Plagiarized Talks-Would You Say Something?

[Calm]

My mother has if I recall correctly, I know it was on her shelf...can't remember if it has made the migration to mine (it may have been my grandmother's now that I think of it...passed on to Mom), though I have only taken the opportunity to read some of it long ago.  I've seen it referenced here and there so I thought it was a popular book in the past.

 

You should use the Ensign feedback option to let them know so that error can be corrected.

[HappyJackWagon]

You don't have to believe it for it to be true, and if it helps you to rephrase the idea you can think about it this way: You can't get a good idea that God has never thought of before, and you can't get a bad idea that Satan hasn't already thought of either, so in that way all good thoughts you get are God's ideas and all bad ideas are Satan's...no matter who else besides them gets them.

So if you want to uphold the idea that ideas are intellectual property make sure you give credit where credit is due.

That's true. There may be things I don't believe that end up being true just as there may be things you believe that end up not being true. I think it's inevitable in both cases.

 

Claiming that just because God or the devil has had a thought that I now have is the same thing as them giving me that thought would be like saying that I had a thought and then you later had the same thought, therefore you received the thought from me. I think that's a pretty significant leap.

 

Also, I never claimed that ideas were intellectual property. Writings in magazines, books as well as talks, on the other hand, are intellectual property. If Julie Rowe speaks or writes about an idea that the world will end in September/October and I agree so I share that idea with others, that is not nearly the same thing as me re-publishing her book in my name.

[hagoth7]

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 wouldn't care one whit whether a speaker chose to cite their sources or not.

 

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

[mnn727]

One time I gave a talk like that - just once, I used extensive quotes and while I credited the original speaker("I will be quoting Elder .... from his talk on......." at the beginning, I didn't make the distinction between his words and mine during the talk. People loved the talk, but one member said "Gee, that talk would sound great at General Conference" and gave me a sly grin. Quick thinking I replied "Much of it was"

Edited August 25, 2015 by mnn727

[ksfisher]

Is misquoting as bad as plagiarism in your view?

 

What he actually said:

 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2010/09/line-upon-line-precept-upon-precept-2nephi-2830?lang=eng

 

Thank you for finding this.  It's much different than what HappyJack had in his post, which seemed to be purposefully phrased to cast Elder Bednar's words in a less than flattering light.

[Jeanne]

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? 

Make it a fun thing and hedge some bets (without money of course) about where the content is the next time...

Edited August 25, 2015 by Jeanne

[Ahab]

That's true. There may be things I don't believe that end up being true just as there may be things you believe that end up not being true. I think it's inevitable in both cases.

My point was that truth is not based or dependent on any person's perspective or whether or not people agree or do not agree. Truth is independent of what anyone thinks it is, so whether you (or I) agree on what the truth is is irrelevant. And I think that is a good thing to keep in mind.

Claiming that just because God or the devil has had a thought that I now have is the same thing as them giving me that thought would be like saying that I had a thought and then you later had the same thought, therefore you received the thought from me. I think that's a pretty significant leap.

Okay, then whether or not a thought is "from" God or Satan, any good thought is God's thought and any bad/evil thought is Satan's thought. And that's becsuse there is no good thought that God doesn't already have before you or anyone else has or gets it. We can't beat him to the punch or come up with any thought that he hasn't already thought of. And Satan already has every evil idea about everything too. So anytime you or I or anyone else ever gets an idea either God or Satan has already had it and we can't get any thought before they do, with God getting/already having every good thought about everything and Satan getting/already having all of the bad/evil thoughts about everything.

Also, I never claimed that ideas were intellectual property. Writings in magazines, books as well as talks, on the other hand, are intellectual property. If Julie Rowe speaks or writes about an idea that the world will end in September/October and I agree so I share that idea with others, that is not nearly the same thing as me re-publishing her book in my name.

My point is that every thought expressed by anyone in any situation is a thought that is already in the thoughts of either God or Satan, whether the thought is expressed orally or in a book/magazine/internet article or still only in a person's mind before it is put down in writing. So if anyone wants to give proper credit to any thought they ever get they should credit either God or Satan for it. Julie Rowe, whoever she is, is simply an agent/representative of the thoughts of either God or Satan whatever she says

[hagoth7]

Do any of you think the brethren actually care one way or the other whether their names were cited or not?

I would be quite surprised if a single one of them even gives such matters of ego a second thought.

I would venture to suggest that they align with the priorities that one of their father's taught, when he said, "Hal, I wasn't there for the weeds."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/10/some-great-thing?lang=eng

 

Basically, if a speaker has only a few minutes for a talk or a lesson, and can add more meat, substance, and testimony, by shaving off the time-consuming mention of every person and verse they happened to cite, I say, more power to them.

Those they fail to cite likely wouldn't be offended in the least.

[Avatar4321]

As I said earlier, I think it's the matter of being honest. Honesty brings the Spirit. As does hard work. Deception and idleness do the opposite. And we are teaching with the Spirit or we aren't doing our job as teachers in Zion

[Ahab]

The only good reason I can think of for citing a reference to someone else who is saying the same thing someone is saying is to show that more than one person has said it. It's basically backup, like when someone CFRs something. But there is no way to reference everyone who has said basically the same thing. We're always saying something someone else has already said. There is no such thing as an original thought, just agreement or disagreement with somebody.

[Duncan]

The only good reason I can think of for citing a reference to someone else who is saying the same thing someone is saying is to show that more than one person has said it. It's basically backup, like when someone CFRs something. But there is no way to reference everyone who has said basically the same thing. We're always saying something someone else has already said. There is no such thing as an original thought, just agreement or disagreement with somebody.

 

well, if you use a quotation from someone you need to say who it's from-that's the issue here, using a talk given by someone else and passing it off as if it was your own talk and your own thoughts

[HappyJackWagon]

 

My point is that every thought expressed by anyone in any situation is a thought that is already in the thoughts of either God or Satan, whether the thought is expressed orally or in a book/magazine/internet article or still only in a person's mind before it is put down in writing. So if anyone wants to give proper credit to any thought they ever get they should credit either God or Satan for it. Julie Rowe, whoever she is, is simply an agent/representative of the thoughts of either God or Satan whatever she says

 

Ahab, I understand this is your point but I disagree. If I have the same thought today that my dad had 40 years ago, before I was born, it doesn't mean I received my thought from him. He wasn't the source. It's possible he would share a thought with me, then I agree, and I would properly say that I received that thought or idea from my dad. But he has to communicate it to me first and it would be silly for me to think that every thought I have is first communicated to me by an outside source. I am not an innatimate object simply here to be acted upon.

[Ahab]

well, if you use a quotation from someone you need to say who it's from-that's the issue here, using a talk given by someone else and passing it off as if it was your own talk and your own thoughts

When I say what someone else has said and have the same thoughts as someone else it is still me who is saying what I am saying and thinking what I am thinking. And my goal is to have the same mind or mindset as that of Christ and our Father and the Holy Spirit so that I am saying and thinking what they would in my situation, as well as what others would when they are also "one" with them.

So I'll say it again, all good thoughts are the thoughts of God (the big 3) and I give all of the credit for any good thought or word to them.

So keep that I mind so I don't have to keep saying that.

[Ahab]

Ahab, I understand this is your point but I disagree. If I have the same thought today that my dad had 40 years ago, before I was born, it doesn't mean I received my thought from him. He wasn't the source. It's possible he would share a thought with me, then I agree, and I would properly say that I received that thought or idea from my dad. But he has to communicate it to me first and it would be silly for me to think that every thought I have is first communicated to me by an outside source. I am not an innatimate object simply here to be acted upon.

No, not silly at all. Whether you realize it or not you "get" thoughts from someone other than you whenever you get any thought that you didn't already have. I realize you can meditate and think back on all the thoughts that you have already received, but when you get any thought that you didn't already have you are getting that thought from somebody else, whether or not you realize who it came from.

As someone myself who is guided by God through the Holy Ghost I realize, at least sometimes, when I am being guided by God. When I get a thought that I didn't have before and also realize that it is a good thought. A thought God has on the issue and a thought he wants me to have.

You may not realize those moments, but I do. And I know it happens that way for a lot of people other than me.

[KevinG]

It annoys me when a general authority quotes an author, and lazy scholars later attribute that quote to the authority, not the original author.

[Nevo]

It annoys me when a general authority quotes an author, and lazy scholars later attribute that quote to the authority, not the original author.

 

I don't think lazy scholars are to blame, but there is a persistent meme going around on Facebook that attributes the following quote to Gordon B. Hinckley:

 

"Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he’s been robbed. The fact is that most putts don’t drop, most beef is tough, most children grow up to just be people, most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration, most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. Life is like an old time rail journey—delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling burst of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride"

 

President Hinckley was fond of the quote and used it many times but always correctly attributed it to Jenkin Lloyd Jones.

[Ahab]

It annoys me when a general authority quotes an author, and lazy scholars later attribute that quote to the authority, not the original author.

I think it also annoys general authorities when people attribute the good things they talk about to them instead of God who inspired them to talk about those good things. And I mean only to them and not also to God. God is the one we should always credit with any good thought, but I suppose it's also okay to credit whoever is saying something inspired by God that is pretty much the same thing God would say.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think it also annoys general authorities when people attribute the good things they talk about to them instead of God who inspired them to talk about those good things. And I mean only to them and not also to God. God is the one we should always credit with any good thought, but I suppose it's also okay to credit whoever is saying something inspired by God that is pretty much the same thing God would say.

The brethren sure quote each other often in General Conference. I imagine that if being quoted really bothered them they could easily pubt an end to the practice. Sooooo....I don't think you have much of a point on this one.

[stemelbow]

I think it also annoys general authorities when people attribute the good things they talk about to them instead of God who inspired them to talk about those good things. And I mean only to them and not also to God. God is the one we should always credit with any good thought, but I suppose it's also okay to credit whoever is saying something inspired by God that is pretty much the same thing God would say.

I don't like the "God said..." way of doing things. Seems to be a thing of the past. I simply can't see it as God really speaking. We are people who are prone to error, and error even when we speak with inspiration.

[Ahab]

The brethren sure quote each other often in General Conference. I imagine that if being quoted really bothered them they could easily pubt an end to the practice. Sooooo....I don't think you have much of a point on this one.

Still I am sure they would be more "well pleased" if more people thought that the good things they said were inspired by God, and I am also sure they have faith that they are.

[ERayR]

I don't like the "God said..." way of doing things. Seems to be a thing of the past. I simply can't see it as God really speaking. We are people who are prone to error, and error even when we speak with inspiration.

 

That is a problem.  If you no longer see God as speaking then he becomes dead, simply a myth.

[Ahab]

I don't like the "God said..." way of doing things. Seems to be a thing of the past. I simply can't see it as God really speaking. We are people who are prone to error, and error even when we speak with inspiration.

Yes we should make that distinction, the errors are ours. God is still speaking through us when we say what he inspires us to say what we say, though. Just as Nephi said with the inspiration of God: the errors In our writings are the errors of men. And yet God still spoke through him, and still does even now when he inspires us.

[HappyJackWagon]

Still I am sure they would be more "well pleased" if more people thought that the good things they said were inspired by God, and I am also sure they have faith that they are.

Maybe, but how are you "sure"? They have never said or done anything that would discourage others from quoting them. If you're aware of something that indicates they are not pleased by being quoted, or that they would be more pleased if they weren't, I'd love to see it. Otherwise it's just you conflating your sentiments with theirs.

[Ahab]

Maybe, but how are you "sure"? They have never said or done anything that would discourage others from quoting them. If you're aware of something that indicates they are not pleased by being quoted, or that they would be more pleased if they weren't, I'd love to see it. Otherwise it's just you conflating your sentiments with theirs.

What, you don't think they want others to know or be sure that they are saying what God has inspired them to say? That they want others to think that their words and thoughts are theirs alone, without any inspiration from God?

As I said earlier, most members already understand that all good things are of God, without needing to hear constant reminders that we believe that. That would seem to be plagiarism to me if we didn't already understand that and intrinsically give the credit to him.

[HappyJackWagon]

What, you don't think they want others to know or be sure that they are saying what God has inspired them to say? That they want others to think that their words and thoughts are theirs alone, without any inspiration from God?

As I said earlier, most members already understand that all good things are of God, without needing to hear constant reminders that we believe that. That would seem to be plagiarism to me if we didn't already understand that and intrinsically give the credit to him.

I don't recall ever hearing any general authority discourage others from quoting them. I've never heard them suggest a requirement that attributed quotes be in a format like "Elder Oaks, who was inspired and speaking for God, said..." or "God said, through Elder Oaks...."

 

The church authorities are good men but they are still men. They are not immune to flattery or the feeling of importance when they are quoted as the authority. "They" are the authority being quoted, not God.