sjdawg Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Why are members instructed not to record meetings where apostles or general authorities are speaking?
CV75 Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, sjdawg said: Why are members instructed not to record meetings where apostles or general authorities are speaking? The policy reads: "21.1.33 Recording Talks or Addresses of General Authorities and Area Seventies "Church members should not record the talks or addresses that General Authorities and Area Seventies give at stake conferences, missionary meetings, or other meetings. However, members may record broadcasts of general conference on home equipment for personal, noncommercial use." It might have something to do with the lack of review Church-published articles receive, to discourage the misapplication of information beyond the scope of the immediate audience’s needs, or to discourage the second- or third-hand exploitation of the leaders’ misspeaking. I'm not sure how often the congregation is reminded of this; I don't think I've heard it announced every time. Edited January 24, 2016 by CV75 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 I think it may simply be that addresses at local functions may be specifically tailored to them 3
Storm Rider Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 I am almost positive that no one, member and nonmember alike, has ever taken the words of a GA out of context. More importantly, I am positive that no GA has ever misspoken at any time - that God speaks and their lips move every time. And people really asks these types of questions with a straight face? Hmm, it makes me wonder. 4
sjdawg Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I am almost positive that no one, member and nonmember alike, has ever taken the words of a GA out of context. More importantly, I am positive that no GA has ever misspoken at any time - that God speaks and their lips move every time. And people really asks these types of questions with a straight face? Hmm, it makes me wonder. I get that and I understand it to a point. However, the LDS Church has a strong history of documenting the words and histories of their leaders. Also, isn't it more difficult to misquote someone if there has been a recording? The recording could also be used to ensure proper context is applied to their words. But anyway. Thanks for your sarcasm to an honest question. Much appreciated. Edited January 25, 2016 by sjdawg spelling 3
sjdawg Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I think it may simply be that addresses at local functions may be specifically tailored to them Good thought. Thank you.
sjdawg Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 13 hours ago, CV75 said: The policy reads: "21.1.33 Recording Talks or Addresses of General Authorities and Area Seventies "Church members should not record the talks or addresses that General Authorities and Area Seventies give at stake conferences, missionary meetings, or other meetings. However, members may record broadcasts of general conference on home equipment for personal, noncommercial use." It might have something to do with the lack of review Church-published articles receive, to discourage the misapplication of information beyond the scope of the immediate audience’s needs, or to discourage the second- or third-hand exploitation of the leaders’ misspeaking. I'm not sure how often the congregation is reminded of this; I don't think I've heard it announced every time. thank you. I hadn't seen the official policy. (I wasn't actually sure if it was official policy or folklore)
cinepro Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, sjdawg said: However, the LDS Church has a strong history of documenting the words and histories of their leaders. I think that's why they have the policy. When it comes to statement and claims made by Church leaders, sometimes less is more. 1
Duncan Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I got phoned from an emeritus GA once and of course I told everybody! like this is better than when the lady with the mirror says your name on that old TV show, "Romper Room"!!!! but I wouldn't think what he told me applied to everyone Edited January 25, 2016 by Duncan 2
halconero Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Two examples, one is well known because Elder Nelson shared it publicly, the other a personal experience: - President Nelson taught the 10 Commandments at a Stake Meeting. Afterwards a man came up to him who was bawling, and admitted to President Nelson that he had once been a soldier, and had taken a life in combat. Elder Nelson reassured him that soldiers in combat under lawful government are not under condemnation by God, but that as an apostle had to teach the general standards and commandments. When an authority visits a ward or a stake it may be to give very specific instructions to people, persons, or wards there. They don't want that specific instruction to overshadow the general instructions they give normally. It's why Elder Callister had to remind missionaries in the Toronto mission not to guilt trip or judge missionaries who went home and got married to one another, all based on the Spencer W. Kimball talk "Lock Your Hearts," as that talk was given for a very specific area, at a specific time, for specific reason, and that the Lord delights in two righteous missionaries entering into the marriage covenant with each other. - Sometimes that specific instruction is meant to give personal comfort, personal instruction, and may include sensitive words and inspiration. I won't say who it was, or what the topic was, but one of my old roommates once had an hour long phone conversation with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. He shared personal instruction with him, sacred moments, and gave him a specific injunction to keep the majority of it sacred except for his parents, and his close friend, me. The reasons for not recording this conversation are readily apparent to me. Were it to be released it would be an abrogation of the private context in which the Spirit gave that inspiration, it could be taken in horribly negative ways when the exact opposite intent and meaning was true, and it was specific to my roommate. One of my favourite quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith is this: "The reason we do not have secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them; We do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday." 3
sjdawg Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, halconero said: Two examples, one is well known because Elder Nelson shared it publicly, the other a personal experience: - President Nelson taught the 10 Commandments at a Stake Meeting. Afterwards a man came up to him who was bawling, and admitted to President Nelson that he had once been a soldier, and had taken a life in combat. Elder Nelson reassured him that soldiers in combat under lawful government are not under condemnation by God, but that as an apostle had to teach the general standards and commandments. When an authority visits a ward or a stake it may be to give very specific instructions to people, persons, or wards there. They don't want that specific instruction to overshadow the general instructions they give normally. It's why Elder Callister had to remind missionaries in the Toronto mission not to guilt trip or judge missionaries who went home and got married to one another, all based on the Spencer W. Kimball talk "Lock Your Hearts," as that talk was given for a very specific area, at a specific time, for specific reason, and that the Lord delights in two righteous missionaries entering into the marriage covenant with each other. - Sometimes that specific instruction is meant to give personal comfort, personal instruction, and may include sensitive words and inspiration. I won't say who it was, or what the topic was, but one of my old roommates once had an hour long phone conversation with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. He shared personal instruction with him, sacred moments, and gave him a specific injunction to keep the majority of it sacred except for his parents, and his close friend, me. The reasons for not recording this conversation are readily apparent to me. Were it to be released it would be an abrogation of the private context in which the Spirit gave that inspiration, it could be taken in horribly negative ways when the exact opposite intent and meaning was true, and it was specific to my roommate. One of my favourite quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith is this: "The reason we do not have secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them; We do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday." Not recording a personal telephone call makes much more sense to me than not documenting a public meeting. Interesting comments on the "lock your hearts" talk. that was mandatory reading for every missionary in my mission.
Rain Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 It would have been nice today to record. DH is in France as of yesterday for work for a week and we had stake conference. I took notes and texted him, but he would get much more out of it by hearing it. 1
Storm Rider Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: I get that and I understand it to a point. However, the LDS Church has a strong history of documenting the words and histories of their leaders. Also, isn't it more difficult to misquote someone if there has been a recording? The recording could also be used to ensure proper context is applied to their words. But anyway. Thanks for your sarcasm to an honest question. Much appreciated. pre No need to thank me for the sarcasm, it is a gratuity for being alive and part of the group. I dish it out liberally and accept the failing in myself when I have learned to be somewhat distrust of "honest" questions. However, within my sarcasm is found value if one only looks. It makes sense to me that a GA prepares a talk for General Conference puts in a great deal more thought than one he might give at a local meeting. Though I suspect that skeleton of most talks are well used and known to the GA, I also suspect that at local meetings they may be responding to specific requests, questions, etc., and may speak more off-the-cuff than typical. At these times it would make sense that some, if not all GAs, would prefer that their talks not be recorded. This does many things: allows them the comfort of speaking more freely and preventing others from using their words out of context or to be used for purposes other than they were intended. I also suspect you know this....thus the sarcasm. Do you think you would want everything you say to be recorded? Why not? Why should we attempt to remove the humanity from a GA? Exactly how high a pinnacle should they be placed before they will inevitably fall in order to please those who for divers reasons, for good or ill?
sjdawg Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: No need to thank me for the sarcasm, it is a gratuity for being alive and part of the group. I dish it out liberally and accept the failing in myself when I have learned to be somewhat distrust of "honest" questions. However, within my sarcasm is found value if one only looks. It makes sense to me that a GA prepares a talk for General Conference puts in a great deal more thought than one he might give at a local meeting. Though I suspect that skeleton of most talks are well used and known to the GA, I also suspect that at local meetings they may be responding to specific requests, questions, etc., and may speak more off-the-cuff than typical. At these times it would make sense that some, if not all GAs, would prefer that their talks not be recorded. This does many things: allows them the comfort of speaking more freely and preventing others from using their words out of context or to be used for purposes other than they were intended. I also suspect you know this....thus the sarcasm. Do you think you would want everything you say to be recorded? Why not? Why should we attempt to remove the humanity from a GA? Exactly how high a pinnacle should they be placed before they will inevitably fall in order to please those who for divers reasons, for good or ill? I wouldn't want to be recorded for even 5 minutes however I don't claim to speak for the Lord or even an organization the size of the LDS Church in any of my communications. I find it hard to believe but no one is lining up to hear my opinions or beliefs. I actually believe recordings could provide as much protection for the GA's as it would provide opportunities for criticism. It is much easier to put a personal slant on what is being said when there is no official record to provide context or ensure the quote is accurate and complete. Of course it is also easier to deny or claim you are being misquoted with no official record available. Its a bit of a double edged sword either way I suppose.
Storm Rider Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Sj, agreed. It is a two edged sword. Certainly it would prove useful at times while at other times not so much. The Church has just chosen to do things this way. It is a decision that has been made and it can easily be unmade in the future. 1
mnn727 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 On 1/24/2016 at 8:46 AM, Avatar4321 said: I think it may simply be that addresses at local functions may be specifically tailored to them Exactly, that was the reason given when this first came out.
theplains Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 21 hours ago, sjdawg said: However, the LDS Church has a strong history of documenting the words and histories of their leaders. But it never felt the need to canonize the Journal of Discourses or make it more readily available to members. It's not like the LDS apostles taught error therein ... or maybe yes. Regards, Jim
JAHS Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 While on my mission President Harold B. Lee came and spoke to all the missionaries and they recorded it and gave us all copies on tape. I assume they were given permission to do that though.
Jeanne Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 20 hours ago, Duncan said: I got phoned from an emeritus GA once and of course I told everybody! like this is better than when the lady with the mirror says your name on that old TV show, "Romper Room"!!!! but I wouldn't think what he told me applied to everyone Romper Stomper Domper Do...She never did find me..never in the mirror! 1
Calm Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, theplains said: But it never felt the need.... the Journal of Discourses....make it more readily available to members. What in the world are you talking about? My parents and other members I remember growing up with had the JoD on their shelves. I had it on my shelf when they downsized and then passed it on to my son. When I got to college, I remember it being available in an inexpensive paperback version (though I may be confusing these with the two History of the Church (the original and Roberts') that I get mixed up on the titles of which I know for sure were available. The very first gospel library for computer I got had the JoD on it iirc. I may still have it to doublecheck if you insist. It has been available online for years. How much more available does it need to be? Edited January 26, 2016 by Calm
Duncan Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Romper Stomper Domper Do...She never did find me..never in the mirror! me neither!!! and I watched all those shows!!!!
Mars Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 13 hours ago, Calm said: What in the world are you talking about? My parents and other members I remember growing up with had the JoD on their shelves. I had it on my shelf when they downsized and then passed it on to my son. When I got to college, I remember it being available in an inexpensive paperback version (though I may be confusing these with the two History of the Church (the original and Roberts') that I get mixed up on the titles of which I know for sure were available. The very first gospel library for computer I got had the JoD on it iirc. I may still have it to doublecheck if you insist. It has been available online for years. How much more available does it need to be? It was called GospelLink, and it was when I could finally ctrl-f and search through. It came out in the mid 90s and my family had it. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 There have been some good reasons suggested here for the policy to be in place. One that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is the ease with which audio recordings can be edited and altered so as to distort the original message, especially with today's digital technology. It won't do to say "recordings could provide as much protection for the GA's as it would provide opportunities for criticism." Because of the above possibility, a random audio recording made by someone sitting out in the congregation is scarcely more reliable as an accurate document these days than are handwritten notes. The potential for such a thing to happen is very great. The saying goes that there is no honor among thieves. It has been verified to me since yesterday that there is scarcely more honor among anti-Mormons and antagonistic critics of the Church. 1
ttribe Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 18 hours ago, theplains said: But it never felt the need to canonize the Journal of Discourses or make it more readily available to members. It's not like the LDS apostles taught error therein ... or maybe yes. Regards, Jim LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Journal+of+Discourses+Online Not that hard. There may be some validity to some criticisms of the availability of certain Church history information, but this is not one of them.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Journal+of+Discourses+Online Not that hard. There may be some validity to some criticisms of the availability of certain Church history information, but this is not one of them. In fact, is not the Journal of Discourses in the public domain and thus accessible free of charge? I think that must be case, as the anti-Mormon organization Mormon Research Ministry makes it accessible on an indexed website. Edited to add: Yep, I was right; it is in the public domain. Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts