Why are these talks on the list?
I have my theories (and I’ll put them down on paper next week). For now, I’m interested in what you think. Why are these talks on the list? What cheap seat beliefs do they bump up against? What principles do they contradict? Or is it just that “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard?”
Thanks to all those that responded to my informal poll. Note: I suspect I still need to add a few nominations to the list, so if your “favorite” talk isn’t included, please let me know (and I’ll add it).
Added: 9/6/2011, The Language of Prayer, DHO, 1993
Running list of additional talks (to be added in the future): The Arts and the Spirit of the Lord by Boyd K. Packer (link, truly one of the worst talks EVER); The Equal Rights Amendment, by Boyd K. Packer (link, truly a steaming pile of horsepucky, we almost need a different list for this one).
I think the common thread through all of these talks is that they don’t focus on Christ’s message: love one another. These talks focus on the letter of the law, on minutiae, on judgment, punishment, sin, guilt, stamping out dissent and nonconformity, preserving the status quo, keeping up appearances, the pursuit of some of bizarre conception of perfection, etc. It’s hard to imagine Jesus endorsing the messages contained in any of these talks.
I think you’re right. In addition, I think a number of these talks, particularly the older talks that address race issues, are hard to read because the speaker claims to be speaking for God, and that forces the modern reader into a box–is God racist, or were these folks mistaken when they claimed to be speaking for him (and if it’s the latter, then why couldn’t these folks separate personal opinion from divine communication, and if they couldn’t do it, then is it reasonable to assume current leaders are able to do it)?
Repeat Offenders:
BKP =7
DHO=6
ETB=4
SWK=4
DAB=2
It’s interesting to sort the list by author, then year. . . Talks by the same individual, even years apart, tend to be related thematically, etc.
All wonderful talks given from humble servants of the lord.
Listen, all–I speak for God himself (and by the way, in my spare time, I’m also a very humble guy).
I’d also nominate Jeffrey R. Holland’s “Safety for the Soul” GC talk from October 2009, his “passionate” defense of the Book of Mormon.
We’ve got that one on the list–it picked up quite a few informal votes (I didn’t have it on my radar screen, but evidently quite a few other cheap seaters did).
http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/lord-i-believe?lang=eng In defense of Holland I’d like to offer this talk for the “good” talks list. When I first watched it I didn’t see the good in it, but as many people who feel as I do about things pointed out that Holland is showing a degree of humility and open mindedness that is absent from most of the other General Authorities. On that note I’d like to add another talk to the worst list. I noticed the absence of the initials RGS and I’d like to see that corrected. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng That’ll get you started. There may be other talks of his that deserve to make this list.
Andrea–you nailed it! Christ didn’t preach this; he went after those who did.
Brent–not sure I can think of any to add, but brother, wait until next month! Only 4 weeks before new potential candidates show up! Can’t wait!
Brent, how about a best talk list to counter this one? A list of talks that reflect Christ’s teachings.
I agree, Martine.
I would love to see a list of talks the Bloggernacle feels are the best conference talks ever given.
Martine, Brent’s in Portland right now, so I’ll speak for him–I know that one’s coming, next week, maybe.
I’ve been poking around on FB trying to get nominations for the “good” talk list. Strangely, there hasn’t been the same level of interest (laughing). But I’m working on it.
I’m sure most of these talks have problems, but Martine’s comment highlights the problem with having the list at all: you condition people to look for ‘bad’ talks. Instead of opening to the spirit and discerning what’s useful and what’s not, you’re all about finding fault and checking out more ways to be offended. I doubt that’s Christ’s way either…
Most of them do have problems. I don’t see the problem with looking for the bad. I think this just fits in with the argument that the men (and women) speaking are merely that, and they are prone to error. I think this list shows that people should take conference less seriously because in a few years the church will have changed its viewpoint yet again. I wouldn’t even say that making a list of bad talks is an indication of being offended. I think that this is just about people thinking for themselves and standing up against things they don’t think are right.
I liked this: “I wouldn’t even say that making a list of bad talks is an indication of being offended. I think that this is just about people thinking for themselves and standing up against things they don’t think are right.”
I totally agree. It’s not that people are “offended”–it’s just that they have their own thoughts and opinions, and sometimes it’s important to stand on principle. . .
Some listed are far worse than others. One recurring theme (in several of these) contrasts outright contempt and vilification of science and scientific discovery, with the idea that revelation from God is inerrant and pure and indisputable, without acknowledging the obvious: when is it actually from God, and when is it authoritarian, speculative opinion?
…or acknowledging science is capable of revealing truth too.
What is even more astounding, at least for me, is when folks in the church point to the evolution of scientific knowledge and say “see, science is constantly being revised, so it is therefore untrustworthy.” I won’t even get into the point that scientific knowledge is structured to evolve–that’s the point (it was never intended to be fixed). If we just stick to comparing degress or levels of change (setting aside what the change actually means, or the conclusions that can be drawn from it)–even if we just look at change–I’m not sure our theology hasn’t changed more than the body of scientify knowledge over the same time period. . .
What gets me is when members cite scientific studies to support the health benefits of the Word of Wisdom, for example, but discount scientific studies supporting evolution, for example.
The language of prayer…by oaks I thonk
Yes, you’re right. This may have to go on the list. This talk becomes even sillier, I’m sure, when translated into Spanish (and other foreign languages). . .
Yes, Oaks Language of Prayer talk makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in latin languages.
It doesn’t actually make any sense in English either, we just aren’t accustomed to thinking about our language in that way.
In English, thee, thou, and thine are the FAMILIAR/SINGULAR tense. You and ye are the PLURAL/FORMAL tense.
The everyday usage of English went to the plural formal for everything. Oaks tries to make the case that we use that language in prayer out of formal reverence. Italians (and other latinates) pray using the informal Tu form, the form you use when speaking to a close friend. (Ironically this coincides with thee and thou, but not for the reasons Oaks thinks).
This talk has been gnawing at me for years…
I would add DAB’s address inviting us to become “pickled” mormons. Worse analogy–ever, but very revealing.
It seems Brent’s purpose in making the list (outside the entertainment value) is to “discern” what is “useful and what’s not” and not to go blindly forward, believing everything out of the mouth of Prophets and Seers is inspired of God.
It also seems to me that Jesus was quite progressive in pointing out what was “useful” and “what was not” when it came to following God’s will. One of Jesus major complaints was with the leaders of religion in his day and their having teachings that were not of God. It seems Brent’s list can be quite “useful” in helping believers realize that not all talks by Prophets and Seers are inspired of God and are “useful” in our daily life.
Oh my. Wow. My initial vote was for ETB’s “Mother’s in Zion” talk, because I remember being in high school and getting so angry when I heard it. Then, I went peeking on some of the other ones and within 30 seconds saw such craziness I can’t believe it. “We should not intermarry with the negro”, “One of the greatest peculiarities of American marriage, as compared to almost all other societies, is the relative dominance of the American wife.”, “The arm of flesh may not approve, not understand, why God has not bestowed the Priesthood on women or the seed of Cain, but God’s ways are not man’s ways. God does not have to justify all his ways for the puny mind of man. … (Snip to…) The world largely ignores the first and great commandment–to love God–but talks a lot about loving their brother. They worship at the altar of man. Would Nephi have slain Laban if he put the love of neighbor above the love of God? Would Abraham have taken Isaac up for a sacrifice if he put the second commandment first? (as justification for unequal rights).
Thanks for putting this together – it’s a really important compilation. THIS is why I do not hesitate to speak up and say we are wrong about Prop 8, Women and the Priesthood, the human error that exists in the church. And, now you’ve laid it all out in one neat and tidy list for us.
It will be nice to read the list next week and see some balance. It’s super hard not to pick favorites among the church leaders, isn’t it?
Did you like the part where it is hypothesized that all the social ills of the day (delinquency, crime, etc.) can be attributed to the pernicious idea of egalitarianism in the home (yep, that’s right–the idea that mothers and fathers were equals was dissolving our social fabric like it were acid).
Yes, fun stuff! It seems crazy to me that some would allow a statement like that to over-ride our inner wisdom on those kinds of lifestyle choices. I couldn’t live like that.
As a returned missionary from Norway, the 1962 Dyer talk (given to the Norwegian Mission) is absolutely atrocious. His statements about the Korean POWs, about “Hindus,” “Chinese,” and “Negroes” are inexcusable, especially in light of the time period they were made. The part that tipped me off that this talk was going to be especially bad was two sentences in. “I want to talk to you a little bit now about something that is not missionary work, and what I say is not to be given to our investigators by any matter of means.” Yeah…
The truth will set you free. . . (oh, wait, well, some truth will set you free, other truth we need to hide under the bed).
Wow. What a great idea. I look forward to perusing these.
Heather, it looks like, next week, Brent will give his own take on why these talks made the list but I would totally expect him to cover the positives after that. I’d expect Maxwell and Uchtdorf to place at the top. Whirthlin too. His delivery was bland, but the messages were full of love. I will guess that the positive, uplifting talks will far outweigh those that made Brent’s list but those are so offensive they are seared into our psyche.
I guess he’s keeping us on pins and needles . . .
What does it say about me that I cannot even click on an of these links? I just do not want to even look at any of these talks.
I also hope the list of positive/uplifting talks will be long, but do worry (as was suggested by MarkS) that we have more fun with and are more interested in the bad ones.
Heather – It may seem overly negative to focus on these talks, but they have deeply affected many of us in the church, and have been imbedded – subtly, and not-so-subtly into Mormon theology and culture. It’s not so much fun or interesting to look at them as it is an “a-ha” moment of discovering WHY the culture we grew up in has these underlying tones of intolerance and ignorance in them. We don’t hear these talks so much today, but they definitely still affect those in the church and our approach to living.
I am more than happy to give these talks a pass and label them ‘talks of days past’ given by humans colored by the context of their generation, but many current LDS members would not and do not do that. I think it’s really important to place them out in the light of our current paradigm. By doing that, we show several things, including illustrate that the human/God relationship DOES indeed change as our culture changes, that obeying what the leaders have told us to or not questioning it – it can often put us on the unenlightened side of history. Understanding this gave me the courage to own my intuition about disagreeing with the church’s stance on Prop 8, and I suspect that a lot of members who voted yes will grow to change their minds.
Blogging publicly gives our concerns voice and allows others who may be normally silent about their concerns to feel some support. It offers a direction for the leaders of the church to go, should they be listening to their members. Good stuff, Brent!
Great comment, Laurie.
Amen, Brent. Very well put, Laurie!
For me the 1962 Dyer address is unreadable– the words appear very squished together or sometimes are even on top of each other.
To answer Brent’s questions, the comments before about the talks are correct, and I’d also add the air of paternalism that drips from some of these talks. I used to be angry that women in the church are treated as children; later, I realized that actually almost everyone is, except for a few choice males.
The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure.”
– Apostle Richard G. Scott “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” General Conference, Ensign, May 1992
April 4,1992 – Apostle Richard G. Scott tells general conference that LDS women should avoid “morbid probing into details of past acts, long buried and mercifully forgotten,” and that “the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse.”
Among his concluding remarks: “Remember, false accusation is also a sin,” and ‘bury the past.” Unspoken background to his remarks is that in recent years current stake presidents and temple workers have been accused of child abuse by their now adult children. Salt Lake Tribune reports that suicide prevention lines are swamped with telephone calls by women in days after Scott’s remarks.
“Of course, a mature person who willingly consents to sexual relations must share responsibility for the act, even though the other participant was the aggressor. Persons who consciously invite sexual advances also have a share of responsibility for the behavior that follows. But persons who are truly forced into sexual relations are victims and are not guilty of any sexual sin.”
– First Presidency Letter to General Authorities, Regional Representatives, and other priesthood leadership, 7 Feb. 1985
“[BYU Police Officer Arnie] Lemmon said most Provo residents are religious and have a tendency to stigmatize discussion of sexual assault and sometimes to demonize the survivor.”
“[The Mormon rape victim] said something that blew me away. She said, ‘I should have died before I let him do that to me,’ ” Lemmon said. “I was troubled that she had to believe that.”
“Lemmon read from a letter written by a BYU rape victim who shared a similar belief. “I’m a perversion to the good saints of my church,” wrote the victim, who said she wished she were dead. Tragic thoughts like these are common among rape victims in Provo, Lemmon said.”
– Deseret Morning News, Friday, October 17, 2003, “90% of Provo rapes are not reported to police.”
I know a lot of these by name alone, and even have a copy of “For What Purpose” that I carry in my church notebook – the copy my dad was issued when he went on his mission to Louisiana in 1977. On the other hand, I read “Alternate Voices,” and was surprised that it wasn’t nearly as damning as I expected.
It wasn’t until recent years I noticed what a stick in the mud BKP is. Looking at these talks, I see he’s been that way for decades.
I’m confining my comment to “Mothers Who Know”, Julie B. Beck. Ok, I can find a few redeeming qualities here. But for one, JBB draws a pretty hard, rigid mold for LDS women to fit into. I can’t love that. I chafe. For another, while she allows that women can be leaders, she confines female leadership entirely to the home, to the leadership of her children. Problem. For yet another, the Pres. basically defines “nurturing” as “keeping a tidy, orderly home.” Dishwashing, laundry, cooking, etc. I take exception. I could find a dozen orderly homes where nurturing does not happen, and the most nurturing home that I knew growing up (a friend’s home) was constantly, chronically messy. It was fantastic.
But I mostly wanted to comment on this talk because of a blog I found recently that adapts the title of the talk as the title of the blog: Being a Mother Who Knows. Google it. Wow. Just wanted to share…
I would recommend Elder Octaviano Tenorio’s “The Power of Godliness Is Manifested in the Temples of God,” from October 2007. This is one of those talks where no malicious doctrines or policies were advocated. I truly believe he had good intentions, but his story about his first child’s death (within the first 24 hours of life) just really struck me as so cold and he was so distant, at that time. I mean, he waited 2 weeks to go be with his wife (who was 1000 miles away) after this death. The theme should have warmed my heart, but his own story that he shared made it seem like he was saying, “Because we know we are going to be together as a family in eternity, we can be distant and unconcerned as Hell while we are here on earth. The world does not have this privilege, nor can they possibly know the joy this brings.” I would not put Elder Tenorio’s talk in the Top 20 All Time Worst, but I would put it in the Top 40. He could have used some good coaching before uncorking that talk live in General Conference.
Wow. Not surprised though. I had a friend who told me he and his siblings were annoyed as children when a vacation was postponed due to their grandmother’s death. In his words, “We knew we were going to see her again so what was the big deal?”
Reading MEP’s talk on race makes me wonder how anyone could consider that inspired. Meh.
Brent,
I’m late to the discussion, but thanks for compiling these talks (and the good ones that you’re planning to do to). I appreciate the information.
I remember when listening to Mothers Who Know getting really upset, even though I was and still am a SAHM. But during the 10 years it took to finally get pregnant, I really struggled with talks like this. However, when I read it in the Ensign a few months later it didn’t seem as bad. I still don’t like it though.
There was a talk that I distinctly remember hearing in conference (although there is a small chance that it was a ward/stake conference) where the speaker told of a husband who came to him with back tithing so that he could get a recommend to see his daughter’s wedding. The speaker turned the father away and smugly told the audience something to the effect of “you can’t buy your way into the temple”. Can anyone help me with this???
I disagree. These were some of the record-setting-straightness that I needed in my youth to combat the talks full of fluff and positive mental attitude that are so prevalent from the [merely local, lay members at the] pulpit. Isn’t the prophet’s job description to establish doctrine? I miss the McConkies and the Bensons of old…whatever happened to them? It’s like the Lord got his mouth castrated in the 90’s.
I don’t mean to be a fly in the ointment, but why is Bednar’s talk “And Nothing Shall Offend Them” on the list? I am sincerely asking. Is it because it infers that being offended is silly or petty? Or that it is a primary reason people don’t attend? Or is it the commitment pattern at the end where he sets people on mini-missions to go take the talk to people? I don’t find the talk all that offensive, just a bit annoying. It wouldn’t be in my top 20 worst talks. There are a few from women’s conference that would go there first. And it comes no where near DHO’s talk saying that women who dress a certain way present themselves as porn for young men. Am I missing something?
@Rachel, good question. I’m not sure it belongs in the top 20, but it was nominated a few times. The general concensus seems to be that it deserves to be on the list because its both annoying and demonstrates an impressive level of cluelessness. It plays into the simplistic Sunday-school narratives and black-and-white explanations we keep recycling about why people leave the church. . . I agree with you that it’s not in the same league as DHO’s “young women are porn” talk. That statement really is unbelievable, when you consider what most porn is (Playboy is chaste by comparison to a lot of it).
Is it just me or is “To the Mothers in Zion” impossible to find on the official LDS website? I just spent the last 20 minutes looking for it and nothing. Is this more selective editing?
It’s no wonder half of Utah females are taking Prozac given the talk in 1973 about “strengthening the patriarchal order” by BAB. It is sad to think a generation of women, and men too, had to be subjected to this misogynist talk. I’m afraid the phrasing has improved somewhat but the message remains the same today for LDS women.
Nomination: Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse by Richard G. Scott, April conference, 1992
For the most part you all sound like something is amiss in your emotional and spiritual lives. It feels to me like you hope gathering here to criticize General Conference talks will help you feel better. It wont.
There are people all around you who need your help. Go help someone. Do something nice for someone in need. It will provide the tonic that you are trying to get here. Believe me, I speak from personal experience.
Russell M. Nelson’s talk about “Divine Love” needs to be included. He states, “While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.” Perhaps we should also eliminate half the verses on God’s love from the Bible and Book of Mormon as well.
I don’t care who you vote for as long as you vote
I am puzzled by the inclusion of Oaks talk on personal lines and priesthood lines. I think anyone who does criticise fails to consider the context of Elder Oaks life. Personal and group apostasy does still very much exist. If you think there isn’t a need for that look at Jeff Warren. The GA consistently deal with individual members who are heading down a Warren esque path.
I’m sorry, but if you are someone who doesn’t like these talks, you definitely fit into the “the truth is hard to bear because it strikes them at the center” category. These are amazing talks delivered to “those who have ears to hear”.
Talon, so the Civil Rights movement really was a Communist Plot? (see the Benson talk). And you’re saying I’m taking that truth to be hard because. . . uh, why exactly? Something about how it strikes me at the center? And since you have ears to hear, I’m assuming that you think this talk was “amazing?” And the Mark E. Petersen bigotry? That’s also “amazing?” And I could keep going. . . I assume that you just didn’t read the talks. . . (either that or you’re a racist, which would mean you’ve ignored efforts by church leadership over the last 30 years to undo the damage done by some of these talks)