Worst LDS talks ever

[_Darth J]

Simon Belmont:

Christofferson's story is insipid, irrespective of one's religious attachments. The story didn't become insipid merely because an LDS leader told it, and it does not become defensible merely because one professes loyalty to the religious organization that pays Christofferson a salary to tell insipid stories.

[_jon]

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.

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?

[_Chap]

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?

And another thing. For a year, you listen to your wife sobbing with pain in the bedroom, and you don't rush in to hold her in your arms and do what you can to comfort her? Excuse me?

I really, really hope this story is another piece of Dunnery.

[_Fiannan]

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY - That "special young woman" thanks her lucky stars each night that she didn't hook up with that jackass. As for the returned missionary?? He is still single in his search for that "special" uni-pierced eternal companion. Second dates are rare as the majority of women he takes out are "quick to observe" that he is an idiot.

I hope she married and has started her family with a guy who is more focused on the Gospel than pretending to be the best Pharasie that God ever awarded to the human race. As a man who, despite my irreverant sense of humor, respects the the Gospel I would, if single, rather date a girl with outside tattoos and piercings who has a loving personality than a woman who looks like she is posing for the front cover of a missionary tract but is judgemental and abusive.

Maybe the Church shoulld sponsor a dating site for singles and one of the categories could be "passive-aggresive people who judge by outward appearances." Then again, I would feel sorry for the children that had to grow up in their homes.

[_Yoda]

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY - That "special young woman" thanks her lucky stars each night that she didn't hook up with that jackass. As for the returned missionary?? He is still single in his search for that "special" uni-pierced eternal companion. Second dates are rare as the majority of women he takes out are "quick to observe" that he is an idiot.

I hope she married and has started her family with a guy who is more focused on the Gospel than pretending to be the best Pharasie that God ever awarded to the human race. As a man who, despite my irreverant sense of humor, respects the the Gospel I would, if single, rather date a girl with outside tattoos and piercings who has a loving personality than a woman who looks like she is posing for the front cover of a missionary tract but is judgemental and abusive.

Maybe the Church shoulld sponsor a dating site for singles and one of the categories could be "passive-aggresive people who judge by outward appearances." Then again, I would feel sorry for the children that had to grow up in their homes.

+1000 <3

[_EAllusion]

I really, really hope this story is another piece of Dunnery.

The story does come off as contrived. If it was so important to buy her an ironing machine and not suffer the indignity of having men in the house iron, of have friends help out, or go without ironed clothes, there probably were more efficient ways to redo the budget to make her life less horribly painful.

The story is supposed to be a lesson in how to be selfless, yet it manages to illustrate an almost psychotic level of selfishness. The best case scenario is that the author is just a really bad communicator. If the story is true, he did have the chance to write a interesting talk about pride.

[_Buffalo]

This thread just goes to show that Simon will literally defend anything as long as it comes from the church.

[_stemelbow]

I just want to add for the most part I enjoy conference addresses. I know that's me and most here don't enjoy them. But I also wanted to say, since my days as a missionary I have heard the kind of talks, and point in talks, made during conference that catches my attention and makes me go "what?!". As it is, I generally agree with the criticisms in this thread. In truth what would be nice and surprising if those who criticize the speakers would also realize how many times things are said and posted here that come off pretty poorly too. I was harping on this last week. I just get awfully disappointed when someone here goes off on hate filled rants, claiming things about another that are just plain far-fetched, all because the other is Mormon or is an apologist, and in response the hate filled rants are encouraged, supported and adored. some amount of balance and thought would be nice. But, it would also be nice if the conference speakers didn't ever say stupid things too. It would be nice if conference addresses were on the whole deeper, more thoughtful and far more intriguing for me, but since I generally like conference I won't complain too loudly.

[_Some Schmo]

I have to disagree and say that this isn't something Homer Simpson would do. There' no way he'd sacrifice his lunch for a year. He'd just wear wrinkled clothes.

But since Simon feels the need to read whatever he can into this story to make it even marginally palatable, I suppose I can superimpose my own ideas too. It seems to me that the father is supposed to come off as a saint for sacrificing his lunch for a year, but what the story doesn't tell you is that making his lunch was his wife's job too.

Lazy bastard.

[_Themis]

In truth what would be nice and surprising if those who criticize the speakers would also realize how many times things are said and posted here that come off pretty poorly too. I was harping on this last week.

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.

I just get awfully disappointed when someone here goes off on hate filled rants, claiming things about another that are just plain far-fetched, all because the other is Mormon or is an apologist, and in response the hate filled rants are encouraged, supported and adored. some amount of balance and thought would be nice.

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.

But, it would also be nice if the conference speakers didn't ever say stupid things too. It would be nice if conference addresses were on the whole deeper, more thoughtful and far more intriguing for me, but since I generally like conference I won't complain too loudly.

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.