Unreasonable expectations

[Archaea]

GC has historically throughout my tenure as a member been many things to me. When I first joined, it was a mystery because we had to go to the Stake building for a rebroadcast, everyone dressed in their Sunday best.

We got to hear talks delivered in bold terms by persons I didn't know, but who knew more about this unusual group I had joined. Members would often come together thereafter with tears in their eyes, exclaiming how soon the Second Coming was upon us. This would excite a new member thinking, "Wow, I must have got in just in the nick of time.

A little later, during mission time, these talks are sent as cassettes to a foreign land to be listened to, during study or lunch time. They were often the source of much excitement and discussion.

Upon returning, Conference formed a time, where newly branded RMs can show off their spirituality to sisters in Zion, a veritable dating smorgasbord. Talks were discussed, with blowhards showing off by quoting talks from ten years before one's birth.

Later during early marriage, it becomes a bit difficult to get juniors ready but the advent of cable broadcasts and internet, make actual attendance at Church unnecessary, and Church in jammies becomes the rage. Mom make food frequently and Dad snoozes so none of the children dare wake dad, who now begins to remember a re-cycling of topics from his early membership until the newest conference.

And finally as kids begin to prepare for marriage and/or missions, the younger set starts listening instead of sleeping, and parents begin to remember.

So conference is more a cultural act of indoctrinating our families into the tribe of Mormonism?

Mainstream Mormons are wont to remind listeners that conference speakers are prophets and oracles of the Divine. Although no person who considers himself or herself more than a cultural Mormon can deny that potential aspect, without meaning offense, I submit most of the time, the speakers are not acting in that capacity. Primarily these speakers are people.

And then they are high ordered administrators with authority to act accordingly. It appears they rarely speak as prophets or oracles, and only those in touch with spiritual matters can discern. Not saying I'm such a person. But that's why the talks are mostly recycled to keep the faithful feeling good and to chastise us regarding societal ills.

Not articulated very well, but thoughts?

[Levin]

Interesting post. As a teenager, I remember hearing the one or two talks each GC about following the Prophet and how he is the mouthpiece of the Lord. For some reason, as I listened to the Prophet speak, I felt that the message didn't really live up to the billing. If the Prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord, I thought, I wanted to hear something groundbreaking. Really, what would the Lord say right here, right now. To be nice? To try a little harder? To enjoy the ride? That just didn't seem to be that groundbreaking. I wanted to hear something about Africa, about curing AIDS, about the Balkans, about welfare reform, about the protection of wolves, and mostly, I wanted the eternities explained and opened up to me. That was when I was a teenager.

I realize now how consistently striking the laser focus of GC is: it is the inner life of the person. The thoughts and actions of the individual member is the subject each and every Conference. You get some good, insightful theology here and there, but primarily it resembles a Joel Osteen seminar. I was disappointed with this fact as a teenager. Now, I realize, GC remains true to the Sermon on the Mount, even though I'd prefer some Pauline Espistles.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mainstream Mormons are wont to remind listeners that conference speakers are prophets and oracles of the Divine. Although no person who considers himself or herself more than a cultural Mormon can deny that potential aspect, without meaning offense, I submit most of the time, the speakers are not acting in that capacity. Primarily these speakers are people.

A couple of questions:

What would someone acting in that capacity look like to you?
How do you presently discern between when they are being oracles and when they are being just "people"?
Do you view the two as being mutually exclusive?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

A couple of questions:

What would someone acting in that capacity look like to you?
How do you presently discern between when they are being oracles and when they are being just "people"?
Do you view the two as being mutually exclusive?

Tex, this is a classic example you use in posting. You take a long text, identify a few phrases and then zoom in on something.

However, if you're looking for a litmus test, in trying to develop conjunctive faith, I find it impractical to rely upon a litmus test.