Over the years I have given probably 40-50 Sacrament meeting talks. Usually once a year, but then 3-4 times a year as counselor and Bishop. Getting into computers early, I have most of my talks saved back to 1990. I was looking over some of them recently, and thought I’d share a few words from some of them. You’ll be able to tell that I’ve been a nuanced, processive, unorthodox Mormon for a long time, way before I was called as Bishop. My main goal was to make sure nobody ever got bored during my talks.
From a mothers day talk in the 1990s, while I was 2nd counselor in the Bishopric
Several years ago, while addressing temple ordnance workers, The Los Angeles Temple President said that we often confuse two priesthood’s: the Melchizedek, whose charge it is to administer the Church and Kingdom of God, and the patriarchal, whose charge it is to administer the affairs of the family. He said the patriarchal priesthood is given only over the alters of the sealing rooms, and is given simultaneously and jointly to a sealed husband and wife.
It is only by expanding our vision to take in such an eternal perspective that we can begin to appreciate the loving concern of our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother in providing the means for the fullest of celestial glory, enjoyment and happiness for their children through a plan which values equally both the masculine and feminine in their children.
From 1998, while I was EQP a talk about Family Home Evening
To start, lets define Family. It’s not defined in the scriptures anywhere, and it’s not even defined in the Proclamation of the Family that we hear so much about these days. Now if you took your definition of a family from the pictures in the Ensign or Church Commercials on TV, a family would be a Father, Mother, and 3.2 kids sitting at their knee. But this does not fit the majority of families in the world, or even the church. Hopefully these are unintentional images that are portrayed. Over half the church membership will see these images and say ‘well, I don’t even have that type of family, so I can’t have FHE.
I’m going to define family for this talk so that it includes everybody in the congregation today. My definition is : A group of people, related or not, that provide mutual support and love for one another.
Now everybody here today is included in this definition of a family: Single fathers with kids, Single mothers with kids, Grandparents raising grandchildren, Step parents, adopted children, Brady Bunch unions with his, hers, and theirs, Mothers with kids and dad gone on deployment (military), husband and wives without kids, single adults, and roommates. My parents were in a FHE group comprised of older married couples and single adults whose kids have left the house.
From Jan 2000 while ward clerk
When we are so sure that we have all the answers, when we rely on our own ability to understand things, when we give in to the foolishness of despising instruction and hating knowledge, then we let our vanity come between us and the Lord, we wind up relying on the arm of the flesh, on our own intellectual abilities, and we move away from reliance on the Lord. The apostle Hugh B. Brown warned of this danger of prideful arrogance in a BYU devotional:
“We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which in some part the world lacks, but there is an incomparably greater part of truth which remains yet to discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based on a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers-that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not.” [BYU devotional, 13 May 1969]
From Oct 2000 while 2nd Counselor in YSA Bishopric
With our diversity, we are going to encounter a wide range of ideas and preferences. Some will dress different than others. Some will enjoy activities that other will find unworthy of their time. Despite these differences, we all have one thing in common. We are all children of our Father in Heaven.
As we look at the green manicured lawns that front our homes, we see that each blade of grass is the same color, the same uniform appearance. These lawns are man made. Now look at God’s lawn. When you see a mountain meadow, of wild flowers and grass, that is God’s lawn. There are flowers of various heights and colors, tall and short grass. All these plants and flowers grow side by side, in beautiful harmony. This is how God grows his lawn.
Our ward is like God’s lawn. Each of us is different. Each of us will dress different according to our own forms of individual expression. We are of different ages, ethnic makeup and educational backgrounds. Our tastes will vary for music, activities, and food. Like the wild flowers in the mountain meadow, we can enjoy each others differences each Sunday, and during weekly ward activities.
From 2004 while Bishop, a talk on Service
If we only provide service to other members of the church, we are preaching to the choir so to speak. Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan was about somebody providing service outside his circle of friends. In fact the parable was a dig at the ruling church authorities of that time that they were not carrying out their stewardship properly. If it were told in today’s culture, within our church, it would go something like this
A certain Brother Smith went down the hill from Thousand Oaks to Camarillo, and had a flat tire, and having not a spare, was stranded on the side of the road with no cell phone coverage.
31 And by chance there came down a certain Stake President that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side for he was late to a Stake leadership meeting.
32 And likewise an Elders Quorum President, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side, for he had to go move somebody.
33 But a certain Muslim, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his tire , and set him in his own car, and brought him to an service station, and fixed his tire.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the sharp nails?
Opportunities for service to others are limitless. Kind words and deeds can lift burdens and gladden hearts. One true key to happiness is to labor for the happiness of others.
From 2005 while Bishop, a talk about how principles and culture are NOT the gospel
3. Dress
Principle is to dress appropriately for church so that we show reverence to God.
But dress is a very personal item and how we chose to follow the principle in our own lives and in our families should not be of concern to others. I have noticed in my travels around the world that culture plays a big part in what is acceptable for church.
– While in Hawaii last year on business, I drove out to the Hawaiian temple after work to do a session. I left right from work (jeans and a pull-over shirt), but had a change of clothes in the car (nice slacks and a white shirt and tie). I took my change clothes to the front of the temple, but could not find a changing room, so I went in the front doors, and was greeted by a large Samoan brother. I ask if there was a place I could change. He looked at me from head to toe, and asked “What?” I again asked for a place to change. He said that everybody changes in the dressing room into there white clothes. I said I want to change my shirt and pants before I came into the temple. He then looked at me with some concern (like I was crazy) and asked if I even had a temple recommend. I told him I did, and then he told me I could just go in, there was no need to change. I related this to my father (who worked in the Hawaiian temple at the time), and he said that the temple president has instructed all temple workers, that due to the relaxed culture of Hawaii, that nobody is to be turned away from the temple, no matter how they come dressed.
In the last talk I gave was a couple of years ago, I quoted liberally from a General Conference talk from 1984. Yes, THAT talk by Elder Ron Poelman. Except I didn’t use the church’s edited version that they published in the Ensign and is still on the church’s web site. I found the original online, and used that. I even mentioned in my talk I’m “quoting from Elder Poelman’s 1984 Conference talk”. Nobody in the ward knew of the controversy, and loved the original words from his talk!
I quoted the below which were censored out of his published talk
Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices and personal preferences of individual Church members may,
through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal gospel principles. Under such circumstances those who do not conform to these cultural standards may mistakenly be regarded as unorthodox or even unworthy. In fact, the eternal principles of the gospel and the divinely inspired Church do accommodate a broad spectrum of individual uniqueness and cultural diversityThe conformity we require should be according to God’s standards. The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual. It is important therefore to know the difference between eternal gospel principles which are unchanging, universally applicable and cultural norms which may vary with time and circumstance
As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered
So there you have it, the life and times of Bishop Bill. I always got lots of complements after each talk, and asked for a copy of the talk. What talk do you remember from your years of sitting in Sacrament Meetings? What made them memorable, for good or bad?
Wheat & Tares 
Bishop Bill has raised some fantastic points here. Particularly about people equating their own ideas with the doctrine of salvation.
Far too many young people these days approach church as if they can decide what the doctrine and rules are. If they don’t want to follow the word of wisdom, they simply declare that it is no longer a requirement. If they want to copulate like crazed rabbits, they declare that the law of chastity is no longer in force. The same goes for any other commandment.
The church cannot function as an organization if every person decides what the rules of the organization are. Chaos will be the inevitable result.
I love personal stories and insights into the gospel. The worst wasted opportunity is when the bishopric gives a homecoming missionary a conference talk for their sacrament meeting subject. All my family and I want to hear are stories from their mission, what they learned about the gospel as well as about the people they served. A talk about a talk does not let the missionary and their growth/experiences shine.
Even as a conservative and conservative member, a lot of what you call progressive and unorthodox I simply call being Christ-like. I have no doubt I’d have enjoyed most all your talks, especially the humor.
Given the amount of personal info you often share, I’m a little curious as to how often members of your congregation have connected you to this blog, and if it’s led to some rather interesting conversations.
Mr. Charity: I agree with you in principle that we should not have members of the Church equating their own ideas with doctrine. But where we might disagree is that I believe this pertains to not just members, but to leaders. If we look back throughout the history of the Church, there are many many examples of the Church going down a particular doctrinal road because a given leader / president says so. Sometimes it’s just policy, like RMN’s aversion to the label “Mormon”. But other times it goes much deeper, like race (Brigham Young), gender (Oaks), etc.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I find it very ironic that we in the Church label other religions as “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture” because that’s exactly what our own leaders (NOT JUST THE MEMBERS) perpetuate. I was reminded of this over the last week as I’ve read the controversy as to whether we can have our own planets. The Church Newsroom says no, that’s a misunderstanding. Meanwhile, in a talk given by RMN in 2018 (I believe) we are told we can have all that God has including “worlds”. See what I mean?
First problem: Member talks. They are all over the map. The problem isn’t just some talks are better than others. The problem is that some talks are downright dangerous, mingling false doctrine with poor judgment and misguided counsel. Much of the time, listeners are better off not listening because many talks do more harm than good. And bishops very, very rarely do any correcting from the pulpit. General Conference talks are better, but there is still a fair amount of bad doctrine and bad advice. No particular reflection on Bishop Bill’s talks. Well … patriarchal priesthood? I know that you can dig up some early LDS references to it, but mostly it’s just handwaving. And let’s be honest, temple presidents are really good at just making shit up.
Second problem: Bishops. Because they think they are qualified to give counsel to people on a variety of topics. The Church teaches this. Members believe this. The Church accepts and uses expertise in some areas: law, accounting, investing, building construction. But not in counseling, mental illness, or mental health. As a result, LDS bishops are just walking time bombs as far as member interactions go. In cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse, I would NEVER advise either adults or juveniles to disclose to an LDS bishop. Talk to a credentialed counselor or therapist, and report crimes to law enforcement. In these areas, bishops are just black holes of non-accountability and re-victimization.
Not that bishops can’t sometimes give good advice on practical problems to this or that child or adult. But so can any responsible and experienced adult. The neighbor across the street or a colleague at work can probably give the same sort of good advice. On some topics, they give better advice.
“I’m a little curious as to how often members of your congregation have connected you to this blog, and if it’s led to some rather interesting conversations.”
I can’t speak for Bishop Bill, but in my experience, nobody in the wards I’ve belonged to reads anything in the bloggernacle, so there have been zero conversations with ward members about anything I’ve written. And this includes people who know about my podcast.
I agree with both JCS and Josh on this one. Too many have made their own opinions doctrine.
For well over a century, the church embraced the Mormon name. President Hinkley made it a major publicity push. And then all of the sudden under President Nelson, using the Mormon name is a victory for satan. It simply cannot be that “doctrine” can change that significantly in an instant after well over a century. The only conclusion can be that it is personal preference.
I Agree with rick. A vast majority of members are clueless to bloggernacle and its topics. Most would see this as anti-mormon and a dangerous website.
In regards to talks, since many members pay 1/2 attention during church talks, the same topics discussed here in tbe bloggernacle would be accepted in a sacrament meeting setting, if worded appropriatly and given the right tone of voice. And many of then bizzare talks from sacrament meetings from members or to bishops, and even some general conferences would be considered hiersy on the blogglernacle, because it is not a church approved source.
Love the wild meadow analogy as well as the LDS update on the parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s amazing what one truly inclusive and welcoming talk can do. I’ll bet these talks did a lot of good for a lot of people.
A talk like these would have been good today.
Instead we got some self righteous passive aggressive knows no better about to go on a mission teen who pretty much told everyone who wasn’t there in person that they were allowing their fears to be manipulated by Satan, and we absolutely had to be back in person to prepare for the second coming and and… I was there in person as it happened, but seething nonetheless…
All while infection rates nationally are around 50,000 a day. While even fully vaccinated people are testing positive – the Health Minister himself included – and are therefore capable of passing the virus on to vulnerable people. Yeah! Those not attending in person may well have some very good reasons for sticking with Zoom at the moment.
Rudi’s comment that too many people make their own personal opinions doctrine:
Yes! We have too many self-appointed Right Hands of God.
I like to make a dour joke that too many of think that there are actually four members of the Holy Trinity (or Godhead).
I love the meadow as God’s lawn analogy. I have shared that with a bunch of people today. Thank you!
Eli, I think part of the issue between “progressive” and “conservative” is that we use many of the same words and phrases, but we mean quite different things when we use them. Just one example. For me, loving my gay daughter means that she was married at our house, and that she and her wife are totally included in every part of our family without reservation. For my more traditional sister-in-law, loving her gay daughter means telling her that she needs to leave her wife because somewhere out there is a man who cannot have an eternal family without her. We both are doing our best to be Christ-like by sincerely loving our gay daughters. But thank you for your comment. I very much appreciate your attitude that progressive opinions can come from a belief that this is what Christ would want from us. I don’t think we approach people with whom we disagree with that kind of openness nearly often enough.
Eli, most Mormons are clueless to the “blogernacle” and have never nor will they read any of these blogs. Thought I use a pseudonym on this blog, I did post my real face was on last weeks blog, butI don’t think anybody from my ward or stake will ever find this, thought I look forward to the day when somebody comes up to me and says “are you Bishop Bill?”
Bishop Bill,
Your version of the good Samaritan is marvelous. Jesus was no milquetoast, and called his own religious community out frequently. Perhaps we should consider that when we use the term “Christ-like.”
Very few members are active on the bloggernacle. I’ve only had one instance where a noticed that a elderly my ward had used a BBC post as part of the lesson. I asked him about it after church and he confirmed that he had. Unfortunately, I think the guy got ex’ed, though I don’t know why..
I haven’t been invited to give a talk for about five years. I think I’ve been blacklisted.
Bishop Bill wrote “most Mormons are clueless to the ‘blogernacle’ and have never nor will they read any of these blogs.” Others wrote similar sentiments.
I risk another derailment with this quick aside, but as recently as just a few months ago, I’d have largely agreed with you. Even now I’d say your assessment is more right than not. I don’t think it will always be that way. I’ve actually been more and more surprised of late by discussions or FB posts from friends as to just how much they read. Most of these friends would probably fit “clueless Mormon” status if you met them at Church or got to know them for a short period, as I’m confident I would as well, but they’re voracious readers. My analysis of this blog is still ongoing after six years, but one minor turn-off for me to get past in order to obtain the understanding, empathy, and sympathy I seek after foremost, is the slight elitist vibe that comes from some of the bloggers and even more from many of the commenters. It’s as if they’re saying “We’ve done some reading and thinking, and it’s changed who we are. Here we can discuss these things because we’re ‘in the know,’ and active or orthodox members simply aren’t.” It’s a somewhat exclusionary vibe that comes across a little ironic given the criticism that’s often given to the supposed exclusivity of active membership and leadership. I do understand that many of these subjects would not be allowed in Church. That doesn’t necessarily mean active and orthodox members have an inability to access and process them.
I wrote something similar months ago, but I really do think there is a quickly growing group of LDS who do read far outside the standard works and still manage to remain mostly orthodox members without a huge amount of mental gymnastics. I think a lot of them keep their mouths shut because a shrinking number of active LDS will tell them their wagon wheel is too close to the edge, while more liberal or former LDS will tell them they haven’t read or thought about it enough (a criticism that’s tempting to return). They don’t want to hear it constantly from both sides. And frankly, I also know a few active members who could converse with (or even school) any blogger or commenter here fluently on any number of subjects, and may very well be aware of the bloggernacle in general, but would simply rather be out mowing their neighbor’s lawn. I know it doesn’t always have to be either/or, but sometimes I wonder whether they don’t have the better mindset.
If someone ever asks you if you’re Bishop Bill, I’d love to hear a report on it.
PWS,
Thanks for your comment. I understand terminology can be an issue. I do believe efforts to be Christ-like can often result in conservative and liberal LDS realizing they have more in common than not.
JCS, I’m a bit disappointed in your latest comment. copulating crazed rabbits isn’t nearly as interesting as frolicking demented stoats, notwithstanding the partial alliteration. If you must alliterate, go all in. Here are some suggestions.
Humping horny hares.
Rampaging randy rabbits
Larking lascivious lagomorphs
Binging breeding bunnies
I hope this will help bring your comments up to their usual caliber.
@JLM, I’ll have to disagree with your assessment of Copulating Crazed Rabbits. That really sang to me. I think your missing that he really wanted to say f*bunnies, but restrained himself. Copulating rabbits really has a nice ring to it…I think the “crazed” addition was a little unnecessary and just simplifying to copulating rabbits would have been perfect, but as is, it’s a great phrase.
Well, squid… As with all forms of art, to each his own. 🙂
As an aside, what do you think of slinking sensuous cephalopods?
@JLM, I think we’ll have to defer to John Charity Spring for the best implementation of squids into his lexicographic litany. Far be it from us to step on his toes. I think to do it right you might need to forego the insistence on alliteration. Maybe “an orgy of writhing tentacles” can be worked into a future comment. John, we wait with bated breath.
Old schooler here BB. I, too, always prided myself on talk quality and sustenance and tried to go ABOVE AND BEYOND. When I think about it, I found lots of “meat” for these talks from the “oldies”…..David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, James Faust, Sterling Sill…need I go on….the church and gospel that was in my day….good talks BB. We need more like those and people who can deliver a gospel message on their own.
Just today a brother said questioning the history and doctrine is an affront to the pioneers. Oh please…
The same two talk excerpts that Kirkstall mentioned also struck me. Your update of the parable of the Good Samaritan is particularly excellent. I wish I had been in your ward, Bishop Bill!