Speaking Of Jeff Holland... I just learned something amusing

[_Runtu]

Not only did this GA fail to use the spirit to identify the sinful missionary he publically humiliated. He failed to use basic facial recognition and failed to remember the name that was on his nametag.

That's because the missionary was a point, not a person. Has anyone ever heard of a GA speaking to missionaries and giving them positive feedback or thanking them for their service? I haven't.

[_Symmachus]

Not surprising. Reminds me of being in a stake priesthood meeting in Texas when I was in the high priests group leadership. The stake president said, "I had prepared remarks, but the spirit tells me that someone in this chapel is struggling with pornography." My high priest group leader turned to me with a chuckle and said, "Yeah, about half the people here."

There must be something in the water in Texas. It was not uncommon for me to attend 2 wards in one day in my very early days of the church (wanting to join my fiancee at her ward but also fulfill a calling in mine) and I witnessed your scenario back to back one day.

The visiting member of the stake presidency spoke in both ward's EQ meeting that day. Both times he led with "I prepared remarks but feel prompted now to speak on pornography" and jumped into identical spiels. At the time I thought "wow there really must be a problem in our area". Experience and cynicism lead me now to conclude that his prepared remarks just included saying that these weren't prepared remarks.

My suspicion is that these roving Stake Presidents and Counselors know only too well that there is someone in the room with a porn problem: themselves. Looking at porn really eats into what little time they have for preparing remarks, which is why they have to to do it ad libitum (same phrase goes for their porn habits).

[_Analytics]

Not only did this GA fail to use the spirit to identify the sinful missionary he publically humiliated. He failed to use basic facial recognition and failed to remember the name that was on his nametag.

That's because the missionary was a point, not a person. Has anyone ever heard of a GA speaking to missionaries and giving them positive feedback or thanking them for their service? I haven't.

Bingo.

But to answer your question, there was one GA who seemed to get it and thanked us. It was L. Aldin Porter. He thanked us for serving and told us he knew how truly horrific it was. And he promised us that as the years and decades went by, our memories of the rough details would fade faster than our memories of the good parts, and the whole thing wouldn't seem like it was as tough as it really was. He then went on to say that some day in the distant future after we'd mostly forgotten how bad our missions really were, we would go through something truly horrific in life and would be on our knees begging God for help. He said that on that day, even though we personally will have forgotten how much of a sacrifice our missions were, God will not have forgotten.

[_Analytics]

My suspicion is that these roving Stake Presidents and Counselors know only too well that there is someone in the room with a porn problem: themselves. Looking at porn really eats into what little time they have for preparing remarks, which is why they have to to do it ad libitum (same phrase goes for their porn habits).

[_Fence Sitter]

That's because the missionary was a point, not a person. Has anyone ever heard of a GA speaking to missionaries and giving them positive feedback or thanking them for their service? I haven't.

So, as you know, I served a few years before you. I had the opportunity to see and engage with two apostles and a GA's during that time. McConkie, Packer, and A Theodore Tuttle, all of which I remember quite clearly. None of them pulled any of the stuff others have mentioned in this thread, though Packer was quite clear he knew stuff we didn't need to know. So I guess the "degrade the missionaries" approach was a bit after my time. Tuttle was especially a great guy to be around.

I sat in a small mission home meeting with McConkie and I remember him lamenting how fast we were baptizing members and that they could not keep up with needed chapels. I didn't ever feel like he was questioning our commitment, rather he was back handedly praising our work.

Different times I suppose.

[_honorentheos]

That's because the missionary was a point, not a person. Has anyone ever heard of a GA speaking to missionaries and giving them positive feedback or thanking them for their service? I haven't.

So, as you know, I served a few years before you. I had the opportunity to see and engage with two apostles and a GA's during that time. McConkie, Packer, and A Theodore Tuttle, all of which I remember quite clearly. None of them pulled any of the stuff others have mentioned in this thread, though Packer was quite clear he knew stuff we didn't need to know. So I guess the "degrade the missionaries" approach was a bit after my time. Tuttle was especially a great guy to be around.

I sat in a small mission home meeting with McConkie and I remember him lamenting how fast we were baptizing members and that they could not keep up with needed chapels. I didn't ever feel like he was questioning our commitment, rather he was back handedly praising our work.

Different times I suppose.

I served in the mid 90's in a European (read: low baptizing) mission. Uchtdorf was in the Area Presidency at the time, and he was easily the most charismatic and complimentary GA I had met then or since. It probably helps having lots of practice smiling at disembarking passengers after having flown for hours. It seemed sincere, though, and his visits were welcomed.

Elder Wirthlin also visited and I thought he was positive, didn't put the missionaries down, and while seeming a bit past his prime he came across as a genuinely good person. He mostly told grandfatherly stories in order to make analogies like comparing football drills to knocking doors, which may seem like unfruitful time but is building one's missionary muscle. That phrase "missionary muscle" clearly stuck out to me, as did his tone which was encouraging rather than demeaning.

Elder Oak was one of two GA's that left very negative impressions on me based on their attitudes towards missionaries, members, and being slightly angry brow beaters. Maybe they pull straws and that was their turn to do that but Oaks seemed like he enjoyed the role. The other was a Seventy and I don't recall his name.

I've met Ballard and Neilson during leadership training while serving in bishoprics and in both cases it seemed they were very focused on the priesthood being mired down in porn additions, activity numbers being lower than expected, and home teachers needing to get it together so they were hitting the numbers. I didn't find either session to be particularly uplifting spiritually. It felt like a large corporate meeting more than a meeting with a spiritual witness of Jesus Christ. At the time, it was just disappointing. Now, it's just obvious it was what I should have expected.

[_Gadianton]

There was one 2nd Quorumer on the short list I remember who was a braggart and gave big, loud, Southern Utah talks about hard work and how he can't stand missionaries who are weak and slack off and he had story after story about it. He didn't actually attack any of the missionaries present though, in fact, he praised the crap out of one of my friends, who was probably the only "righteous" missionary I ever respected so well-deserved. But I remember thinking what an utterly boring human being he was.

Anyway, what this thread has me thinking about is FAIR, the Interpreter and Sic'n wrong. For all the questioning of science they do, I don't recall seeing much in the way of the wonders they've learned from the Brethren -- name dropping doesn't count. I mean, comparatively speaking, Oaks in terms of producing religious truth should be equivalent to say, Roger Penrose. Eyring should be like Hawking. Maybe an apologist would say that I would dismiss anything these jokers say or reveal, which could be true, but what I'm more interested in is the utter lack of enlightenment the apologists have received from their alternative voices to science.

[_Philo Sofee]

There was one 2nd Quorumer on the short list I remember who was a braggart and gave big, loud, Southern Utah talks about hard work and how he can't stand missionaries who are weak and slack off and he had story after story about it. He didn't actually attack any of the missionaries present though, in fact, he praised the crap out of one of my friends, who was probably the only "righteous" missionary I ever respected so well-deserved. But I remember thinking what an utterly boring human being he was.

Anyway, what this thread has me thinking about is FAIR, the Interpreter and Sic'n wrong. For all the questioning of science they do, I don't recall seeing much in the way of the wonders they've learned from the Brethren -- name dropping doesn't count. I mean, comparatively speaking, Oaks in terms of producing religious truth should be equivalent to say, Roger Penrose. Eyring should be like Hawking. Maybe an apologist would say that I would dismiss anything these jokers say or reveal, which could be true, but what I'm more interested in is the utter lack of enlightenment the apologists have received from their alternative voices to science.

Fantastic point!

[_SuperDell]

Too bad he did not get the chance to shake hands with Ted Bundy. Could have saved the lives of a number of young women.

[_Stem]

I'm eager to run into a GA again and see if I can toy with their discernment by focusing my mind.