For all the times I complain about

[JohnnyLingo]

I didn't use the term rote. But basically, that's the idea that I got from the announcement.

So you didn't use the word "rote," but that is what you intended.

Got it.

Moving on, English is a pretty versatile language. It can be used to say the same thing in thousands of different ways. People can testify of the Savior, Book of Mormon, etc. without using the exact same word combinations each time.

And somehow I doubt the FP wants members to use the same word combination each time.

[Levin]

So you didn't use the word "rote," but that is what you intended.

Got it.

Moving on, English is a pretty versatile language. It can be used to say the same thing in thousands of different ways. People can testify of the Savior, Book of Mormon, etc. without using the exact same word combinations each time.

And somehow I doubt the FP wants members to use the same word combination each time.

You're being obtuse. Of course there isn't prescribed syntax. But just because I can say: "The Book of Mormon is true" ten different ways doesn't mean that the phrase becomes meaningful just b/c it can be said ten different ways.

The point is clear and obvious: self-expression of one's deepest spiritual convictions is supposed to be restrained to a few, simple points. Embellishment, color, and personality are discouraged. I find such a service uninspiring.

Perhaps such simplicity and consistency would be refreshing every once in a while, and maybe that's why Nikuman enjoyed it. But every F&T meeting? No thanks. And it's the change and variety that makes anything interesting.

I think the inclination to prescribe how members should express their spiritual convictions shows a real lack of trust in the membership, and is akin to keeping everyone on a short leash. Are they just worried about the 5% who abuse the time given to them once a month, and who go on and on? Why have F&T at all then? Shut. It. Down.

[JohnnyLingo]

You're being obtuse. Of course there isn't prescribed syntax. But just because I can say: "The Book of Mormon is true" ten different ways doesn't mean that the phrase becomes meaningful just b/c it can be said ten different ways.

Then how does it become meaningful?

The point is clear and obvious: self-expression of one's deepest spiritual convictions is supposed to be restrained to a few, simple points. Embellishment, color, and personality are discouraged. I find such a service uninspiring.

Your prerogative.

I think the inclination to prescribe how members should express their spiritual convictions shows a real lack of trust in the membership, and is akin to keeping everyone on a short leash. Are they just worried about the 5% who abuse the time given to them once a month, and who go on and on? Why have F&T at all then? Shut. It. Down.

It's because I don't care about Sister Jones' vacation to Erda or all the crappy stuff Brother Anderson is going through right now. I also don't care about how cute your grandkids are or what you will do this Christmas.

Stories are fine if they relate to your testimony, but 90%* of the time, stories shared from the pulpit at F&T meeting do not.

*Statistic is based on personal experience and probably not accurate for the whole Church

[Levin]

Testimonies become meaningful when they are personalized, and they are connected to the speaker as a person instead of as a voice.

I think details about a person's life are important, and I enjoy hearing them, and they most certainly do relate to the person's spiritual convictions.

The much maligned travelogue has become an empty and meaningless vessel. The number of times it actually occurs does not warrant its constant parading around as an example why we need to curtail how members express their spiritual convictions.

[JohnnyLingo]

Stories are fine if they relate to your testimony.

Okay, so we agree. Good discussion.

[LA Ute]

Testimonies become meaningful when they are personalized, and they are connected to the speaker as a person instead of as a voice.

I think details about a person's life are important, and I enjoy hearing them, and they most certainly do relate to the person's spiritual convictions.

The much maligned travelogue has become an empty and meaningless vessel. The number of times it actually occurs does not warrant its constant parading around as an example why we need to curtail how members express their spiritual convictions.

My only reservation about what you have been saying on this thread is that some people just are not very articulate, for various reasons (spanning everything from education to stage fright to the problem of speaking in a second language). I don't think you are saying those testimonies are rote.

It occurs to me that the most powerful, spiritual testimony I have ever heard was in the most simple Spanish possible, with a thick American accent, saying all the things you describe as rote. Circumstances matter when it comes to public bearing of testimonies.

[Levin]

It occurs to me that the most powerful, spiritual testimony I have ever heard was in the most simple Spanish possible, with a thick American accent, saying all the things you describe as rote. Circumstances matter when it comes to public bearing of testimonies.

I very much agree.

And a parade of second-language speakers bearing their testimonies with such consistent phrasings would be a very powerful F&T indeed.

First-language speakers feeling reservations in the back of their mind whether they should just stick to the simple staples, or should actually share the personal experience that has made the gospel principle relevant -- well, there should be no hesitation: but there is.

[Portland Ute]

I very much agree.

And a parade of second-language speakers bearing their testimonies with such consistent phrasings would be a very powerful F&T indeed.

First-language speakers feeling reservations in the back of their mind whether they should just stick to the simple staples, or should actually share the personal experience that has made the gospel principle relevant -- well, there should be no hesitation: but there is.

I personally enjoy the testimonies most which focus on one or two aspects of the gosped and a brief summary or experience as to why that person feels so strongly at this time about that particular aspect.

[LA Ute]

I very much agree.

And a parade of second-language speakers bearing their testimonies with such consistent phrasings would be a very powerful F&T indeed.

First-language speakers feeling reservations in the back of their mind whether they should just stick to the simple staples, or should actually share the personal experience that has made the gospel principle relevant -- well, there should be no hesitation: but there is.

I love hearing personal experiences. Some will be too long and some will be maudlin, etc., but we Mormons are all just a bunch of imperfect people trying to do better. And our lives are made up of stories, after all.

[Portland Ute]

I also favor a wider interpretation of a "testimony" meeting.

I don't think it should be solely based on a person sharing ther own testimony in very short, on point delivery.

I think that a "testimony" meeting is effective if examples, stories, etc., are shared and as such, people in the congregation receive a strengthening of their testimonies.

I even think a travelogue or a short, unprepared thank-you-mony *CAN* strengthen others.

[Portland Ute]

I love hearing personal experiences. Some will be too long and some will be maudlin, etc., but we Mormons are all just a bunch of imperfect people trying to do better. And our lives are made up of stories, after all.

Our lives are narratives within narratives, right?

[LA Ute]

Our lives are narratives within narratives, right?

I think so, but this is getting too theoretical for my finite mental capacity.

[Hallelujah]

Like foyero, we had FT two weeks ago. Sac was pretty good. Teacher development was fun (we learned how to make circuits with a battery, wire, and a small light bulb...fun!). EQ was an abomination. Poorly planned lesson. We literally went around the room reading from the manual, with breaks to ask "does anyone have any comments on that?" That was old school bad lesson. Hadn't seen such an egregious example since my days in a BYU singles ward.

Is that unusual to read from the manual? We do that 90% of the time. When I tell my wife that, she has this puzzled look on her face, because apparently they don't do that in RS.

[dabrockster]

I got to teach Gospel Principals this Sunday. And the lesson was (Drum Role please..)...

"The Law of Chastity"..


Yes. It was brutal and nothing better then having covnersations about sex in a religous discussion.. Overall it went really well and I used; Sexual Intercourse, Petting, Dry Humping, Necking, and many other phrases to keep everyone on their toes..

We had one investigator who was the most vocal when he talked about sex etc. So he did really well..

We also had one guy sitting there with his wife's In-Laws. The look on his face was priceless as well..


My wife did this on purpose. She ensured I would get this lesson to teach. She just wanted to watch me squirm so I flipped it on her. It was most pleasurable (Oh yeah. I mentioned this as well in our class discussion)..

[DU Ute]

She just wanted to watch me squirm so I flipped it on her. It was most pleasurable.