Plagiarized Talks-Would You Say Something?

[JAHS]

for me though, things just don't sound right and you go home and check it out and sunnaofgun! it's Elder So and So's talk from back when. Our previous Stake Pres. did this once and it was a talk I had read over and over again as a missionary so I was familiar with it and now that this person is doing it , it's all suspect.

 

even if they gave a reference why would they just read someone else's talk, they just let everyone else know they put nothing into it and just ripped it from someone else so why should I listen to that?

You are not the only one in the audience,    but I get what you are saying.

[Kenngo1969]

The Church needs to sponsor and provide materials for a class series on how to prepare and give a talk in Sacrament meeting.

It does:

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36123_eng.pdf?lang=eng

[The Nehor]

I think this would be nice. I think General Conference talks are better then Brother or Sister Smith's life story with some irrelevant gospel anecdotes thrown in.

Edited August 25, 2015 by The Nehor

[Avatar4321]

Interesting Topic. Question: can the Spirit effectively teach during a plagiarized sermon?

I don't know the answer. I mean the Spirit was obvious present when the original speaker gave it, but if someone steals it and take a credit for it is the Spirit still going to validate it?

That's what I'd be concerned with.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Duncan]

Interesting Topix. Question: can the Spirit effectively teach during a plagiarized sermon?

I don't know the answer. I mean the Spirit was obvious present when the original speaker gave it, but if someone steals it and take a credit for it is the Spirit still going to validate it?

That's what I'd be concerned with.

 

exactley-if someone doesn't care to put any effort into a talk then why should the spirit be present? then too if someone needed to hear it then I don't know the answer to that

[Avatar4321]

Regardless I doubt it can convey the Spirit as effective as one where you put in effort.

[The Nehor]

Interesting Topic. Question: can the Spirit effectively teach during a plagiarized sermon?

I don't know the answer. I mean the Spirit was obvious present when the original speaker gave it, but if someone steals it and take a credit for it is the Spirit still going to validate it?

That's what I'd be concerned with.

 

It is important to remember that in the scope of history plagiarism is an academic fad. Our society views it as completely and utterly wrong (and our General Conference speakers defer to that by accurate quotation standards) but repeating a sermon verbatim without attribution in most of history was not a problem. I doubt the Holy Ghost cares either way. If plagiarism is done due to laziness yeah, it's a problem. If it is due to error or fear I imagine he is more forgiving. Of course the Holy Ghost can do what he wills unconstrained by what we think is right. One of the benefits of being God I suppose.

[Stargazer]

It does:

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36123_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

OK, I suppose there might be some ideas in there for how to prepare and deliver talks, but this is not a manual that teaches how to give a talk.

 

Dale Carnegie wrote a book on public speaking, and I suppose that might be of some value, but LDS Sacrament Meeting talks are not the same as public speeches, even if some principles are similar in each. 

 

Our children give talks in Primary Sharing Time.  And they see many people giving talks in Sacrament Meeting.  So there's some practice and some examples.  But what about a new adult convert?  Outside of our community, most people never ever do any public speaking.  I think the Church needs to provide some material instructing on this.  I am pretty sure you can find some privately written material at Deseret Book, but nothing from the Church itself as far as I know.

[The Nehor]

OK, I suppose there might be some ideas in there for how to prepare and deliver talks, but this is not a manual that teaches how to give a talk.

 

Dale Carnegie wrote a book on public speaking, and I suppose that might be of some value, but LDS Sacrament Meeting talks are not the same as public speeches, even if some principles are similar in each. 

 

Our children give talks in Primary Sharing Time.  And they see many people giving talks in Sacrament Meeting.  So there's some practice and some examples.  But what about a new adult convert?  Outside of our community, most people never ever do any public speaking.  I think the Church needs to provide some material instructing on this.  I am pretty sure you can find some privately written material at Deseret Book, but nothing from the Church itself as far as I know.

 

I think we learn by example.

[Stargazer]

Interesting Topic. Question: can the Spirit effectively teach during a plagiarized sermon?

I don't know the answer. I mean the Spirit was obvious present when the original speaker gave it, but if someone steals it and take a credit for it is the Spirit still going to validate it?

That's what I'd be concerned with.

 

Of course, it's not just the words, but the presentation (and some GC speakers could bore us with their presentations of wonderful talks). 

 

Well, anyway, answer this question: when Peter, Paul and Mary sang "Leaving on a Jet Plane", was it as effective when John Denver sang it? He wrote the song originally, by the way.

Or, let's ask if Handel's Messiah is as inspirational when the Tabernacle Choir sings it as when the London Philharmonic Orchestra does it?

 

 

 

 

 

And what about the ones who originally played it for the King of England?  Sorry, no YouTube on that one.

 

[Stargazer]

Regardless I doubt it can convey the Spirit as effective as one where you put in effort.

 

President Boyd K. Packer's last GC talk was wonderful.  But I could hardly understand what he was saying when he delivered it -- his health made hash of his presentation, and I did not feel any inspiration.  But when I read it, and could understand it, the Spirit bore record of his testimony and what he was trying to say resonated with me.

 

It is not just the words.  Properly presented the words convey the meaning to the heart.

 

Consider Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  His short speech was preceded by a most eloquent (and long) speech by a well-known orator.  But whose words are remembered today?  The orator's words were forgotten after Lincoln's short address, and whose words are today repeated verbatim and effectively by everyone?  Lincoln's.  When words expressing Lincoln's thoughts in that short address are called for, do we prefer to hear some other words developed by someone who is seeking to say the same thing using his or her own words, or are we better served by the words Lincoln spoke?  Well, your mileage may vary, but sometimes we need reminders that stick with us.  And sometimes those reminders are in other people's words.

 

There is absolutely no reason not to repeat a successful speech, address, or talk.  One might have to adapt the talk, but so what?

[Duncan]

President Boyd K. Packer's last GC talk was wonderful.  But I could hardly understand what he was saying when he delivered it -- his health made hash of his presentation, and I did not feel any inspiration.  But when I read it, and could understand it, the Spirit bore record of his testimony and what he was trying to say resonated with me.

 

It is not just the words.  Properly presented the words convey the meaning to the heart.

 

Consider Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  His short speech was preceded by a most eloquent (and long) speech by a well-known orator.  But whose words are remembered today?  The orator's words were forgotten after Lincoln's short address, and whose words are today repeated verbatim and effectively by everyone?  Lincoln's.  When words expressing Lincoln's thoughts in that short address are called for, do we prefer to hear some other words developed by someone who is seeking to say the same thing using his or her own words, or are we better served by the words Lincoln spoke?  Well, your mileage may vary, but sometimes we need reminders that stick with us.  And sometimes those reminders are in other people's words.

 

There is absolutely no reason not to repeat a successful speech, address, or talk.  One might have to adapt the talk, but so what?

 

a successful speech? are we trying to impress the audience with our or others words? or convey what the spirit wants said? as I say I have heard this person do this before and I think it's fakey fake fake and the stake pres. did it too-if either are trying to impress us then they are what Christ said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" primary kids have to come up with their own stuff, why shouldn't High Priests who are supposed to be leading us?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Duncan

[Stargazer]

a successful speech? are we trying to impress the audience with our or others words? or convey what the spirit wants said? as I say I have heard this person do this before and I think it's fakey fake fake and the stake pres. did it too-if either are trying to impress us then they are what Christ said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" primary kids have to come up with their own stuff, why shouldn't High Priests who are supposed to be leading us?

 

No we aren't trying to impress the audience, and that isn't what I was trying to say.  You are missing the point, Duncan.  It is not that we are trying to impress our hearers with our eloquence, it is that we provide the Spirit with a vehicle for inspiration.  This requires an effective delivery. Does the Spirit convey anything when the words cannot be understood properly, whether through inability to speak the words correctly, or through boring the hearers to death while delivering the words in a flat monotone?  It is the words which convey the meaning, yes, but the Spirit has a hard time confirming the words if they aren't spoken properly so they can be understood.  Likewise, in a poor presentation, when we are constrained to using all our power of discernment to figure out what the heck the speaker is saying, this does not help the Spirit.

 

Two weeks ago one of our new young Deacons gave his first Sacrament meeting talk.  It was a very well-conceived talk, it appeared to have been his own words, and it was well worth listening to.  But he gave the talk in a cadence-less low monotone, never looking up from the podium where the printout lay.  Half the congregation couldn't hear him, and half of those who could hear him fell asleep partway into it.  I am not joking.  It was a good talk, but the Spirit could not work through his delivery.  The same talk, spoken clearly and in an interesting tone of voice would have been of some good effect.

[Stargazer]

I think we learn by example.

Of course we do. We also learn by doing. So, are you arguing against my suggestion that the Church develop a class or at least an instructional manual to help people learn how to develop and deliver talks in our meetings?

If you are so arguing, why did the Church publish an entire manual on the subject of effective teaching, "Teaching: No Greater Call"? Why is there a manual on missionary work called "Preach My Gospel"? Why not just send the young missionaries out and let them figure it out for themselves with no guidelines? Before the MTC and before the SLC Missionary Home and the Language Training Mission there was just sending them out without any preparation at all, other than what they got from Sunday School. Which is better?

[Duncan]

No we aren't trying to impress the audience, and that isn't what I was trying to say.  You are missing the point, Duncan.  It is not that we are trying to impress our hearers with our eloquence, it is that we provide the Spirit with a vehicle for inspiration.  This requires an effective delivery. Does the Spirit convey anything when the words cannot be understood properly, whether through inability to speak the words correctly, or through boring the hearers to death while delivering the words in a flat monotone?  It is the words which convey the meaning, yes, but the Spirit has a hard time confirming the words if they aren't spoken properly so they can be understood.  Likewise, in a poor presentation, when we are constrained to using all our power of discernment to figure out what the heck the speaker is saying, this does not help the Spirit.

 

Two weeks ago one of our new young Deacons gave his first Sacrament meeting talk.  It was a very well-conceived talk, it appeared to have been his own words, and it was well worth listening to.  But he gave the talk in a cadence-less low monotone, never looking up from the podium where the printout lay.  Half the congregation couldn't hear him, and half of those who could hear him fell asleep partway into it.  I am not joking.  It was a good talk, but the Spirit could not work through his delivery.  The same talk, spoken clearly and in an interesting tone of voice would have been of some good effect.

 

I don't know and I hope I am wrong but would someone care about the spirit if you rip off a talk? I hear you about delivery! two weeks ago we had two talks about treck and the one guy is dry as all get out and he was talking about what he ate for dinner and it was a total snooze fest

[rongo]

  Paul H Dunn from what I remember did that.  For that reason I will not bother reading his talks.  

I hear this a lot, and it saddens me. For one thing, we are all guilty of doing it --- particularly men (fish stories, etc. --- we tend to embellish stories as we tell them to make them better and better each time). When people say that they reject all of his talks, as if every single anecdote were a "tissue of lies," I think they are going too far. And, besides the dying soldier in the foxhole and brief major league baseball stint stories, are people really in a position to say that all of his stories are made up "out of whole cloth?" Example, his daughter coming to him with a high school problem and solving it with the scriptures ("The New Testament Really Works"). 

 

President Monson does this, too (or he did when he didn't read old talks from the 80's). In a stake conference broadcast we had about ten years ago, he told a story of being at a stake conference, and having ten boys mimic his every move (with comic effect, as he pantomimed their actions). The story was taken verbatim from a talk President Kimball gave in the 70's (it's in the Leon Hartshorn "Outstanding talks by Presidents of the Church") ---- complete with ten boys, and each action. I don't condemn President Monson for "transferring" a President Kimball story to his own life any more than I condemn Elder Dunn for "transferring" some things into his own life (and yes, making some things up). 

[HappyJackWagon]

After the talk meet him at the stand and say loudly enough for the other leaders to hear, "I love that talk by Elder so and so. Thanks for reading it."

[smac97]

Wait--are you in my ward? Really--in the last several years, I have rarely heard a talk that wasn't based on or a word-for-word reading of a GC talk. It's all they assign anymore. In the last two wards, the bishop or bishopric member (or stake presidency member) simply calls the person with the title and conference issue the talk is found in, or just gives them a copy. Even High Counselors--so if this guy is just using the talk he was assigned, he may have just forgotten the usual intro: "I was asked to speak on the talk given by Elder So-and-So,..."

 

In our ward, the bishopric arranges the topics for Sacrament Meeting talks over a six-month schedule.  The topics are gleaned from the talks given in the General Conference preceding the six-month cycle.  The GC talks are grouped together by topic, and then the bishopric asks the prospective speaker to give a talk about the topic, and can, if he or she chooses, use one or more of the GC talks about that topic as a reference.

 

This system seems to work well.  Many individuals in our ward are nervous about public speaking, so having a GC talk as a reference and a starting point is usually helpful (but not required).  While some speakers resort to summarizing the GC talk, this is a rare occurrence.  Most speak about the topic at hand, interweaving points made in the GC talk, scriptures, and the individual's own insights.  Moreover, the ward collectively has a chance to review important points made in the previous General Conference session.

 

Also, some members of the ward ask to be allowed to choose their own topic, which is then run by the bishop for approval.  Virtually all such requests are approved.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2015 by smac97

[ALarson]

After the talk meet him at the stand and say loudly enough for the other leaders to hear, "I love that talk by Elder so and so. Thanks for reading it."

That's funny.  

 

I don't know if I'd say anything because it probably wouldn't bother me that much.  But if it's happening a lot with this man, you've received some good ideas here for how to approach him or handle it.

[Stargazer]

I don't know and I hope I am wrong but would someone care about the spirit if you rip off a talk? I hear you about delivery! two weeks ago we had two talks about treck and the one guy is dry as all get out and he was talking about what he ate for dinner and it was a total snooze fest

 

What do you mean "care about the spirit if you rip off a talk?"

 

I have several talks written out that I have given over the years.  What if I rip my own self off and give one of these talks the next time they ask me?  I just don't believe that the Spirit is sensitive to the fact that a talk was given by someone else some other time.  Unless you're trying to pass off the work as your own.

 

I've been trying out the analogy of a piece of music.  You don't see the parallel?  Every live performance of music has to be of an original tune to be effective?  Not even close.  And you can get a spiritual uplift from hearing a sacred hymn several times.

[The Nehor]

Of course we do. We also learn by doing. So, are you arguing against my suggestion that the Church develop a class or at least an instructional manual to help people learn how to develop and deliver talks in our meetings?If you are so arguing, why did the Church publish an entire manual on the subject of effective teaching, "Teaching: No Greater Call"? Why is there a manual on missionary work called "Preach My Gospel"? Why not just send the young missionaries out and let them figure it out for themselves with no guidelines? Before the MTC and before the SLC Missionary Home and the Language Training Mission there was just sending them out without any preparation at all, other than what they got from Sunday School. Which is better?

I just do not see the need. Missionaries are on the job all day every day for years and teachers are teaching every week so it makes sense to train them. Most people give sacrament meeting talks once every 2 or 3 years at most. Is it worth creating a class to train someone for what amounts to a one shot and then they forget most of what they learned before it comes up again?

[Buckeye]

Let's say there was a person in a stake calling and this person gives talks on a monthly basis and one of the listeners knew for a fact that the speaker lifts their talks from old general conferences and the gospel principles manual, word for word. Would you as a listener say anything? 

 

I'd direct them to the Journal or Discourses or other old-timey sermons. Members are less likely to notice the plagerism. And the talks will be much more entertaining.

[Duncan]

What do you mean "care about the spirit if you rip off a talk?"

 

I have several talks written out that I have given over the years.  What if I rip my own self off and give one of these talks the next time they ask me?  I just don't believe that the Spirit is sensitive to the fact that a talk was given by someone else some other time.  Unless you're trying to pass off the work as your own.

 

I've been trying out the analogy of a piece of music.  You don't see the parallel?  Every live performance of music has to be of an original tune to be effective?  Not even close.  And you can get a spiritual uplift from hearing a sacred hymn several times.

 

well, if all you do is get a topic and look up a talk on it and just take out an obvious reference to the author, "when I was sustained as an apostle" and that could take 5 minutes and just read the thing and you gave nothing of your own. I think he is a phony baloney, stealing others thoughts to just get through an assignment. It wouldn't bother me if someone wrote out a talk and gave it several times, I have heard the leaders do this-they wrote it! But when you hear music no one is trying to tell you that they wrote the William Tell overture, they give props to whomever wrote it.

[Stargazer]

I just do not see the need. Missionaries are on the job all day every day for years and teachers are teaching every week so it makes sense to train them. Most people give sacrament meeting talks once every 2 or 3 years at most. Is it worth creating a class to train someone for what amounts to a one shot and then they forget most of what they learned before it comes up again?

 

Of course it's worth it.  A class and then doing a one-shot is an effective method of teaching for the future.  A first-time speaker is going to remember the process.  It's repeatable.  Besides, you make up the material once and there's no need to make it up again.  What's the big effort?  Or do you just like disagreeing with me?

 

The thing about missionary training is that they are doing it day in and day out.  For two years.  They don't need training for that, just OJT.  It's the more seldom-used skills that we need training.  You've got it exactly backwards.

[jkwilliams]

well, if all you do is get a topic and look up a talk on it and just take out an obvious reference to the author, "when I was sustained as an apostle" and that could take 5 minutes and just read the thing and you gave nothing of your own. I think he is a phony baloney, stealing others thoughts to just get through an assignment. It wouldn't bother me if someone wrote out a talk and gave it several times, I have heard the leaders do this-they wrote it! But when you hear music no one is trying to tell you that they wrote the William Tell overture, they give props to whomever wrote it.

If nothing else, this thread shows that you pay attention in sacrament meeting. If it bothers you that much, sure, talk to the guy and tell him it bothers you. It sounds like a lazy speaker more than anything to me.