The Seven Deadly Sins Of Sacrament Meetings Talks

[Winnie G]

This came in my morning e-mail, I thought it was worth posting.

THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF SACRAMENT MEETINGS TALKS

By Christian A. Johnson

Every Sunday, millions of Latter-day Saints attend sacrament meetings to receive the sacrament and be spiritually nourished by the sacrament meeting talks. Assuming that each of the 26,670 LDS congregations listened to 40 minutes of sacrament talks, speakers present more than 17,780 hours of messages each Sunday. Chances are that some of those speakers commit at least one of the “seven deadly sins of sacrament talks.” Thankfully, however, these sins can be easily avoided upon becoming aware of the pitfalls.

Although these sins are often committed in sacrament meeting talks, they are rarely, if ever, committed by general authorities at conference time. General authorities appreciate the importance of preparation and their role in the meeting. By following their examples, speakers will discover that their talks are more spiritual, informative and appropriate.

1. The Sin of Unpreparedness. Many speakers seriously underestimate the time required to prepare a spiritual and thoughtful sacrament talk. Basic preparation includes sufficient time for prayer, scripture study, and careful drafting. Given the opportunity to address a large audience, the speaker has a special responsibility to prepare himself responsibly and thoroughly. Such preparation time will vary, of course, based upon the experience of the speaker. Waiting until the last minute, however, almost always guarantees substandard presentations.

As a newly married couple, my wife and I spoke on reverence in our ward in Houston Texas. Several weeks later I was horrified to read a review of my talk by a journalist in a popular local magazine who had attended the meeting. Although I was not mentioned expressly by name, the talk that the author referred to as “pedestrian” was clearly mine. After thinking about my preparation, I realized that it had been inadequate and substandard. In contrast, President Monson in his conference address “Duty Calls” provides an extraordinarily glimpse as to how truly great church talks are prepared (Thomas S. Monson, “Duty Calls,” Ensign, Nov. 2001, 49).

2. The Sin of Time Encroachment. As a law professor, I quickly learned that students stop listening once class time is technically over. At the appointed ending time, students put down their pens and their eyes glaze over. Even if I were giving the answer to a future exam, the students will not pay attention if class time is over. Often they can even become somewhat hostile at being held over, almost as if their civil rights are being violated.

Next time a speaker exceeds the appointed ending time in sacrament meeting, observe your fellow listeners. Scriptures will be being put away, eyes will be watching the clocks, and families will be cleaning up Cheerios. No matter how important a speaker believes his or her message to be, continuing to talk is like whistling in the wind.

3. The Sin of Out-and-Out Time Theft. A principal reason why speakers often commit the sin of time encroachment is because the preceding speaker committed a brazen theft of time. Speakers appear to exceed their allotted time for a variety of reasons. Poor preparation is often a culprit. A lack of respect for priesthood direction and inspiration can be another. Regardless, such practices hurt the quality and spirit of sacrament meeting.

J. Golden Kimball had the following reaction to B.H. Roberts taking more than his fair share of time in a meeting:

Once at a meeting [b.H. Roberts] spoke nearly an hour and left his colleague, J. Golden Kimball, only five minutes. J. Golden arose and said in his high falsetto: “BH Roberts is the senior president of the Seventy and has taken all the time. Someday he will be dead and I will be president. Then I will take all the time.” He then sat down (Truman Madsen, Defender of the Faith: The B.H. Roberts Story, page 350).

Bishoprics typically provide speakers with guidelines as to how much time they are to take. This time allocation is based on the bishopric’s determination of the importance of the topic and the time required for other speakers. Taking more time than suggested upsets that balance. Remaining speakers are short-changed. They are left with the decision to either cut material or exceed the meeting time.

Speakers often exceed their time limit because of poor preparation. A dry run at home easily helps a speaker determine how long his or her talk would take. Failing to practice places the speaker in danger of speaking too long, especially if the speaker does not do much public speaking. A carefully rehearsed and prepared talk will not only ensure that this second sin is not violated, but will also result in a more spiritual and powerful message to the congregation.

4. The Sin of Repeating Urban Legends. To add impact to their talks, speakers often draw upon what are frequently referred to as “urban legends.” Urban legends are stories that have been told and retold as true, but often can’t be confirmed or authenticated. Afraid of using their own experiences and events, speakers often repeat these to illustrate a particular point or principle.

One of the most popular Mormon urban legends (and one that I admit still touches me) involves a sibling willing to donate blood to another, even though the child believes that it will trigger his own death. There are several practical problems with using such stories.

First, it is unclear whether many of these stories even occurred. If they did actually occur, it is unclear if the facts are correct. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of the Church’s most prominent orators, warned that many such stories often get better with age. From Father To Son: Joseph F. McConkie on Gospel Teaching, interview with Devan Jensen http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/050503father.html.

Second, I believe that the spirit of the Holy Ghost cannot testify to the heart of a listener if the story related is not true, regardless of the principle or the speaker’s sincerity.

Third, reliance on such stories robs the audience of stories from the speaker’s own life. In contrast to these urban myths, I have been touched and inspired as individuals have recounted their own struggles, spiritual experiences and events that have incurred in their own life. Such personal accounts provide an immediacy and impact that repeating the urban legends from the lives of other cannot provide.

5. The Sin of Drawing Upon Inappropriate Material. Members often want to share insights that they have gained from popular culture and attempt to relate them to gospel principles. Regardless of a speaker’s sincerity, equating the “Force” from Star Wars with the influence of the Holy Ghost is probably not appropriate. For whatever reason, Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond seem to resonate with many speakers, prompting them to share insights they have learned from these shows in sacrament meeting. Such use of popular cultural icons, however, typically will only detract from the spirit of the meeting.

6. The Sin of Giving “Too Much Information.” Closely related to the use of inappropriate material are situations in which the speaker provides, as expressed in the vernacular, “too much information.” Material should be tailored and presented appropriately for the audience and the situation. Typically stories or facts intended to shock or amaze the audience are not appropriate unless they have been edited carefully. For example, a young father once heroically tried to recount his wife’s labor in the hospital in his sacrament talk. I had a hard time explaining to my four-year-old why the speaker was talking about a “bucket of blood.” I didn’t even realize that she was listening so intently as she sat coloring.

7. The Sin of Casting Blame on Others for Your Speaking Assignment. Speakers cannot seem to resist the urge to blame or chastise the bishopric member that asked them to speak. Typically the speaker will highlight that they were asked to speak with only a few days notice. Although such chastisement may be deserved, the pulpit is not the appropriate moment.

Upon being asked to speak at the last minute, it is unclear why speakers are so intent on publicly embarrassing their leaders. The intent is clearly not malicious, but instead seems to be aimed at providing an excuse against “inadequate preparation” should the talk not go well. Because they were asked to speak so late, the argument would be that they didn’t have adequate time to prepare, which is why their talk may not be as good as should have been.

Providing such an excuse harms the credibility of the speaker. Some speakers may take you at your word that because you had inadequate time to prepare, your talk will be inadequate. Although the talk may actually be terrific, the speaker may have already lost some of his or her audience.

Members are blessed with multiple opportunities in their lifetime to speak in Sacrament meeting to hundreds of people. With such opportunity, however, comes a sacred responsibility to prepare spiritual, thoughtful and appropriate messages. By keeping these seven commandments in mind, a speaker can help ensure that he delivers just such a message.

[Sugarbay]

The one thing that bothers me is that some speakers say how they wish they hadn't been called to talk, or that although they had been asked to speak on a certain subject, they felt the need to change it. I also cannot stand when the speaker comes off as an unworthy- to- speak- of -such -things type of person. Just give your darn talk!

[Aristotle]

Lest we forget, there is a distinction between gospel teachings (scripture) and member teachings (stories/testimonies).

[Fiannan]

Now I must disagree on one point. I fel that if you are taking something in popular cultures and making a valid point that is okay. I have heard Church leaders make references to what was popular music in their day -- like in the 30s or 40s. I have never heard these songs (unless in a Tom and Jerry cartton or old WW2 movie) but maybe it helps make the point. I gave a sacrament talk against materialism during the holiday seasons and made reference to Jonny Depp's new movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and I feel it drove the point that parents are responsible for creating materialistic children.

[Outshined]

4. The Sin of Repeating Urban Legends. To add impact to their talks, speakers often draw upon what are frequently referred to as “urban legends.” Urban legends are stories that have been told and retold as true, but often can’t be confirmed or authenticated. Afraid of using their own experiences and events, speakers often repeat these to illustrate a particular point or principle.

One of the most popular Mormon urban legends (and one that I admit still touches me) involves a sibling willing to donate blood to another, even though the child believes that it will trigger his own death. There are several practical problems with using such stories.

First, it is unclear whether many of these stories even occurred. If they did actually occur, it is unclear if the facts are correct. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of the Church’s most prominent orators, warned that many such stories often get better with age. From Father To Son: Joseph F. McConkie on Gospel Teaching, interview with Devan Jensen http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/050503father.html.

Second, I believe that the spirit of the Holy Ghost cannot testify to the heart of a listener if the story related is not true, regardless of the principle or the speaker’s sincerity.

Third, reliance on such stories robs the audience of stories from the speaker’s own life. In contrast to these urban myths, I have been touched and inspired as individuals have recounted their own struggles, spiritual experiences and events that have incurred in their own life. Such personal accounts provide an immediacy and impact that repeating the urban legends from the lives of other cannot provide.

This one was clearly illustrated recently right here with the Emma Smith legend. B)

[Palerider]

I can tell what you what is really scary about sacrament talks ......thats when a person is teaching something and tries to make it sound like its the "Gospel" instead of saying...."In my opinion".....

[Outshined]

I can tell what you what is really scary about sacrament talks ......thats when a person is teaching something and tries to make it sound like its the "Gospel" instead of saying...."In my opinion".....

Good example; a few years back we had an older gentleman here was assigned a talk and took the opportunity to make it a personal tangent. He started going off about how the end is near and the "new world order" government will make you wear a microchip under your skin. He said people will be rounded up, tortured, and decapitated in public...that's about when the Stake President stopped him, so the guy got angry and left. Kids were crying, and lot of moms looked really ticked off.

He came back a couple of months later, but he hasn't spoken in sacrament since. B)

[Aristotle]

I remember a case where an employee of the I.R.S. was using his job position to threaten members to pay their income tax.

I also recall someone comparing Martin Luther King, Jr. to Joseph Smith.

Another case was a CPS caseworker warning members of the Church to report "suspicions" of child abuse.

President Benson stated (paraphrasing), '[some] use the pulpit as a pipeline for political/socialistic propoganda".

"The Church," says President McKay, "is little, if at all, injured by persecutions and calumnies from ignorant, misinformed, or malicious enemies." (The Instructor, Feb. 1956, p. 33) It is from within the Church that the greatest hindrance comes. And so, it seems, it has been. Now the question arises, will we stick with the kingdom and can we avoid being deceived? Certainly this is an important question, for the Lord has said that in the last days the devil will "rage in the hearts of the children of men" (2 Nephi 28:20) and if it were possible, '[he] shall deceive the very elect." (Joseph Smith 1:22)

[Fiannan]

Good example; a few years back we had an older gentleman here was assigned a talk and took the opportunity to make it a personal tangent. He started going off about how the end is near and the "new world order" government will make you wear a microchip under your skin. He said people will be rounded up, tortured, and decapitated in public...that's about when the Stake President stopped him, so the guy got angry and left. Kids were crying, and lot of moms looked really ticked off.

Oh come on, there's no reason to believe the Democrats are going to take over the government any time soon.

[Prend1]

Wow! My ward commites all of those every Sunday. No wonder I hate going to church!!

[Outshined]

Wow! My ward commites all of those every Sunday. No wonder I hate going to church!!

[Aristotle]

Good example; a few years back we had an older gentleman here was assigned a talk and took the opportunity to make it a personal tangent. He started going off about how the end is near and the "new world order" government...

Oh come on, there's no reason to believe the Democrats are going to take over the government any time soon.

President George Bush Sr. had a lot to say about the New World Order. ;-)

[Outshined]

So did Clinton...

Everyone loves a ridiculous conspiracy theory. B)

[Aristotle]

Once exposed, it is no longer a theory. ;-)

[Outshined]

Actually proof is required to remove such foolishnes from the theory category. As such it is still a ridiculous conspiracy theory, right up there with black helicopters and the Illuminati.

[Aristotle]

THE NEW WORLD ORDER -- Fact, not Theory:

"I think what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a reinvigorated United Nations. Or will the United Nations, it's peacekeeping function having been elevated to its most promising height since 1948, be sent back to the Dark Ages because we failed to fulfill it's mandate?" - U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 7, 1991

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge. We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." -- Televised Address, Sept. 11, 1990

"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." -- Televised Address, Jan. 16, 1991

"[The Gulf Crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective. That is the only way the new world order will be enhanced." - Press Conference, Jan. 9, 1991

President George Bush Sr.'s repeatedly stated goal in the Middle East war is a "new world order". He defines it as "a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." The UN's "founders" included a U.S. delegation containing 16 secret communists (led by Alger Hiss) and 43 members of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. With delegates from the USSR and other nations, these individuals laid the groundwork for an all-powerful UN supposedly designed to enforce world peace. But if the UN is all-powerful, it can also enforce tyranny.

[Guest Syble]

Anyway with any vision one can see there is a planned movement towards a NWO. My uncle told me about it when I was 15 years old. That more than a quarter of a century ago. I have watched it coming.

[Jason]

THE NEW WORLD ORDER -- Fact, not Theory:

"I think what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a reinvigorated United Nations. Or will the United Nations, it's peacekeeping function having been elevated to its most promising height since 1948, be sent back to the Dark Ages because we failed to fulfill it's mandate?" - U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 7, 1991

What did the author of this piece mean by "new world order"? Does s/he imply some one world government like Orwell's "1984"? Or perhaps a new world where peace is a reality and the old, corrupt world is done away?

Betcha can't tell me.

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge. We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." -- Televised Address, Sept. 11, 1990

"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." -- Televised Address, Jan. 16, 1991

Televised address is your source? Who said it? Was it the 700 club? This is not a good source quote.

"[The Gulf Crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective. That is the only way the new world order will be enhanced." - Press Conference, Jan. 9, 1991

What press conference? Where? By whom? This means nothing...

President George Bush Sr.'s repeatedly stated goal in the Middle East war is a "new world order". He defines it as "a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." The UN's "founders" included a U.S. delegation containing 16 secret communists (led by Alger Hiss) and 43 members of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. With delegates from the USSR and other nations, these individuals laid the groundwork for an all-powerful UN supposedly designed to enforce world peace. But if the UN is all-powerful, it can also enforce tyranny.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Isn't that what your religion teaches? Just how tyrannical has the UN been in the last 60 years?

And you wonder why we call you conspiracy theorists "psycho's".

[Guest Syble]

Anyone wanting to know what Bush said on any subject just has to google it.

[Aristotle]

THE NEW WORLD ORDER -- Fact, not Theory:

President George Bush Sr.'s repeatedly stated goal in the Middle East war is a "new world order".

The quotes are by Pres. George Bush Sr., as stated.

[Jason]

Ari,

Im still waiting for your sources....

[Guest Monica]

Didnt Bush visit the temple and look at geneology records as well?

[Outshined]

What did the author of this piece mean by "new world order"? Does s/he imply some one world government like Orwell's "1984"? Or perhaps a new world where peace is a reality and the old, corrupt world is done away?

Betcha can't tell me.

It's a catchphrase among the black helicopter crowd...

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

What did the author of this piece mean by "new world order"? Does s/he imply some one world government like Orwell's "1984"? Or perhaps a new world where peace is a reality and the old, corrupt world is done away?

Betcha can't tell me.

It's a catchphrase among the black helicopter crowd...

No doubt.

My suspicion here is that "Ari" simply doesn't have any better sources than what she's written above. Those sources would get an "F" grade on any college campus in America. Why she think's that "TV program" is an acceptable reference, I'll never know.

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

What did the author of this piece mean by "new world order"? Does s/he imply some one world government like Orwell's "1984"? Or perhaps a new world where peace is a reality and the old, corrupt world is done away?

Betcha can't tell me.

It's a catchphrase among the black helicopter crowd...

No doubt.

My suspicion here is that "Ari" simply doesn't have any better sources than what she's written above. Those sources would get an "F" grade on any college campus in America. Why she think's that "TV program" is an acceptable reference, I'll never know.

Jason where are your sources for doubting her source? Anyone listening to Bush over the last many years could back her source up.

Don't you ever listen to Bush?