Episode 159: October 2011 General Conference Saturday Sessions

50 comments on “Episode 159: October 2011 General Conference Saturday Sessions”

  1. Megan Reply

      I was so amused last night talking to my mum who has, at every single conference prior to this one, made a comment about how ‘I think the brethren KNOW something,’ with a deeply significant tone of voice and heavy hinting about The End of Times. I couldn’t resist then mentioning how nice I thought it was that Packer had contradicted that eschatological mind-set and my mum immediately chimed in that, ‘oh, no one ever really knows and the brethren have always had to fight that kind of rumour.’ She’s a delightful woman but now and then I do feel she should come with a whiplash warning for the quick about-faces!  

  2. Richard of Norway Reply

    Just want to point out that the Book of Mormon Musical turning into a movie is nothing but a rumor. It has not been confirmed and was even denied by Matt and Trey on their 60-minutes interview 2 weeks ago. So, even though I would LOVE for this to happen, it probably will not in the near future.

    Of course, if anybody has a reliable source for the information I would love to eat my hat. 🙂

    EDIT: Here’s a direct quote from EntertainmentWeekly’s article about the movie.
    Trey Parker: “Hopefully it will have a big run and a big tour and then we can do the movie in several years.”
    Matt Stone: “We want to do it some day.” (emphasis added)

    • Megan Reply

      Phooey. It’s not going to come to my backwater city before I move so the movie was my one shot. I think I’m gonna sic Joss Whedon on ’em about doing it like Dr Horrible’s Singalong Blog and releasing it on the internet!

        • Steven Stewart Reply

          My favorite “Team America” story was from the DVD where Trey and Matt were talking about how they went out and found all these talented professional marionette manipulators and hired them on for the film.  Then the shooting started and they were operating the puppets, and Trey and Matt were so bummed because it LOOKED so good, so real.  They were true artists at the craft, and were talented at moving the puppet like real people move. Trey and Matt had to convince them to make it look fake and silly.  Make them bop about like Thunderbirds, and all the manipulators were like “what?  We’ve spent our lives learning how to do this so expertly and now you want us to pretend to be amateurs.”

          “YEP!”

          • Fred W. Anson

            Oh that’s hilarious! And, yes, I know that I’ve drifted this thread badly but what the h*ll . . . here goes . . .

            My favorite lines from the movie:

            Joe: Your plan will fail! You’ll never keep the world leaders distracted here for 9 hours!
            Kim Jong Il: Oh no? I’ve got Arec Barrwin!
            Joe: Dear God!

            Alec Baldwin: [to Gary] You can’t out act me kid – don’t even try!

            Kim Jong Il: [to Lisa] When you see Arec Barrwin, you see the true ugriness of human nature.

            Spottswoode: Gary, if for some reason your cover is blown, and the terrorists take you prisoner, well, you’ll probably want to take your own life. Here, you’d better have this.
            [hands Gary a hammer]

            And the best of the best (drum roll puh-lease!)

            Spottswoode: Remember, there is no “I” in “Team America”.
            Intelligence: [pause] Yes, there is.

        • Fred W. Anson Reply

          @ Richard of Norway

          And the funny thing is that the movie almost got an NC-17 rating because of . . . well read it for yourself: 

          “Even before the scene’s submission to the Motion Picture Association of America, Parker planned to “have fun” pushing the limits by throwing in the graphic scene.[1] The duo knew the racy film would be met with some opposition, but were outraged when the film came back with their harshest rating, NC-17. In the original cut of the film, the puppets made love for about a minute and a half, but it was cut down to 50 seconds. The original scene also featured the two puppets urinating and defecating on one another.[10] The entire joke was based off of what children do humorously with dolls such as Ken and Barbie. At least nine edits of the puppet love scene were shown to the MPAA before the board accepted that it had been toned down enough to qualify for an R rating.[11] Parker contrasted the MPAA’s reluctance for the sex scene to their acceptance of the violence: “Meanwhile, we’re taking other puppets and, you know, blowing their heads off, they’re covered with blood and stuff, and the MPAA didn’t have a word to say about that.”[12]”( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America:_World_Police#Production ) 

          Somehow I don’t think that any of this will be a problem should they decide to do The Book of Mormon Musical with mannequins. 

  3. Hermes Reply

    Great points about Neil Andersen’s talk, which I too found to be wholly duplicitous.  “Be financially responsible, and make your own decisions about when to have kids and how many, but if you have real faith, you will start cranking them out tomorrow (and continue on in spite of everything).”

    If you examine birth statistics, more people are born in areas where more people die.  The more of us there are, the less each one of us is worth (practically speaking), and the more useful it is to diversify (rolling the genetic dice as many times as possible), since your fifth kid may prove adaptive where the first four aren’t.  (He might be physically stronger, mentally sharper, environmentally luckier.) Instead of developing the kids they have (teaching them, training them, working with them), poor folk in the Third World just have ten and hope enough of them are competent enough to keep the family alive (at subsistence level).  But many people don’t really want to live this way.  Women don’t want to have 10-14 babies and watch half of them die (of disease, overwork, poor living conditions).  Men don’t want to have 10-14 kids and shove them all into minimum wage employment as soon as possible (while the family lives in a shoebox with no privacy).  And, you know what, there is nothing particularly great or noble about living this way.  (Individuals can make this life noble, but they do that by being noble themselves, not by choosing to hoe a tough row.)

    I could force my wife to have more kids.  She is completely run off her feet with two, as it is, and her health suffered a lot from two pregnancies back to back.  But I could invoke the power of the priesthood and make sure that she spends the next six years (at least) tired, fat, and pregnant (or breast-feeding, which is taxing in a lot of the same ways).  I could go into debt, work even later hours, and ignore my two sons even more in the interest of creating and providing (poorly) for an additional five siblings (or so).  But what would I gain from that?  What would my sons gain, aside from an absentee father, a sick mother, and a place in a faceless crowd of siblings (who would fill their rooms, take their toys, wear out their clothes, eat their college funds, etc.)?  Why is it selfish for me to let my wife take time to go to the gym (not so that she can become the next Mrs. America, but so that she has a chance at making it to middle age and beyond with her health intact)?  Why is it selfish for me to look after the kids I have well (which means not having five more, at least not until my salary more than doubles)?

    Elder Andersen already avoided all these questions with his chiasmus, of course.  But just about everything he said between those bookends was (infuriating) nonsense.  

  4. Hermes Reply

    Christofferson’s talk was also ridiculous.  Moral relativism does not mean that you can do anything, or that you want to do everything that anyone might call bad.  Good thing, too, since we are all necessarily moral relativists, including God: . 

    While we are talking about this talk, let me say that I hate it when Mormons make Nehor the poster child for apostasy, as though there were something inherently fascist in being a religious skeptic.  (No one ever picks up that the first Moroni is at least as bad as Nehor.  They are both fascists, but faithful Moroni gets away with killing more wicked people.) 

  5. Jack Rodwell Reply

    its very awkward when a speaker with a very heavy spanish or asian accent speaks.  you get the feeling most of the older white saints are like what is going on here . this isnt the church i used to know especially after leaving that tea party rally where they swore to kick out all the mexicans 

    also , if the church is growing around the world at such an amazing rate, why was the primary choir all white kids save for one filipino girl ?

    • Amy (sinclaire on PostMo) Reply

      i really liked the suggestion/comment that its a shame that members that use English as a second language arent encouraged to speak in their native tongues. i’m sure we all remember missionaries speaking in SM in their mission languages and the congregation loved it. i loved it. the missionaries loved it. it would be a wonderful change to Conference and would definitely signify a ‘world’ religion.

    • Anonymous Reply

      We did gush a bit, didn’t we!  

      However, I am always a fan of at least some sort of artificial/superficial “balance” and listening to the p.m. review, I felt like we did a pretty good job.  Get your people under control, Heather!  LOL!  

      • Matt Reply

        You may be mistaking this podcast with another mormon themed podcast if you’re concerned with balance – whether that balance is real, contrived, or otherwise.  Given what I’ve read about conference this week, we are what balances. 

      • Randy Snyder Reply

        Balance?  Keep them under control?  WTF?  

        I find it more entertaining to take the opposite approach and engage in reasonable but highly critical analysis.  These guys are hero worshipped and treated like rock stars and they deliver such lame ass crap.  I have to endure posts on FB from TBM friends extolling the “A-MAZING messages in conference” but have to hold my tongue because they cannot stomach even the mildest of criticism of their beloved spiritual heroes.  I think ME is more for hearing the other perspective, not some contrived, diplomatic analysis.

        • Anonymous Reply

          Sorry guys.  I forgot if it doesn’t agree with you and appeal to your senses, then it’s wrong.  Let me get back to mormon.org and Fox News so I can find more people who follow a similar mantra.  

          • Randy Snyder

            Can you even hear yourself Michael?  Do you think this is a news organization with an obligation to report unbiased news?  

            And who’s the one calling for censorship and control of true opinions while at the same time bruising your hand patting yourself on the back for how much better you did than the afternoon group?  Now you want to take your ball and go home because I called you out?  Lol

          • Anonymous

            Sorry it won’t let me reply below so here’s my reply. No, I will not take my ball and go home. Let me explain to you Randy. We DID do better than the p.m. session. If you think calling someone a dick is some form of sophisticated, intelligent criticism, that’s fine. I was actually just kidding around. I just thought it was funny that you guys got your panties in a wad and now apparently I’m calling for censorship. Pull yourself together. It’s just one opinion. It’s just one podcast. I have my opinion. You have yours. I do want to congratulate you on your bravery for “calling me out” on an online message board. That takes balls man.
            Sent from my iPod

          • Richard of Norway

            I got that you were joking. I thought it was pretty funny actually. But I do hope you don’t really expect “balance” in these conference reviews or any podcast here on ME. That has never been the plan. Though I agree with your statement that “at least some sort of artificial/superficial balance” would be nice. To me, it only means that people are allowed to speak their mind and not fear censorship or being rolled over or misrepresented. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the panelists will represent both sides equally. Because that will depend entirely on the people who happen to be on the panel at any given time.

          • Anonymous

            I appreciate that, Richard. I apologize for getting the conversation off track. I was just surprised that one comment could lead to so many assumptions about what I think is okay or not okay. I am definitely not in favor of censorship. I AM in favor of at least trying to look at things from more than one perspective, even if that does the unthinkable of actually admitting something positive or good about the church, and YES, even if that leads to criticism.

          • Randy Snyder

            Michael, first of all, you remind me of Sarah Palin and the character played by Ben Stiller in Dodgeball.  Let me explain by laying out the sequence of events in this thread:

            First of all, you made a statement that both applauded your group’s effort and at the same time called out the afternoon group.  Besides the bad form, you tried to explain that you were just kidding but then proceeded to explain further in a later post how much you were not kidding and that you really felt it was too negative and panelists should comport themselves better.  That reminds me of the Ben Stiller recurring line in Dodgeball after insulting someone he would say, “Hey I’m just kidding…but not really…”

            Now my Sarah Palin comparison.  Several months back, Sarah Palin spoke out about something that drew a ton of criticism.  She shot back by saying, “You negative people out there that don’t like my opinion are just trying to trample on my first amendment right of free speech.”  No Sarah, “free speech” does not mean that you are free from criticism of any idea that spews out of your mouth because guess what?  Your critics HAVE FREE SPEECH TOO.  This is what you don’t seem to understand.  My first response to you was not over the top but explained why I think it’s more entertaining without contrived balance.  You Sarah Palined me and Matt by saying we were somehow not allowing you to have your opinion.  Instead of that lame retort, maybe it would have been better to back up your side of the argument and your opinion which OBVIOUSLY you are entitled to.  But I’m entitled to give a counter point and you pouting that we are acting like Fox or mormon.org by trying to silence your opinion is lame.

            But to top it off, you tried to take the high road but you just couldn’t hack it and implied Matt and I have an immature sense of humor and that I “got my panties in a wad” and “needed to get a hold of myself”.  There’s a word for this kind of behavior and I used it as a panelist on the Sunday morning session to describe another one of the Lord’s anointed.  Surprised you didn’t mention that as objectionable.  And yes, I thought it was funny to call him that.

          • Amy (sinclaire on PostMo)

            i think the “derailing” just illustrates how passionately we (exmormons) feel about the notion that since we have left the church that we must give a positive opinion or observation for every criticism, otherwise we are being “unfair”. there is nothing fair about being a member of the LDS church and while i tried to keep ‘balance’ in mind when i taped the Womens Conf podcast-its very hard to find positives when the things i heard brought back memories and feelings of wanting to slit my wrists. and thats not sarcasm. Today i am allowed to be critical of the church, its doctrines and leaders without having to endure all night “PPI” interrogations and having Bishops interviews scheduled for me for months on end. If i felt overwhelmingly positively about the church i wouldnt have left. just a thought……

        • Anonymous Reply

          I understand, Amy.  Were you the one on the RS session who talked about how terrible you felt about yourself after going and listening to GC?  I just remember hearing you describe your struggles and totally relating.  

    • Fred W. Anson Reply

      Yeah, it was kind of like all the undeserved gushing that the world’s doing over another cult leader right now: Steve Jobs. 

      I don’t know how much more out of proportion, undeserved praise I can handle in one week!  

      😉 

      But I digress, and threaten to drift yet another thread to boot, so I’ll stop.

  6. Anonymous Reply

    The questions of when to have kids and how many are between you and your husband and the Lord. But let me give a you a hint as the Lord’s apostle: right now, and as many as possible.

  7. Richard of Norway Reply

    Nice job guys! I really liked Heather’s group. They were so much fun! I’d love to hang out and play poker with you guys.

    I did fell a bit sorry for Kate (?) when the guys were ragging on her for not watching Pulp Fiction. Not cool guys! Give people a freaking break. 😉

    However, Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite films ever. So I agree with the recommend.

      • Richard of Norway Reply

        Good for you! This is what I’m talking about: People shouldn’t be afraid to admit they haven’t seen a movie others deem to be essential viewing. Same goes for music tastes, etc. We need to be more tolerant of others.

      • Fred W. Anson Reply

        I was traumatized by “Pulp Fiction” on my first viewing.  It was like watching a train wreck! 

        Now I think that it’s one of the greatest, most profound and insightful films ever made despite it’s “in yer face” utterly shocking nature.

        That only took three viewings – with long gaps for the processing of thoughts, emotions, and feelings – between them. 

        So give the lady (and everyone else) a break on that one people!  That’s not an “easy” movie to watch for some. 

        And frankly I could have never seen it and still have lived a happy and fulfilled life. 

        Now “Reservoir Dogs” on the other hand . . . 

    • Matt Reply

      Yeah, I agree it came off rougher than it was intended.  She is only 23, so she should certainly get a pass.

      • Amy (sinclaire on PostMo) Reply

        my 13 yr old quotes Pulp Fiction lines. God i love my ex mo life!!!

  8. Anonymous Reply

    Anyone else think Randy and I sound like bitchy teenage girls, or is it just me?  

  9. Anonymous Reply

    So will it make everybody happy if I delete all my comments?  I didn’t think what I said was that offensive.  I liked all the different sessions.  But I guess it was bad form.  Let me know.  

    • Randy Snyder Reply

      I don’t think anything you said was that offensive.  Telling me I got my panties in a bunch and needing to get a hold of myself was the only thing I thought was insulting but engage in an argument without pulling the victim card and realize that intelligent people can disagree.  You think more balance would be better, I think honest and uninhibited criticism is more entertaining even if it comes in droves before somebody says something positive about the church.  Agree to disagree.

    • Matthew Crowley Reply

      Michael I don’t think you did anything wrong.  I thought it was a light hearted remark.  And I don’t think there is anything wrong with you stating your personal preference for balance.  I think all of us ExMos and borderlanders are just hypersensitive about anyone suggesting that we are being too negative.  I think you got read wrong and that is what happened.  I think you have a pretty large body of work that speaks to your sense of humor and approach but maybe not everyone is familiar with that.

      Let’s all lighten up a little and move on, IMO.

      • Anonymous Reply

        I could absolutely be accused of getting defensive when I feel like someone missed my point and yet still goes on the offensive.  🙂  But once the flames die down, I have respect for you guys.  

        Unfortunately, the way I delivered my opinion caused my whole thought process to be lost.  I am not really in disagreement that the thought of saying “you need to watch out what you say so no one gets offended” is generally a horrible approach.  Everyone has a position, and I don’t want anyone to have to filter it, because I want to know what his/her position is, flat out.  

        Now, for me personally, I will still try to not be constantly negative, because it sometimes can be unproductive, and feels like to me, the antithesis of the annoying Mormon who knows everything from the beginning to the end of existence.  I also do self-censor sometimes because in cyberspace, I sometimes can’t control who my audience is going to be, which can be problematic.  

        But don’t mistake me, a lot (most) of what happens at conference is….. fill in blank with snarky negative adjective.  That talk by Callister was one of the biggest loads of bull feces I have ever had the bad fortune to be exposed to.  So basically what I’m saying is, misunderstanding, everyone as you were, and I’m glad I can be a part of the community with all you apostate rascals.   

        • Matt Reply

          Look dude, I have no doubt that we agree on more things than we disagree on.  I really didn’t take offense to your original post, in fact I took it as a compliment that our group would get any reaction.  I really only have two things I disagreed with:

          1) You extolling the virtue of “artificial/superficial” balance.  I disagree that commentary or editorializing should be anything but genuine.  That’s a pretty minor point and one that reasonable people can disagree about.  

          2) Your claim that failure to articulate the other position somehow illustrates the inability to consider another position.  That’s not only condescending, it’s inaccurate.  Again, a pretty minor point that reasonable people can disagree about.

          That’s it, no complaint about your original post.  I think you and Randy both took things a little personally above, but whatever, passion is a good thing. 

          It’s Friday friends and I get to celebrate a wonderful Italian not discovering America on Monday, so cheers to all with whatever beverage you prefer.           

  10. Tyson Reply

    Thank you all. Having not listened to all of this session, I enjoyed being exposed to it through this podcast.
    On Callister’s talk, if I remember correctly, someone commented that probably most of the church doesn’t take such a hard line, something to that effect. It made me cringe as I spoke to my Mom after conference, having recently “come out” to her about my disbeliefs and she specifically pointed to Callisters talk as such a great message and it makes so much sense…  etc…
    My Mom is absolute TBM, but she also is representative of most LDS I grew up with and still know (this is outside of Utah) Sadly I think most TBMs do agree with Callister, think his “logic” is sound and it gives me an ulcer. A big part of the reason I didn’t catch the rest of the session was being so outraged at his talk.
    Still, had several laugh-out-loud moments from this podcast and the other conference reviews, especially the reference to BKP as “Emperor Palpatine” so thanks for that. 

  11. Ozpoof Reply

    The idea to use tithing funds to help the poor attend the temple began here I’m sure. I can remember it being discussed quite a while ago. The announcement by Monson is a call for more donations on top of tithing, but the fundamental idea began here at ME by a panelist – it may have been John.

    Are the string pullers in the COB trawling the exmo community for “revelations”?

  12. Anonymous Reply

    Something I’ve been meaning to clarify:

    I don’t have a problem with people using public assistance when needed.  Nor do I have a problem with people on public assistance having more children (unless they are having children to continue to live off the system). 

    My point was only to say that it’s irresponsible to have children when you cannot afford them SIMPLY because the church tells you to.  Venerating that irresponsibility annoys me.  That is all.  I was not implying that those who need public assistance are immoral.

    🙂

    • Matt Reply

      I don’t speak for Heather, but I’ll take it a step further and say that it is immoral for full time students with children to accept government assistance (the only exception is grants).  This is especially true when one of the parents doesn’t work.  If you can’t take care of your kids, you shouldn’t be in school.  Get a job, or have your wife/husband get a job. 

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *