consiglieri wrote:But if we are talking about worst talks ever, has anybody mentioned Elder McConkie's double-hitter, "The Seven Deadly Heresies," and "The Caravan Moves On?"
From time to time, one story in an otherwise okay talk will be memorable, but it is not so often that a general authority talks from beginning to end on an entire theme that is reprehensible.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom.
No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.
There is, in fact, no such thing as neutrality where the gospel is concerned.
Jesus said: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathered not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30.)
And it was Jacob who said: “They who are not for me are against me, saith our God.” (2 Ne. 10:16.)
If we do not sustain and uphold and support the kingdom of God in all things, we are thereby aiding a cause other than the Lord’s.
Only the valiant are saved. Members of the Church who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus, not valiant in the cause of Christ, not valiant in defense of his prophets and in preaching his word are not heirs of the celestial kingdom.
…
The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.
Universal rule #4: Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.
Stay on topic. Let's keep this one legit please.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
DarthJ wrote: You'll remember the story of the good Samaritan, and how instead of helping the guy who was lying right there in trouble at that moment, the good Samaritan went without lunches for a year so he could buy a camel for the guy to ride on.
LOL. The point Simon misses is not that the husband tried to help his wife, but that his solution was something Homer Simpson would come up with.
But there is no way Homer would let Marge suffer for a year, he'd come up with a plan right away.
truth dancer wrote:It is akin to someone sharing a story about her great grandmother who allowed her black slave to enter the front door of her house because she had a broken leg and couldn't walk to the back of the house and climb two flights of stairs.
:-)
~td~
While this is a good analogy for that story, the GA's who give these talks mean well.
café crema wrote:But there is no way Homer would let Marge suffer for a year, he'd come up with a plan right away.
She went into the closet to cry.
She hid her suffering.
So how was the husband supposed to know about it?
Actually, the story specifically says that the husband knew she was suffering.
“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.
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.
Or, alternatively, her husband could have just done the damn ironing---and still have had plenty of money for lunch, too.
café crema wrote:But there is no way Homer would let Marge suffer for a year, he'd come up with a plan right away.
She went into the closet to cry.
She hid her suffering.
So how was the husband supposed to know about it?
The story says she went to the bedroom to cry and the husband knew about it. Of course, we can't take these talks at face value so it could be that bedroom = closet, and husband knew = husband didn't know. Therefore, I suppose it would make sense to wait a year.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote: The story says she went to the bedroom to cry and the husband knew about it. Of course, we can't take these talks at face value so it could be that bedroom = closet, and husband knew = husband didn't know. Therefore, I suppose it would make sense to wait a year.
It may very well be that Christofferson was simply translating words that had been loan-shifted from this husband's and wife's native land. Thus, "iron" means rolling pin, "shirts" means cookie dough, etc.
café crema wrote:But there is no way Homer would let Marge suffer for a year, he'd come up with a plan right away.
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.
Just saying if Homer knew Marge was suffering he wouldn't wait a year to do something about it he do something now not later. And where in all this are the wife's visiting teachers, isn't it their job to make sure that women have what they need? You'd think between the husband, the sons and, the VT's there would be enough imagination to come up with a solution to her pain in less than a year.
It doesn't matter if the story is told by an LDS member, a member of any other religion or of no religion at all, in any case the teller is a clod.