meetings with General Authorities

[Thinking]

On 1/25/2016 at 10:05 PM, Storm Rider said:

Do you think you would want everything you say to be recorded?

This question is irrelevant because we're not really talking about everything they say, only what they say in their official capacity as general authorities that happens to be outside of general conference. We're not talking about private conversations at a restaurant or family gathering. These are prepared discourses given at a planned meeting.

[Storm Rider]

46 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This question is irrelevant because we're not really talking about everything they say, only what they say in their official capacity as general authorities that happens to be outside of general conference. We're not talking about private conversations at a restaurant or family gathering. These are prepared discourses given at a planned meeting.

I have heard a few GAs speak several times in stake events - conference, priesthood, etc.  I think they have general canned talks for these events that they use often or repeatedly.  They use those talks as the backbone of the talk and then improvise.  It is this improvisation that may cause problems for some. So, yes they are prepared, but not word for word.   

I remember a solemn assembly I attended decades ago with one of the apostles who has been dead for quite some time now.  He was much more frank during that meeting than I have heard any apostle speak before or since.  I appreciate having an environment where leaders can speak more easily without being so guarded all the time.  I wish they did not have to be so concerned about exactly what is said and what is not said.  Those days are long past and we all need to be much more guarded in our present society. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I have heard a few GAs speak several times in stake events - conference, priesthood, etc.  I think they have general canned talks for these events that they use often or repeatedly.  They use those talks as the backbone of the talk and then improvise.  It is this improvisation that may cause problems for some. So, yes they are prepared, but not word for word.   

I remember a solemn assembly I attended decades ago with one of the apostles who has been dead for quite some time now.  He was much more frank during that meeting than I have heard any apostle speak before or since.  I appreciate having an environment where leaders can speak more easily without being so guarded all the time.  I wish they did not have to be so concerned about exactly what is said and what is not said.  Those days are long past and we all need to be much more guarded in our present society. 

I think if some of them had been more guarded in the past, today's anti-Mormons would find it more difficult to engage in warfare-by-cherry-picking.

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think if some of them had been more guarded in the past, today's anti-Mormons would find it more difficult to engage in warfare-by-cherry-picking.

 

Absolutely.  Can you imagine BY operating in today's world?  There would hardly be a peep.....in fact, I suspect he would act just like GA do today.  We are not open to frank discussion or open discussion about anything.  Everything is guarded. 

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Absolutely.  Can you imagine BY operating in today's world?  There would hardly be a peep.....in fact, I suspect he would act just like GA do today.  We are not open to frank discussion or open discussion about anything.  Everything is guarded. 

Brigham Young at times was like your outspoken great-aunt who pipes up without thinking carefully beforehand. "If it comes up, it comes out" is how I've heard my sister describe the tendency.

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Brigham Young at times was like your outspoken great-aunt who pipes up without thinking carefully beforehand. "If it comes up, it comes out" is how I've heard my sister describe the tendency.

Scott, are you OK? Two typos in one post.

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Scott, are you OK? Two typos in one post.

If you follow me closely, you know I seldom write flawless text before hitting the "submit" button the first time. Yet I'm perfectionist enough that nearly all of my posts end up with an "edited" stamp on them.

Russell McGregor and Dan Peterson seem to have the ability to write immaculate text on first draft. They continually amaze me.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 6:56 AM, 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 can understand why the Church does not want their leaders video-recorded during local functions.

One example would be the unfortunate recording of Elder Ballard telling the South American saints that Catholics don't know the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost.

Quote

 

Most people don’t know where they came from. They don’t know why they’re here, and they don’t know where they’re going.

And if they have a Catholic background, they don’t know who God is. They don’t know who the Savior is; nor do they know who the Holy Ghost is.

 

- See more at: http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/10/23/mormon-apostle-criticized-for-anti-catholic-remarks/#sthash.0bc4oOvu.dpuf

Any questions?

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

A technology the LDS Church put to good use with a certain General Conference address by Elder Ronald Poelman in 1984.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2600407/posts

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

A technology the LDS Church put to good use with a certain General Conference address by Elder Ronald Poelman in 1984.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2600407/posts

On which subect, see here.

Here's the short answer; for a longer, more detailed response, see the link.

Quote

Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs. The re-recording was intended for distribution to the world-wide Church, and was not an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made.^[1]

Edited to add:

Just read through the detailed analysis, and it is so good, I decided to paste it in here:
 

Quote

 

Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk. In fact, the substance of what he said in 1984 is extremely similar to the things that Elder Uchtdorf said in one of his recent conferences addresses. However, after the conference, members and leaders raised issues about how his talk might be received and used by some who sought reasons to discount the counsel of leaders to justify practices such as polygamy. Because of the questions raised, Elder Poelman was desirous to clarify his remarks so that it could not be used as a license by others to disregard modern revelation or counsel.

Because it is common practice for talks to be edited for publication, it was thought that the "official" record should reflect the clarified intent of the talk. As such, Elder Poelman himself made modifications to his own remarks for the official record that would be published in the Ensign.

In 1984, producing video records of the conference for home use was relatively new. Clearly, producing an "updated" version of a talk that had already been recorded posed some problems. For one, a recording with no background noise would stand out in contrast to all the other talks with no modifications. In addition, there was likely a desire not to deceive but to give authenticity to the presentation so as to not distract from its actual message.

While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes. For these reasons, background noises were allowed to be introduced or were intentionally added. (It is not clear whether the background noise--sometimes termed a "cough track" was intentionally added, or whether those in the tabernacle during the retaping were simply were allowed to behave as they would have during the original presentation, resulting in a low level of ambient noise similar to other talks.)

In the end, the intent and purpose was to make the excellent remarks of Elder Poelman the focus of the video, and to allow him to make changes he himself desired to have made, which were made without any compulsion whatsoever from any other church leader.

Unfortunately, critics have shifted the focus from his beautiful message to a misleading discussion of a "cover up," and attempted even in retrospect to impute meaning to his original talk that he did not intend. If anything, this demonstrates the wisdom of making the clarifications he did, if not the technical means used to circulate the changes.

The most telling comment made by the sources available to FairMormon volunteers was that the late Elder Poelman would be horrified to know people today were using his talk to attack the Church. The intent of his talk, including the changes, were intended to foster faith, not doubt in the Church.

In retrospect, this talk was a beautiful one in its original form, and had it been left as it was originally delivered it would have have never become the focus of criticism for secular and "intellectual" critics, though some "fundamentalist" groups might have embraced and misused its ideas.

Ironically, the changes Elder Poelman introduced promoted the very criticism and fault-finding with the Church that he had hoped to forestall, but one cannot fault a faithful servant for trying to make his offering more effective, or fault those who sought to make the new technological distribution of his talk as congruent with the rest of conference as possible as they prepared the official record for dissemination.

I personally do not consider his talk, the changes, or the potentially misguided efforts to make the video version authentic as anything deceitful. Given that all knew that the original recording existed, with press and others present for the original delivery, it defies reason that there was an attempt at a cover up or deceive. Rather, there was an effort only to allow him to amend his official remarks in both the written and video record, and allow it to be as authentic as all the other recorded talks.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On which subect, see here.

Here's the short answer; for a longer, more detailed response, see the link.

 

Which is why the LDS Church made the fact the talk had been changed clear to its members . . .

[consiglieri]

And this is an interesting admission from the FAIRMormon attempt to "explain away" this rewriting of history:

Quote

While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes. For these reasons, background noises were allowed to be introduced or were intentionally added. (It is not clear whether the background noise--sometimes termed a "cough track" was intentionally added, or whether those in the tabernacle during the retaping were simply were allowed to behave as they would have during the original presentation, resulting in a low level of ambient noise similar to other talks.)

Why is it "not clear" whether the "cough track" were intentional?  Because it was a super secret project, and we just can't seem to find the people involved to ask?

 

The opening lines of the FAIRMormon article are quite interesting, as well:

Quote

Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk. In fact, the substance of what he said in 1984 is extremely similar to the things that Elder Uchtdorf said in one of his recent conferences addresses. However, after the conference, members and leaders raised issues about how his talk might be received and used by some who sought reasons to discount the counsel of leaders to justify practices such as polygamy.

Is there nothing FAIRMormon and the LDS Church cannot blame on polygamy?

And who are these unspecified "members and leaders" who raised the issues with Elder Poelman?

And why are there no citations in this section?

Where is FAIRMormon coming up with this information?

Here we have a host of unsupported assertions.

In fact, there are no citations to anything throughout this entire FAIRMormon article.

Oh, wait, there is one footnote.  Here is what it says:

Quote

FairMormon editors and volunteers have discussed this matter with reliable witnesses to Elder Poelman's actions and thoughts regarding the unwarranted controversy which accompanied his conference talk.

I guess that settles everything.

Except that it is clear that none of these unnamed "reliable witnesses" were Elder Poelman himself.

I give this FAIRMormon article a D-.

Edited January 26, 2016 by consiglieri

[Thinking]

Quote

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. (Joseph Smith - May 26, 1844)

Times have changed.

 

[consiglieri]

Can you say, "Plausible deniability"?

 

[Guest]

On January 24, 2016 at 7:03 AM, sjdawg said:

Why are members instructed not to record meetings where apostles or general authorities are speaking?

 

 

For one, it is rude and often illegal to record someone without consent.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I give this FAIRMormon article a D-.

And when consig speaks, the thinking has been done.

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration.  

 

[sjdawg]

3 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

For one, it is rude and often illegal to record someone without consent.

This I will agree with 100%.  

[sjdawg]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think if some of them had been more guarded in the past, today's anti-Mormons would find it more difficult to engage in warfare-by-cherry-picking.

 

Does the LDS Church engage in any Cherry-Picking or is that simply an anti-mormon tactic?

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

For one, it is rude and often illegal to record someone without consent.

I think the illegality might depend on the situation. Are there any lawyers who can help us with this?

The Church is asking the members to not videotape these talks, but would there be legal actions the Church could take (other than church discipline)?

[sjdawg]

deleted - duplicate post

Edited January 27, 2016 by sjdawg
duplicate post

[sjdawg]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I think the illegality might depend on the situation. Are there any lawyers who can help us with this?

The Church is asking the members to not videotape these talks, but would there be legal actions the Church could take (other than church discipline)?

I think the legality depends on which state you are in.   Regardless of legal consequence I do think it is rude/inappropriate to record without permission.   And I think it is even more inappropriate to record in an instance where you have been asked not to record.  The only exception I might be torn on would be a disciplinary council.   I think (I'm not sure) that participants are asked not to record it but in some ways I think someone who is defending themselves should have the right to record the proceedings regardless of whether or not their Bishop or Stake President wants to be recorded.

[salgare]

Alvin R Dyer ruined it for everyone

[sjdawg]

18 minutes ago, salgare said:

Alvin R Dyer ruined it for everyone

I actually had to look up Alvin R Dyer to understand your reference.   I feel so uneducated

[salgare]

kind of an insider joke ... He was infamous for a lecture given to missionaries that leaked ... it was on why starving black children ended up in Ethiopia