Otterson: On The Record

[Kenngo1969]

I have an announcement.  While I have long suspected that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not employ dolts in its Public Affairs Department, as we might have said it in the late '80s and early '90s when lapsing into the vernacular favored in that exotic, faraway land of San Diego, California, where I served my mission ...

 

Brother Otterson is a total stud!

 

That is all!

Edited August 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

Not necessarily.

 

Conceivably, under some circumstances, harshness can be required in an effort to effectively correct someone, even if you love the person. That would be true especially if one holds to what calmoriah and maklelan are trying to persuade me to regarding the meaning of "sharpness" in D&C 121.

 

But again, one would have to directly question Otterson to precisely ascertain or clarify his meaning. I grant that he may have meant to imply unkindness.

 

Edited to add:

 

Harsh is yet another instance in which we deal with varying definitions or shades of meaning.

 

According to one online source, it could mean

 

 

or it could mean

 

 

The latter definition could be equated with unkindness; the former could not.

 

Is a disciplinary council's decision to excommunicate a Church member harsh? Most would say yes.

 

Is it unkind? Some would say yes. Some would say no, under the circumstances.

You're trying too hard to parse the meaning of a simple word. Maybe you could ask Otterson what he meant by "intemperate".

[Scott Lloyd]

No, we've overhauled the translation process over the last 20-ish years, and the only real concerns for a given translation are for (1) faithfulness to the original, and (2) internal consistency. When translators or supervisors bring ambiguities or concerns with the existing lexical or translation guide entries we will send the questions up the line for clarification or revision, and that happens from time to time, but this verse has long been defined the way I described. 

Thanks for the information.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're trying too hard to parse the meaning of a simple word. Maybe you could ask Otterson what he meant by "intemperate".

I think you're trying too hard to impute wrongdoing. If you're so anxious to do that, why don't you ask him?

 

I'm satisfied that harsh doesn't always or necessarily mean unkind. And I believe I've given a good reason for that conclusion.

 

Incidentally, I'm a wordsmith; parsing is what I do. 

 

Although, strictly speaking, analyzing word meanings is not parsing. Parsing is something you do to a sentence.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The questions and answers section has been transcribed and added to the transcript at the link given in the opening post.

[BlueDreams]

Betimes and Sharply, when interpreted as Scott and other Church Officials have done (Meaning soon, or in the appropriate time, and precisely and clearly) fits very well with sound and basic psychological practices for correction.  To modify behavior in a positive way, correction must be related directly to the behavior at hand not a general displeasure, and it must be done closely to the time of the observed behavior so it is associated with that behavior.

 

You cannot yell at a dog who has pooped in another room, at a time long past, and expect it to associate your displeasure with their act.

 

Instead you point their nose at the offending poop immediately after they do it.  Or even better praise and reward them for pooping outside immediately after they do it.

 

That is a simplified illustration, but when it comes to correction and behavior modification we humans aren't build much differently.

 

Section 121 when understood correctly is a very powerful lesson in constructive behavior and relationship building.

 

Not necessarily. It works for dogs, sure, but it's more complicated for humans. I was actually thinking when reading this discussion that I prefer the "at the right time" idea moreso than promptly because of the psychological training i've received. Immediate reproof/added clarity doesn't necessarily help in all cases...in fact it's known to backfire. For example, the idea of staged interventions (clear, concise feedback as to what they're doing from several people with a call to change) have been shown to have either outright rejection by the recipient or a quick immediate change that lasts a few months and then returns to the old habits quite quickly.  You have to help the person reach and acknowledge the truth for themselves personally. Sometimes that means a moment of precise clarity (at the right time)...more often it's through empathy, care, and helping them explore the ramifications (both positive and negative) to their choices. The moments of "sharpness" in therapy is fairly slim honestly.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

Just an fyi...

 

Scott's article about Bro. Otterson's talk is on the main page of lds.org

 

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

 

Look down to "The Church Today"

Edited August 14, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Just an fyi...

Scott's article about Bro. Otterson's talk is on the main page of lds.org

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

Look down to "The Church Today"

That's funny since the whole talk is transcribed on Mormon Newsroom.

I suppose it can be useful to be able to read a summary before absorbing the whole thing. That's the reason we still write reports of general conference talks even though the entire texts go online within six days or so.

In the past few years, much of our Church News content has been repurposed on lds.org. There has been a bit of restructuring to that effect. We are working more closely together than we ever have before.