2015 April Conference Thread

[Copelius]

From my perspective, the choir has certainly gotten better over the last 25 years or so. I remember listening to recordings when I was growing up, and I could hear huge mistakes.

I suppose the real question is, where do you stand on Mack Wilberg? This could make or break you in the eyes of some on this board.

It may not be popular but I really like Mack. I sang with both him and Staheli in the BYU, and enjoyed my time with both. Ryan is also great to work with and I'm enjoying his arrangements.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

It may not be popular but I really like Mack. I sang with both him and Staheli in the BYU, and enjoyed my time with both. Ryan is also great to work with and I'm enjoying his arrangements.

You just made a mortal enemy with All-American.

[Copelius]

You just made a mortal enemy with All-American.

Them's the breaks. I wouldn't have joined if I didn't have a great respect for Mack and a desire to work with him. I'd be curious to know why the enmity.

[wuapinmon]

My name is spelled Mac.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Them's the breaks. I wouldn't have joined if I didn't have a great respect for Mack and a desire to work with him. I'd be curious to know why the enmity.

So would we. I have never understood it.

[All-American]

You just made a mortal enemy with All-American.

Hardly. Mac Wilberg has deceived many good souls. I have nothing but charity in my heart for those whom he has seduced, along with hope they may one day see the light and return.

[kccougar]

I think you grossly misrepresent Eyrings views.

He disagreed with JFS about the age of the Earth.
He didn't agree with a organized formed Earth.
He believed I n pre-Adamic man.
He agreed with biological evolution.

So yeah, a human Adam with no prior earth death probably seems silly.

If you believe in a earth billions of years old, evolution, and humanoids turning into modern day man thousands of years ago than yeah you are a "happy muddler" right along with Eyring. Just because he cordially disagreed and stayed active doesn't mean he didn't worship at the alter of science.

He never insisted that what he thought or believed was absolute - with regard to science or religion. He believed all those things you listed and yet I can't imagine that he would have ever called the notion of an initial Adam and Eve as Clackamas describes it to be a silly idea, since he wouldn't have the facts to say one way or the other.

[All-American]

2015 April Conference Thread

Them's the breaks. I wouldn't have joined if I didn't have a great respect for Mack and a desire to work with him. I'd be curious to know why the enmity.

Interlude built on four/five note phrase. First verse, unison. Repeat interlude. Second verse, women. Third verse, men. Awkward key change thrown in somewhere for good measure. Fourth verse, harmony-- sometimes, if you're lucky, a few bars of a'cappella-- with hefty underlying modulation. Repeat interlude. Repeat single refrain. One last interlude, and end with a gratuitous "Amen."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is every single Mack Wilburg arrangement ever written.

The choir is capable of so much more than this formulaic tripe. He's been given access to one of the most impressive musical instruments in the world, and he makes them sing milquetoast renditions any choir cobbled together from the flotsam and jetsam of slc-area YSAs can pull off. You might as well be playing chopsticks on the tabernacle organ.

And worse yet, he uses Motab to give these arrangements an authoritative imprimatur. No doubt, he studiously avoids giving the choir anything interesting to do lest he scare away ward choir directors shopping at Deseret book to find a nice number for next Sunday's program-- good saints, with good intentions and the ward budget at their disposal. Setting himself up as a light for gain and praise of others-- there's a word for that, as I recall.

He must be stopped.

[Harry Tic]

Interlude built on four/five note phrase. First verse, unison. Repeat interlude. Second verse, women. Third verse, men. Awkward key change thrown in somewhere for good measure. Fourth verse, harmony-- sometimes, if you're lucky, a few bars of a'cappella-- with hefty underlying modulation. Repeat interlude. Repeat single refrain. One last interlude, and end with a gratuitous "Amen."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is every single Mack Wilburg arrangement ever written.

The choir is capable of so much more than this formulaic tripe. He's been given access to one of the most impressive musical instruments in the world, and he makes them sing milquetoast renditions any choir cobbled together from the flotsam and jetsam of slc-area YSAs can pull off. You might as well be playing chopsticks on the tabernacle organ.

And worse yet, he uses Motab to give these arrangements an authoritative imprimatur. No doubt, he studiously avoids giving the choir anything interesting to do lest he scare away ward choir directors shopping at Deseret book to find a nice number for next Sunday's program-- good saints, with good intentions and the ward budget at their disposal. Setting himself up as a light for gain and praise of others-- there's a word for that, as I recall.

He must be stopped.

It begins with "questioning" the artistic decisions of the choir director (who I sustain!), and then it turns into criticizing the brethren, and finally apostasy. I've seen this a thousand times if I've seen it once.

[fusnik]

He never insisted that what he thought or believed was absolute - with regard to science or religion. He believed all those things you listed and yet I can't imagine that he would have ever called the notion of an initial Adam and Eve as Clackamas describes it to be a silly idea, since he wouldn't have the facts to say one way or the other.

Lol, keep telling yourself that.

We have facts that show that humanoid beginnings didn't start 6k years ago in Missouri.

Eyring repeatedly showed he valued scientific facts from research and peer review over what church leaders said had happened. I think the word he used to describe the idea of Adam and a 12k year old earth as untenable. And that was in response to a prophet writing his account of the natural world.

I think you've created a false idol and this happy muddler stuff is just nonsense.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

He's been given access to one of the most impressive musical instruments in the world

An electric bassoon?

[kccougar]

Lol, keep telling yourself that.

We have facts that show that humanoid beginnings didn't start 6k years ago in Missouri.

Eyring repeatedly showed he valued scientific facts from research and peer review over what church leaders said had happened. I think the word he used to describe the idea of Adam and a 12k year old earth as untenable. And that was in response to a prophet writing his account of the natural world.

I think you've created a false idol and this happy muddler stuff is just nonsense.

Happy Muddler was his own term used to describe his approach to science. He was a humble guy. Do you think I'm using him to defend some sort of non-scientific view of creation or something? If that's the case, you misunderstand. He just knew that you can't ever prove anything in science or religion so he wouldn't have been one to call someone silly.

Actually, you do not ever prove anything that makes a difference in science or religion. You set up some basic postulates from your experience or your experiments and then from that you start making deductions, but everything that matters is based upon things you accept as true.

When a man says he will believe in religion if you prove it, it is like asking you to prove there are electrons. Proof depends on your premises. In Euclidian geometry, you learn that three angles of a triangle total 180 degrees and that two parallel lines never meet; the whole argument proceeds very logically. But there are other kinds of geometry. In elliptical geometry, parallel lines do meet. If you go up to the North Pole and draw two parallels of longitude, they will hit the equatorial plane at right angles. That makes 180 degrees, plus he angle at the pole. And the lines are perfectly parallel at the equator, and the fellow that does not know they are curving will find that two parallel lines meet. It is perfectly good geometry. It is two dimensional on the surface, but it is curing in a third dimension. Analogously, we do not know whether or not this three dimensional space we live in is curvnig in a fourth dimension. You can build your logic perfectly, but whether your postulates apply to the world you live in is something you have to get out of either experiment or experience.

Every proof in science depends on the postulates one accepts. The same is true of religion. The certitude one has about the existence of God ultimately comes from personal experience, the experience of others, or logical deductions from the postulates one accepts. People sometimes get the idea that science and religion are different, but they are not different at all. There is nothing in science that does not hinge on some primitive constructs you take for granted. What is an electron? I can tell you some things about the electron we have learned from experiment, and if you accept these things, you will be able to make predictions. But ultimately you will always get back to postulates.

I am certain in my own mind of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I can only communicate that assurance to you if you accept my postulates.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't see the problem with Holland's talk. Are you guys really surprised that older church leaders have a more literal belief in the Fall? His statement even left room for the scientific explanation of how man evolved. His larger point wasn't new, because of the fall we need an atonement. I'm not sure what you guys were expecting.

No literal Adam and Eve, no need for an atonement. I think the doctrine is pretty clear on this point. Sounds like Holland is allowing as much accepted science around the edges as he can, while maintaining that Adam and Eve were the first humans ever to die. And I think he has a solid majority of both leaders and members behind him.

[Northwestcoug]

I wonder what his talks are like when he goes to other conferences during the year. My guess is that he uses the topics and stories most meaningful to him for General Conference, so he's more emotional than he usually is during the rest of the year.

My wife used to be involved with CES at the time Erying was Sunday School Superintendent or something like that. We saw him speak 2 times. Yes, he's always been emotional in his talks.

[TripletDaddy]

So was this comference a doozy? What were the big bombs dropped by the church?