Acceptance in church is the goal

[priesthoodpower]

If the Bishopric were inspired to ask a bretheren to talk is it the speakers fault for delivering an awkward talk, or the Bishoprics fault for giving the speaker the podium?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by priesthoodpower

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

First, I love that talk by Brad Wilcox!  

Just had to say that.  I hope that your impression about the high counselor was wrong, maybe he just forgot (that would be unusual, I admit...).  I have heard many leaders say they hope to speak by the spirit, but again as you pointed out that part about "the words of a man" is less common.  So probably you are right . . . and that makes me sad.  I'm just grateful he didn't say anything to your friend!  

I think the High Counselor was uncomfortable, but I think the issue was something with him, not with your friend.  My therapist reminds me of this now and then that how people respond to me more than likely has to do more with "their stuff" than what I said.  So perhaps the Counselor was uncomfortable because your friend was a better speaker.    Or as you pointed eluded to, maybe he didn't feel the talk was "good enough" in some way.  That too is his problem though.  I agree that he needs to be more loving and accepting.  Maybe that is part of the reason he is in that calling.  Growing up in the church, I thought that leaders were called because of their spirituality.  Getting older (and hopefully maturing) I realize that the Lord calls leaders for all sorts of reasons known only to Him.  Maybe he calls them because they have a skill or a talent He needs, or maybe He calls them because they need to learn something and this will make a great "school" for them.  

At the same time, I am aware that I have to be patient with this brother's progess in the gospel, just as I want him to be patient with your friend's progress in the gospel.  And round and round, my mind goes.   

But in essence, yes I agree with you that we all need to be more patient and supportive of one another. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Question #1: If the Bishopric were inspired to ask this bretheren to talk is it the speakers fault for delivering an awkward talk, or the Bishoprics fault for giving the speaker the podium?

Question #2: Who said that the talk was innappropriate and why am I even asking Question#1?

Whats sad is that the message of "not being good enough" or "your talk was not good enough" still lives in the hearts of some of our leaders and members. Am I correct in learning that the church is trying to change that mentality and teach more about unconditional love and acceptance. Here are some good videos addressing that, I found them in another thread.

1) If we can assume that the call to speak was indeed inspired, we don't know why that was.  It may have been the actual talk he gave inspired someone.  And it may have been that your friend actually was able to focus on the gospel principles better through the preparation.  Nothing was anyone's fault.  Try not to assign blame.  Everyone simply did the best they knew how with the light and knowledge available to them at the time -- including the Stake representative.

2) This is true.  Who did say that?  Is it possible that such an opening from the Stake speaker was what he usually opens his talk with?  I've heard many give such an opening.  That was not an indictment of the previous speaker(s) in most instances.  So, who knows?  And considering his words, he did exactly what he should have done.  He loved the sinner, but hated the sin.  Giving a talk in church that is wholly the philosophies of men is at least improper (I don't think I'd call it a sin personally).  The Stake rep commented on the subject matter, not the speaker.

I'm afraid your love for your friend is blinding you to the incorrectness of what he did.  Love your friend.  Recognize that what he did was improper.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Recognize that what he did was improper.

Sincere question. What did he do that was improper?  He used secular examples and tied them to gospel topics.  That's such common occurrence it's hardly worth mentioning.  I mean the Savior used secular things (sheep, oil, olive trees, wine presses) to teach gospel priniciples all the time.   

[Vort]

1) I don't see the advantage in assigning blame for a failure. If I "fail in my calling", is it my "fault" or the bishop's fault for calling me? Does it matter? At what point is it even reasonable to say I have "failed" in (e.g.) my teaching assignment? Certainly if I beat the kids up or teach them dirty limericks, but what if I am not sensitive enough to what a class member says? What if I didn't prepare my lesson as well as I might have? What if I show up late to class because I was "fellowshipping with the Saints"? I think the "who's to blame" strategy is misguided in this case and comes to no good end.

2) Based on your description, it doesn't sound like the high councilor said or even directly implied anything about your friend. That was your inference. He may indeed have had your friend's talk in mind, but what he said (according to your report) was absolutely true: It is indeed the Spirit that teaches us, and not the words or the philosophies of man. I see this very idea as a perfect illustration of what I was getting at in my "enemy grounds" post yesterday.

If your friend did not feel slapped down, there is no reason for you to take offense in his behalf. And if he did feel slapped down, taking offense for him is far less useful than simply supporting him, congratulating him on a good sermon, and telling him that the high counselor's words stood on their own and that he was not making any reference to your friend -- which, unless you have immediate proof to the contrary, is the much safer assumption.

[NightSG]

28 minutes ago, Vort said:

1) I don't see the advantage in assigning blame for a failure.

Well, since you can pretty much always tell who screwed up by just looking at who doesn't think it's important to assign blame, we now know this is your fault.

Quote

Certainly if I beat the kids up or teach them dirty limericks,

Excuse me...I need to go rewrite a lesson plan.

[Vort]

Just now, NightSG said:

Well, since you can pretty much always tell who screwed up by just looking at who doesn't think it's important to assign blame, we now know this is your fault.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Sincere question. What did he do that was improper?  He used secular examples and tied them to gospel topics.  That's such common occurrence it's hardly worth mentioning.  I mean the Savior used secular things (sheep, oil, olive trees, wine presses) to teach gospel priniciples all the time.   

First, we don't have the details of the talk.  So, we don't know.  But apparently it was "secular enough" that it caused some visible discomfort (according to PP).

Second, there is nothing wrong with applying a very appropriate daily life metaphor.  But PPs words were that the entire talk was specifically "secular".

[zil]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Sincere question. What did he do that was improper?  He used secular examples and tied them to gospel topics.  That's such common occurrence it's hardly worth mentioning.  I mean the Savior used secular things (sheep, oil, olive trees, wine presses) to teach gospel priniciples all the time.   

First, since we weren't there, we don't actually know.  It's important to keep that in mind.  The speaker may or may not have done something improper.

There's a difference between symbolism (sheep, oil, etc.) and the philosophies of men ("theories from ancient poets and artists"?).  When you start using the philosophies of men, you are at least near danger if not already in it.

I tend to agree that as members and brothers and sisters, we should be forgiving of any weakness that may have been in the talk and the person giving it (if there was any and I have no idea if there was), and that is equally true for the SP counselor's comments and talk.  But keep in mind that the Bishop and that member of the SP are responsible for ensuring that what is spoken and taught in church is true doctrine, so if they were tense because they feared he was on the edge of teaching falsehood, well, it's their duty to stop and/or correct that, if needed, so it's hard to find fault with them.

As for what the SP counselor said, perhaps he was actually inspired to say that, as much as the bishop was inspired to ask this man to speak.  Perhaps each said exactly what someone needed to hear (either separately or in conjunction).  (Wouldn't that be something if the Lord called this brother to speak, knowing full well that his words would be "on the edge" (perhaps, I don't know), and also inspired the SP counselor's words, again, knowing that the combination of the two would be just what that one person in the second-to-last row, right hand side, needed to hear?)

Edited December 6, 2016 by zil

[bytebear]

I remember years ago, a brother was asked to do a piano piece, as he was a concert pianist.  He opened by saying, "I was explicitly told to do something from the church hymns, and not a classical piece, but I am choosing to do something from Beethoven" (or some other classical piece) which he did.  Even though it was lovely, it was secular, and was actually pretty hair splitting for a Mormon service.  This experience kind of reminds me of this.  What is the next speaker supposed to say?   Should the bishop get up and reprimand him?  No, I find that church leaders give guidance, and then when the roller coaster veers off the track, they just go along for the ride.

[priesthoodpower]

.
 

Edited August 10, 2020 by priesthoodpower

[The Folk Prophet]

The church has always been about unconditional love. Acceptance, on the other hand, has to be more clearly defined before we could apply the idea to it. What does it mean to "accept"? There are, very clearly, certain things that are unacceptable at and in the church.

[NightSG]

23 hours ago, zil said:

There's a difference between symbolism (sheep, oil, etc.) and the philosophies of men ("theories from ancient poets and artists"?).  When you start using the philosophies of men, you are at least near danger if not already in it.

If it directly supports the Scriptural view, does it really matter whether a quote comes from Shakespeare, the US Constitution, Mother Teresa, Buddha or Brigham Young?  Generally, finding agreement from outside the echo chamber is considered a good thing in persuasive speaking.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

If it directly supports the Scriptural view, does it really matter whether a quote comes from Shakespeare, the US Constitution, Mother Teresa, Buddha or Brigham Young?  Generally, finding agreement from outside the echo chamber is considered a good thing in persuasive speaking.

As you already know, the answer is in the details.  I just figured everyone would know and apply the fine print automatically.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, NightSG said:

If it directly supports the Scriptural view, does it really matter whether a quote comes from Shakespeare, the US Constitution, Mother Teresa, Buddha or Brigham Young?  Generally, finding agreement from outside the echo chamber is considered a good thing in persuasive speaking.

If it directly supports the Scriptural view.  No problem.  But the reaction of those on the stand would imply that was not the case here.

I was in a sacrament meeting where the speaker had his topic handed to him by the bishopric as usual (the importance of scripture study).  But then he spent the entire 1/2 hour talking about the historicity of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  And all the while he connected the historical process to studying the scriptures.  But the overall feeling was not as a metaphor or symbolism of the importance or sacredness of scripture.  He was basically presenting a testimony of the truthfulness of the archaeologists labor, not the truth of the scriptures.

While things are unknown by parties who were not there, I'm more inclined to side with the Stake rep rather than the less active speaker in this case.

******

BTW, I was the second speaker that day (not counting the youth speaker).  He was supposed to give a 15 minute speech and I another 15 minutes.  Instead, I was given one minute to read the passage out of the Bible dictionary on scriptures and the one on prayer.  I was about to expound a bit, but the first counselor nudged my heel letting me know I had to end it.  So, I bore a 30 second testimony and ended it.

After it was over, many people came to me and told me how glad they were that I got to speak because they were not being edified by the other speaker.  But my 2 minute talk was enough that they felt the time was well spent.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Guest

[dahlia]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Where are you located? Are there a lot of LDS there and fewer converts? Maybe the stake counselor was one of these born Mormons who has a hard time recognizing that when you are a proselytizing church, you will get a lot of folks who are different from you. If you don't like it, don't go looking for them. 

2. We sometimes get black converts or investigators who get up and truly testify on Fast Sunday. I was raised Catholic, but being black, I know black Baptist preaching when I hear it. Many of these people bring that style of testifying, which is very different from what you're likely to hear from the 'regular' Mormons.  Once again, if you don't like it, don't let people you deem to be 'too different' speak to the congregation.

3. I'm the first to admit that when I give a talk, I don't bring in a lot of the Scriptures. I may cite from a Conference talk, and I'll cite Scripture if something pops up, but it's not where my mind goes first. I gave a talk in RS and used MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail.'  I don't know what the sisters thought, but it's where I went mentally when prepping for the lesson. btw - I almost always prep while listening to hymns, so I like to think that the Holy Spirit is sneaking in there somewhere. I know my talks frequently differ from others'. Tough. Don't ask me to talk if you don't want to hear what I have to say.