Are conference talks good?

[_Gadianton]

By this, I do not mean, are conference talks a good source of information? I in fact, mean the very opposite: Are these talks moving and persuasive, independent of the quality of information? In other words, are they good examples of rhetoric? Are they good examples of crafted scripts and strong oration? Do they equal or surpass the works of other orators: presidents, congressmen, or other religious figures or community leaders?

I do not enjoy speeches of any kind and I never have. I do not even enjoy political speeches when they are somewhat or outright parodied in movies and TV shows that I like such as "24" or "House of Cards." I've always just assumed conference talks are "good" talks, and my lack of interest is a general problem with the genre itself. For instance, I don't like watching professional sports either, but I think I can tell the difference between the work of pro athletes and amateurs. I assumed gut instincts were same, more or less, of orators, in fact, I even took a public speaking class at BYU and did all right. My teacher was one of these squeaky clean guys who would have been intolerable if it weren't that he was so utterly true to squeaky cleanliness and I really liked the guy. Anyway, this teacher was a *huge* fan of Thomas S. Monson, Neal A. Maxwell, and the GAs generally, and considered them the grand masters of public speaking, with everything that implied, right down to crediting the persuasion with anything but the content. He had many stories about the care and practice the GA's put into their conference speeches as suggestions to us for practicing.

I've always just assumed that Monson and others are great speakers even though listening to them is torture for me. The contrary thought (that I recall) only occurred to me just the other day. I discovered "The Boss" on Netflix, with Kelsey Grammer, and Grammer's speech in the first episode was off the charts. Had his character been a GA I may have been defrauded for a longer time. The show overall is a step down from House of Cards, and Spacey's character is just as good, but, in the particular matter of speech writing and delivery, whoever came up with that speech along with Grammer's execution sets the gold standard. It's probably, in fact, good evidence that Church leaders are not inspired.

Anyway, now I'm asking you all, how do the Church leaders rate as speech writers and orators?

[_KevinSim]

I discovered "The Boss" on Netflix, with Kelsey grammar, and grammar's speech in the first episode was off the charts. Had his character been a GA I may have been defrauded for a longer time. The show overall is a step down from House of Cards, and Spacey's character is just as good, but, in the particular matter of speech writing and delivery, whoever came up with that speech along with grammar's execution sets the gold standard. It's probably, in fact, good evidence that Church leaders are not inspired.

What does being a good orator have to do with being inspired by God? I'm not convinced God cares about His messengers' skills as an orator; God just wants His message carried to the world. That message doesn't require a good orator to deliver it.

[_KevinSim]

Never, ever, have I heard anything in conference that was powerful and inspiring at the level of great historical speeches that we could reference though. No dream speeches, not even a tear down this wall. It's scripted and generally lacks genuine passion.

I thought Gordon Hinckley's Priesthood Session talk where he introduced us to the Perpetual Education Fund was pretty powerful.

As much as I had respected Hinckley as the couselor-who-was-running-the-Church ever since 1981, I actually had a problem accepting him as a prophet after Howard Hunter died. Then I went to that Priesthood Session, and when I came home my wife asked me if the Church was still true. I said, "Is it ever!" And I told her about the PEF. From then on I had no problem whatsoever accepting Hinckley as God's spokesman to the world.

[_Sethbag]

What does being a good orator have to do with being inspired by God? I'm not convinced God cares about His messengers' skills as an orator; God just wants His message carried to the world. That message doesn't require a good orator to deliver it.

What does clarity of message have to do with the Creator of the Universe getting his message out to the people who really need it?
Why should we expect that manifestations of the Spirit would be reliably separable from the mundane emotional experience most peoples "spiritual" experiences actually boil down to?
Why should we expect that when someone follows the Moroni promise, they'll actually get a repeatable, clear, unambiguous answer?
Why are there so many people who have prayed over whether their church is true, and gotten a "yes" answer from "The Spirit", but it's not the LDS Church?

Your God is really a crappy communicator, Kevin. Seriously.

I think there are a million reasons why it's naïve and even downright stupid to think that the Creator of the Entire Universe would have this message that everyone really needs to hear, and then choose to communicate it to all of us by secretly appearing to one person and telling that person that they should stand up and proclaim to the rest of us that this one person now has God's own authority to command us all and tell us what to do.

I'll give you the very first reason on my list: this method has been practiced thousands of times by religious charlatans the world over, for thousands of years. It is a shockingly effective method by which religious charlatans usurp power over others, and start using the religious leverage they develop with their followers to enrich and gratify their own desires. Such as telling their flock that God wants this special viceroy of his to “F” the pretty young girls among them.

The second reason on my list is intimately related to the first: there's no reliable, unambiguous method that the believers of these one-man snake oil salesmen cum Viceroy of God pretenders have ever given by which the supposedly "true" personal representatives of this God can be recognized from the abundant frauds. And that includes the LDS.

Kevin, if God is really going to choose one (or, as his successors, a small cabal) man to represent him on Earth to the rest of us, you'd think God would in fact give a crap that these men were able to do so effectively. If he doesn't, then he's just wasting our time.

[_sock puppet]

By this, I do not mean, are conference talks a good source of information? I in fact, mean the very opposite: Are these talks moving and persuasive, independent of the quality of information? In other words, are they good examples of rhetoric? Are they good examples of crafted scripts and strong oration? Do they equal or surpass the works of other orators: presidents, congressmen, or other religious figures or community leaders?

I do not enjoy speeches of any kind and I never have. I do not even enjoy political speeches when they are somewhat or outright parodied in movies and TV shows that I like such as "24" or "House of Cards." I've always just assumed conference talks are "good" talks, and my lack of interest is a general problem with the genre itself. For instance, I don't like watching professional sports either, but I think I can tell the difference between the work of pro athletes and amateurs. I assumed gut instincts were same, more or less, of orators, in fact, I even took a public speaking class at BYU and did all right. My teacher was one of these squeaky clean guys who would have been intolerable if it weren't that he was so utterly true to squeaky cleanliness and I really liked the guy. Anyway, this teacher was a *huge* fan of Thomas S. Monson, Neal A. Maxwell, and the GAs generally, and considered them the grand masters of public speaking, with everything that implied, right down to crediting the persuasion with anything but the content. He had many stories about the care and practice the GA's put into their conference speeches as suggestions to us for practicing.

I've always just assumed that Monson and others are great speakers even though listening to them is torture for me. The contrary thought (that I recall) only occurred to me just the other day. I discovered "The Boss" on Netflix, with Kelsey Grammer, and Grammer's speech in the first episode was off the charts. Had his character been a GA I may have been defrauded for a longer time. The show overall is a step down from House of Cards, and Spacey's character is just as good, but, in the particular matter of speech writing and delivery, whoever came up with that speech along with Grammer's execution sets the gold standard. It's probably, in fact, good evidence that Church leaders are not inspired.

Anyway, now I'm asking you all, how do the Church leaders rate as speech writers and orators?

I think Hugh B Brown was a great orator as Mormons go. Despite his trouble with the truth, Paul Dunn was good. In his own, authoritative way, Bruce R McConkie had an oratory style and skill too that I found effective, if not also bombastic. Aside from that, I don't think much of GAs as speakers.

I found Neal A Maxwell insincere and condescending. Something about that man seemed put on. His style was affected. George P Lee was good at provoking emotion because his own seemed genuine.

Politically, Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King Jr were great orators. Robert F Kennedy, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were pretty good too. (I've only heard Churchill from audio recordings made in the past.)

[_KevinSim]

What does being a good orator have to do with being inspired by God? I'm not convinced God cares about His messengers' skills as an orator; God just wants His message carried to the world. That message doesn't require a good orator to deliver it.

What does clarity of message have to do with the Creator of the Universe getting his message out to the people who really need it?

The message was perfectly clear to me. Is that an indication that the people who put together the Seminary Program for teenagers were the great orators that the LDS General Authorities are not?

Why should we expect that when someone follows the Moroni promise, they'll actually get a repeatable, clear, unambiguous answer?

Good question. Why should we?

Why are there so many people who have prayed over whether their church is true, and gotten a "yes" answer from "The Spirit", but it's not the LDS Church?

How many people are there, who "have prayed over whether their church is true, and gotten a 'yes' answer"? Has anybody done a thorough study on this, to find out how many people really have done precisely the same thing the LDS Seminary Program tells its teenagers to do, and have gotten a "yes" answer pointing them to another church? If you're going to maintain that other people have done precisely the same thing LDS missionaries tell their investigators to do, and have been pointed to faiths other than the LDS faith, you really need to find those thorough studies, or conduct them, if they don't currently exist.

Your God is really a s****y communicator, Kevin. Seriously.

Sethbag, do you think you could do a better job?

I think there are a million reasons why it's naïve and even downright stupid to think that the Creator of the Entire Universe would have this message that everyone really needs to hear, and then choose to communicate it to all of us by secretly appearing to one person and telling that person that they should stand up and proclaim to the rest of us that this one person now has God's own authority to command us all and tell us what to do.

Are you knocking the idea that God would choose one person to take God's message to the world, or are you knocking the method LDS missionaries tell their investigators to use to find out whether God endorses that message?

I'll give you the very first reason on my list: this method has been practiced thousands of times by religious charlatans the world over, for thousands of years. It is a shockingly effective method by which religious charlatans usurp power over others, and start using the religious leverage they develop with their followers to enrich and gratify their own desires.

Once again, what method are you talking about?

The second reason on my list is intimately related to the first: there's no reliable, unambiguous method that the believers of these one-man snake oil salesmen cum Viceroy of God pretenders have ever given by which the supposedly "true" personal representatives of this God can be recognized from the abundant frauds. And that includes the LDS.

What exactly do you mean by reliable? I rely on the experience I had back in Autumn 1976, so at least in that sense it was reliable, and it wasn't ambiguous at all.

Kevin, if God is really going to choose one (or, as his successors, a small cabal) man to represent him on Earth to the rest of us, you'd think God would in fact give a s*** that these men were able to do so effectively.

Why does a messenger from God have to be a great orator to be an effective communicator?

[_brade]

What exactly do you mean by reliable? I rely on the experience I had back in Autumn 1976, so at least in that sense it was reliable, and it wasn't ambiguous at all.

Will you explain the necessary connection between the experience you had and the tenants of Mormonism?

[_Bazooka]

I discovered "The Boss" on Netflix, with Kelsey grammar, and grammar's speech in the first episode was off the charts. Had his character been a GA I may have been defrauded for a longer time. The show overall is a step down from House of Cards, and Spacey's character is just as good, but, in the particular matter of speech writing and delivery, whoever came up with that speech along with grammar's execution sets the gold standard. It's probably, in fact, good evidence that Church leaders are not inspired.

What does being a good orator have to do with being inspired by God? I'm not convinced God cares about His messengers' skills as an orator; God just wants His message carried to the world. That message doesn't require a good orator to deliver it.

Kevin, why did God want to convey the exact same message via his Prophet at the last session of Conference as He did in 1982?

[_Bazooka]

General Conference is not set up to facilitate good communication.
People learn and absorb information in different ways. 'Lecturing' - which is what General Conference is, a series of two hour lecture sessions - is probably one of the least effective ways of conveying a message to a broad group of people that there is. Schools for instance, used to be "Chalk and Talk" listening sessions, but this format of learning is now obsolete because it proved to be ineffective in comparison to other methods. There's also a lack of co-ordination, clear repetition, a dumbing down to cater for a spectrum of ages etc. There's a proliferation of stories and long winded diatribes to try and articulate a small, simple, clear point.

Why listen to Conference when you can read it or listen to it over the days and weeks that follow in a manner and to a schedule that best facilitates how you as an individual absorb information? The leadership would be better served by releasing one specific topic for each six months and having it co-ordinated across all the programmes of the Church - Primary, Sunday School, Home Teaching etc. This would also better facilitate conversation across families, if they are all absorbing information about a common simple theme. Instead you get a plethora of competing ideas and priorities.

As for the actual content....don't get me started....

[_Maksutov]

What does being a good orator have to do with being inspired by God? I'm not convinced God cares about His messengers' skills as an orator; God just wants His message carried to the world. That message doesn't require a good orator to deliver it.

What does clarity of message have to do with the Creator of the Universe getting his message out to the people who really need it?
Why should we expect that manifestations of the Spirit would be reliably separable from the mundane emotional experience most peoples "spiritual" experiences actually boil down to?
Why should we expect that when someone follows the Moroni promise, they'll actually get a repeatable, clear, unambiguous answer?
Why are there so many people who have prayed over whether their church is true, and gotten a "yes" answer from "The Spirit", but it's not the LDS Church?

Your God is really a s****y communicator, Kevin. Seriously.

I think there are a million reasons why it's naïve and even downright stupid to think that the Creator of the Entire Universe would have this message that everyone really needs to hear, and then choose to communicate it to all of us by secretly appearing to one person and telling that person that they should stand up and proclaim to the rest of us that this one person now has God's own authority to command us all and tell us what to do.

I'll give you the very first reason on my list: this method has been practiced thousands of times by religious charlatans the world over, for thousands of years. It is a shockingly effective method by which religious charlatans usurp power over others, and start using the religious leverage they develop with their followers to enrich and gratify their own desires. Such as telling their flock that God wants this special viceroy of his to f*** the pretty young girls among them.

The second reason on my list is intimately related to the first: there's no reliable, unambiguous method that the believers of these one-man snake oil salesmen cum Viceroy of God pretenders have ever given by which the supposedly "true" personal representatives of this God can be recognized from the abundant frauds. And that includes the LDS.

Kevin, if God is really going to choose one (or, as his successors, a small cabal) man to represent him on Earth to the rest of us, you'd think God would in fact give a s*** that these men were able to do so effectively. If he doesn't, then he's just wasting our time.

The young ones come out of the same mold as Kevin Trudeau. Kind of like the way Sting described politicians..."They all seem like game show hosts to me."