMHO, this talk and others like it demonstrate how out of touch some GAs are with our modern day.

This talk seems completely irrelevant and actually seems to teach things like...

Let your wife suffer and do not let her know you know she is in pain.
Women, don't ask for help when you are in pain, better to suffer silently.
Don't work together as a couple to deal with life's challenges.
Men and boys should never even think of doing "women's work."
Pressed shirts are more important than the health of a mom.

Ya know? Just seems really wrong on so many levels, especially for today.


~td~

[_Jaybear]

I agree with Schmo, no way Homer would let Marge suffer through ironing. You can say many things about Homer, but he is not a heartless bastard.

And while this was unintentionally, LOL funny ...

“Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.”

As far a worst, I don't think it is anywhere near Faust's lesson on personal sacrifice.

"They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple," said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm inclined to agree with Schmo's latest post too, but I don't' know what your post has to do with my comments.

Heh. I meant Themis. I misread who wrote that post. I thought it was atypical of Schmo's style...

I was kind of wondering about this myself. I never pegged you as a Homer Simpson enthusiast.

[_Buffalo]

As far a worst, I don't think it is anywhere near Faust's lesson on personal sacrifice.

"They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple," said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

Sounds like those poor third world members made a Faustian bargain.

[_EAllusion]

I used to be a huge Simpson's fan. The show sucking for over a decade kinda dimmed that.

As for what Homer would do, that's not an easy to answer question as his character has changed over time and became inconsistent from episode to episode after the first few seasons. The early Homer that is a little dim and oafish, but not at heart cruel or highly self-absorbed, wouldn't do that. The early Homer is just a parody of the basic domestic sitcom model where he plays the fat husband. His acts of selfishness are within that trope to start. So he buys a wife a bowling ball for her birthday that's intended for him.

Over time his character was made much more mean-spirited and selfish. By season 8/9 you have someone who would do something like we see in the anecdote. The Homer of Homer's Enemy was made so awful that he would be capable of that kind of oblivious cruelty.