Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, DrClump said:

My Stake President has done similar things before he really thought through all the pros and cons that would come from it. I wanted to give the Sisters a break from their Sunday responsibilities on Mother's Day and have them all attend Sunday School and Relief Society together. We would get the Brothers to teach in Primary and my wife and I were going to do Sharing Time. Well, my Stake President got wind of it and quickly put a stop to it. I already announced to the Ward Council this was my intention. I had to go back and let them know that I couldn't do it. The word had already gone out to the Sisters that this was my intention. The Stake President told me that I better not blame him when I let the sisters know that I couldn't give them a break. In the end, it has caused more harm than good for him!

Did he say why he forbade this? We do this quite often (Mother's Day, but often on 5th Sundays we have the youth teach all of the primary classes and sharing time so all adults can be in the combined meeting. It sounds like the SP would have opposed this, too).

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's no question that trekking across the country is much harder than putting away electronic devices for an hour. But that's not the point. There's no real purpose in comparing the two.

I can go 90 minutes without a device, but why? Why should I go without? Is there a purpose beyond being obedient to the whim of a leader? Not really. Leadership in the church, whether at the local or general level don't seem accustomed to answering the question of "why"? A real leader will explain, invite, and persuade, not dictate.

So I'm perfectly willing to go without for 90 minutes if the leader can explain why that is necessary and not an overreach of his authority. Until he can engage and persuade effectively I don't find value in blind obedience to a hierarchy.

I do understand where you are coming from..really.  It is a dumb thing...kind of like a cup of coffee.

[DrClump]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

Did he say why he forbade this? We do this quite often (Mother's Day, but often on 5th Sundays we have the youth teach all of the primary classes and sharing time so all adults can be in the combined meeting. It sounds like the SP would have opposed this, too).

Rongo, He said that we can't take a day off from our callings. He tried using the handbook to justify his stance (I can't remember what he quoted it was about 6 years ago), but my Stake President likes to make his own interpretations of the handbook when he sees convenient. He asked me, who is going to fill in for you as Bishop on Father's Day? 

I was so upset! Every year when Mother's Day approached he would tell us in Bishop's training that we are not to give Sisters a day off from their callings. When he would say this he would always looks in my direction.

It was so hard for me to let the Sisters know that I wasn't going to follow through with my original plan. I couldn't get through the conversation without crying because all I wanted to do for the Sisters was give them a break. The Sisters knew that this direction came from the SP.  I didn't have to tell them.

I spoke to my brother about it who was serving in a Bishopric in a different state and he said that his Stake Presidency was encouraging Bishops to allow the Sisters a day off from their callings on Mother's Day. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, DrClump said:

Rongo, He said that we can't take a day off from our callings. He tried using the handbook to justify his stance (I can't remember what he quoted it was about 6 years ago), but my Stake President likes to make his own interpretations of the handbook when he sees convenient. He asked me, who is going to fill in for you as Bishop on Father's Day? 

I was so upset! Every year when Mother's Day approached he would tell us in Bishop's training that we are not to give Sisters a day off from their callings. When he would say this he would always looks in my direction.

It was so hard for me to let the Sisters know that I wasn't going to follow through with my original plan. I couldn't get through the conversation without crying because all I wanted to do for the Sisters was give them a break. The Sisters knew that this direction came from the SP.  I didn't have to tell them.

I spoke to my brother about it who was serving in a Bishopric in a different state and he said that his Stake Presidency was encouraging Bishops to allow the Sisters a day off from their callings on Mother's Day. 

These additional examples are good for illustrating the capriciousness of some leaders. I'm glad the sisters knew that the SP nixed your plan. I'm sure he didn't want to be blamed, but who should be, if not him? If he can't own his decision he may want to rethink it. This kind of stuff is so frustrating. Leaders have to stop relying on the "I told you so" answer when their edicts are questioned and actually be able to back up and stand by their decisions.

Welcome to the board, DrClump!

 

[DrClump]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These additional examples are good for illustrating the capriciousness of some leaders. I'm glad the sisters knew that the SP nixed your plan. I'm sure he didn't want to be blamed, but who should be, if not him? If he can't own his decision he may want to rethink it. This kind of stuff is so frustrating. Leaders have to stop relying on the "I told you so" answer when their edicts are questioned and actually be able to back up and stand by their decisions.

Welcome to the board, DrClump!

 

 

HappyJackWagon,

Thanks! Love your profile pic. I'm a big Lakers fan! 

My SP wanted me to own the decision. During the discussion, I told him that I wanted the all the Sisters to be able to spend at least one Sunday together. His response was, "that is what Relief Society activities are for. Sounds like you need to schedule more" He said, "If your Sisters feel like one Sunday will make a difference then you are the problem Bishop. It's your fault they don't feel the togetherness and unity." 

I really had to bite my lip. I just said OK and left his office. That happened when I was a newly called as Bishop. I was 32 and he was in his late 50s.If it happened later on in my calling I would have followed through with my original plan.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, DrClump said:

Rongo, He said that we can't take a day off from our callings. He tried using the handbook to justify his stance (I can't remember what he quoted it was about 6 years ago), but my Stake President likes to make his own interpretations of the handbook when he sees convenient. He asked me, who is going to fill in for you as Bishop on Father's Day? 

Well, he has the keys over the stake, and you have to follow his direction. For what it's worth, I disagree with his stance, and don't think that occasionally covering (such as Mother's Day or 5th Sundays) means that anyone is taking a day off of their calling. 

When I was a counselor in another bishopric, the bishop's son turned 12 and he wanted to pass the sacrament with him his first time. Our high councilor said that that was inappropriate, and when I asked why, he invoked "the unwritten order of things." He said that the bishop needed to preside over the meetings. I replied that he isn't not presiding, even though he is passing the sacrament with his son . . .  

It's easy to see how the Great Apostasy started, with good people doing their best with their own understanding. Look at how the Church would drift with 33,000 bishops left to their own devices and understanding, with no central oversight. I do think that local leaders should be given a lot of room to use their own initiative, within general overall guidelines. And, you were blessed for obeying your stake president, even if we personally disagree with that decision.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, he has the keys over the stake, and you have to follow his direction. For what it's worth, I disagree with his stance, and don't think that occasionally covering (such as Mother's Day or 5th Sundays) means that anyone is taking a day off of their calling. 

When I was a counselor in another bishopric, the bishop's son turned 12 and he wanted to pass the sacrament with him his first time. Our high councilor said that that was inappropriate, and when I asked why, he invoked "the unwritten order of things." He said that the bishop needed to preside over the meetings. I replied that he isn't not presiding, even though he is passing the sacrament with his son . . .  

It's easy to see how the Great Apostasy started, with good people doing their best with their own understanding. Look at how the Church would drift with 33,000 bishops left to their own devices and understanding, with no central oversight. I do think that local leaders should be given a lot of room to use their own initiative, within general overall guidelines. And, you were blessed for obeying your stake president, even if we personally disagree with that decision.

Even though we often disagree, I enjoy the engagement of ideas. Thanks for being here.

The SP was micromanaging something he shouldn't have been involved in. He can do that, I suppose, but it makes him a poor leader. The lesson he taught is that it is better to keep him in the dark because it is unclear when he will apply unreasonable oversight to the wards within his stake. Probably not the best lesson for a SP to teach.

The high councilor had no authority to stop the Bishop from passing the sacrament with his son. Did the bishop make his own decision or defer to the HC for some reason?

What I am having a difficult time with these days is the rigid hierarchical structure of the church. Whether it's a RS Pres who must follow the bishop or a bishop who must follow the SP or the SP who must follow the area authority who must follow the presidency of the seventy who must follow the Q of 12, to the junior apostle who must follow a more senior apostle who must follow the president of the quorum who must follow the President. Sometimes people are just wrong, no matter what their official position.

I see no valor or virtue in following a bad idea or a teaching or a practice simply because someone up the hierarchical chain commands it. I think it's creating a church of mind numbed robots.

"Who is the greater fool? The fool or the fool who follows the fool?"

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These additional examples are good for illustrating the capriciousness of some leaders. I'm glad the sisters knew that the SP nixed your plan. I'm sure he didn't want to be blamed, but who should be, if not him? If he can't own his decision he may want to rethink it. This kind of stuff is so frustrating. Leaders have to stop relying on the "I told you so" answer when their edicts are questioned and actually be able to back up and stand by their decisions.

Welcome to the board, DrClump!

 

I agree with you about there being occasional capriciousness. I am optimistic enough to think that the capriciousness is far more the exception than it is the rule.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's easy to see how the Great Apostasy started, with good people doing their best with their own understanding. Look at how the Church would drift with 33,000 bishops left to their own devices and understanding, with no central oversight.

Kind of like the arbitrary banning of electronic devices in the chapel, regardless of the uses to which such devices might be put?

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even though we often disagree, I enjoy the engagement of ideas. Thanks for being here.

Ditto

The SP was micromanaging something he shouldn't have been involved in. He can do that, I suppose, but it makes him a poor leader. The lesson he taught is that it is better to keep him in the dark because it is unclear when he will apply unreasonable oversight to the wards within his stake. Probably not the best lesson for a SP to teach.

Agreed. A hard and valuable lesson for LDS is sustaining leaders even when they are poor or unreasonable leaders. This can involve being leaders ourselves by developing enough influence to where they will take our advice (or at least see from our perspective) and we have some influence. It can be very difficult to labor under rank injustice or unreasonableness, especially within the hierarchy of the Church. That can be a difficult needle to thread!  

The high councilor had no authority to stop the Bishop from passing the sacrament with his son. Did the bishop make his own decision or defer to the HC for some reason?

Exactly. He deferred and didn't do it, in order not to ruffle feathers. I told him that this is what I don't like about "the unwritten order of things." Everyone gets to make up their own UOoT, and they are all . . . unwritten. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, DrClump said:

It appears by many of these posts that most members are worried about what the other members are doing than paying attention. Darn, get over it! It someone is using their phone in sacrament let them use it. I don't think we should be on the devices when the sacrament is being administered, but before and after...you need to choose to stop looking around at others and judging them. I think the parents who try to enforce that their young kids stay in sacrament meeting and let them cry without taking them out are the real distractors. Take your kids out! I have 2 young kids myself. 

Antoni, I really hope you're not called as Bishop. When you are Bishop I'd like to see you tell the missionaries to put away their iPads because they are at church. It's going to be VERY hard to review their progress report without technology. Everything the missionaries do is on their iPad. PEC and Ward Council would be very difficult these days without technology. As Bishop, you would realize there are MANY MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN TO DRAW UP POLICIES LIKE THIS! When I was Bishop I gained so much more respect for loving others and not setting up these dumb policies.

My counselor would use his iPad on the stand every Sunday after the sacrament was passed to take attendance of the individuals/families that were and weren't present. Those that missed a few weeks in a row, we reached out to them to see if everything was ok. Sure he could print out a new ward roster each week to take attendance on, but that would be a waste of tithing dollars for paper, toner, and use on the printer. 

My Stake President has done similar things before he really thought through all the pros and cons that would come from it. I wanted to give the Sisters a break from their Sunday responsibilities on Mother's Day and have them all attend Sunday School and Relief Society together. We would get the Brothers to teach in Primary and my wife and I were going to do Sharing Time. Well, my Stake President got wind of it and quickly put a stop to it. I already announced to the Ward Council this was my intention. I had to go back and let them know that I couldn't do it. The word had already gone out to the Sisters that this was my intention. The Stake President told me that I better not blame him when I let the sisters know that I couldn't give them a break. In the end, it has caused more harm than good for him! I wonder if this might be the same for this Bishop. Not everything that comes from the leaders is inspired. This is coming from a former Bishop. I was released 3 months ago. Let me repeat, not everything that comes from the mouth of a Bishop, Stake President, etc. is revelation or inspired from on high.

There is way too much judging going on. If you are offended by evil Bro. Johnson looking FB during sacrament meeting, then look away. You don't have to watch him on his phone. Pay attention to the speaker.

We have many area authorities, mission presidents, even General Authorities visit our sacrament meeting, and guess what...most had iPads and were using them to instruct from. I sat next to my Stake President and his counselors countless times during sacrament and they always had their iPads and phones out. 

Amen and amen!

Where were you when I needed you on this thread earlier?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

Just so I'm clear, the guy who works for a daily newspaper is forgetting that scriptural updates used to be distributed via newspaper ?  There may be many good reasons there hasn't been an addition to the canon since 1978, but I don't think it's because God is waiting for everyone to have iPads.

STRAW MAN ALERT!

I've never said lack of iPads is the reason there has not been an addition to the canon since 1978, nor do I hold such a ridiculous belief. I only said that, should there be a time in the near or distant future that canonized revelation begins to flow frequently, the way will have been prepared with the innovation of digital copies of scripture, cloud computing and easily portable computing devices.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that one who in the past has been sardonic and contemptuous about newspapers being a lasting or continually popular medium of communication now holds up newspapers as a viable and inexpensive means of disseminating durable copies of newly canonized scripture among the Latter-day Saints.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Ditto

 

 

Agreed. A hard and valuable lesson for LDS is sustaining leaders even when they are poor or unreasonable leaders. This can involve being leaders ourselves by developing enough influence to where they will take our advice (or at least see from our perspective) and we have some influence. It can be very difficult to labor under rank injustice or unreasonableness, especially within the hierarchy of the Church. That can be a difficult needle to thread!  

 

 

Exactly. He deferred and didn't do it, in order not to ruffle feathers. I told him that this is what I don't like about "the unwritten order of things." Everyone gets to make up their own UOoT, and they are all . . . unwritten. 

President Packer's "unwritten order of things," when it is properly understood and when it is not being distorted for self-serving purposes or for the purpose of ridicule, is a valid concept.

But the fact of the matter is there is no unwritten order of things that authoritatively gives the high councilor superiority over the bishop in directing the affairs of his ward. Bishop (later, President) Monson understood this when he refused to allow the high councilor to dictate that the man should face the direction of the temple when being ordained to a priesthood office.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

STRAW MAN ALERT!

I've never said lack of iPads is the reason there has not been an addition to the canon since 1978, nor do I hold such a ridiculous belief. I only said that, should there be a time in the near or distant future that canonized revelation begins to flow frequently, the way will have been prepared with the innovation of digital copies of scripture, cloud computing and easily portable computing devices.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that one who in the past has been sardonic and contemptuous about newspapers being a lasting or continually popular medium of communication now holds up newspapers as a viable and inexpensive means of disseminating durable copies of newly canonized scripture among the Latter-day Saints.

 

Well, I would love for there to be more canonized revelation, so whatever it take.  I don't see that ever happening in the current structure of things, but who knows...?

Also, I don't recall being contemptuous about newspapers. I, for one, subscribe to three papers (LA Times and Deseret News at home, USA Today at the office) and one of my favorite parts of the day is when I get to sit and read the paper.  So as long as they're making them, I'll be buying them.  I was just pointing out that the Church has been able to get the word out about new revelation in the past, so I don't see digital devices as being germane to the subject.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well, I would love for there to be more canonized revelation, so whatever it take.  I don't see that ever happening in the current structure of things, but who knows...?

 

I don't know what "the current structure of things" has to do with it. The prophets and apostles are in continual contact with Jesus Christ, and should He see fit to provide revelation -- canonized or not -- He will do so, and the prophets and apostles will convey it to the people, as is their role, be it today or in the future.

Quote

Also, I don't recall being contemptuous about newspapers. I, for one, subscribe to three papers (LA Times and Deseret News at home, USA Today at the office) and one of my favorite parts of the day is when I get to sit and read the paper.  So as long as they're making them, I'll be buying them.

Maybe you were just joking, or maybe I am misremembering, but I recall in times past that when the discussion has turned to newspapers, you make some jab like, "You mean people still read newspapers?"*

Quote

  I was just pointing out that the Church has been able to get the word out about new revelation in the past, so I don't see digital devices as being germane to the subject.

"Getting the word out" about it and providing it in a durable, widespread and highly accessible form that everyone can readily refer to are two separate things. And yes, digital devices and content and cloud computing are very germane to the latter intent.

*Edited to add:

Come to think of it, I now believe it was the Nehor who has joked about no one reading newspapers anymore.

I beg your pardon for my faulty memory.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, DrClump said:

Rongo, He said that we can't take a day off from our callings. He tried using the handbook to justify his stance (I can't remember what he quoted it was about 6 years ago), but my Stake President likes to make his own interpretations of the handbook when he sees convenient. He asked me, who is going to fill in for you as Bishop on Father's Day? 

I was so upset! Every year when Mother's Day approached he would tell us in Bishop's training that we are not to give Sisters a day off from their callings. When he would say this he would always looks in my direction.

It was so hard for me to let the Sisters know that I wasn't going to follow through with my original plan. I couldn't get through the conversation without crying because all I wanted to do for the Sisters was give them a break. The Sisters knew that this direction came from the SP.  I didn't have to tell them.

I spoke to my brother about it who was serving in a Bishopric in a different state and he said that his Stake Presidency was encouraging Bishops to allow the Sisters a day off from their callings on Mother's Day. 

Wow...your tongue must have been awfully sore from biting it!

Enjoying your contributions and welcome from Jeanne!

 

 

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

On 10/20/2016 at 5:17 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The prophets and apostles are in continual contact with Jesus Christ...

How do you know that?  

Are the 15 still making explicit claims of being in continual contact with Jesus Christ? 

[Scott Lloyd]

So I watched the live Internet stream yesterday of the Worldwide Teacher Council Meeting on lds.org. Pretty impressive. Elder Holland presided. On the panel were all five general auxiliary presidents plus 18 men and women who are all members of teacher councils in their respective wards.

All were using hard-copy versions of the scriptures -- except two. Brother Tad R. Callister, Sunday School general president, who conducted the meeting, and Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women general president, were each using a tablet computer to look up and read and cite scriptures. I got the definite impression this is their typical practice. 

General auxiliary leaders routinely visit wards and stakes out and about, where they give counsel and instruction. It is a substantial part of their calling. 

I found myself wondering which local bishop or ward leader is going to have the temerity to say, "Excuse me, Brother Callister, but we won't permit you to use your device in our meeting. We find it disrespectful and distracting," or "Sister Oscarson, iPads are not allowed in our chapel. You can check yours at the door, and we'll bring you some paper scriptures from the meetinghouse library."

P.S. You can still view the telecast on lds.org and see the brazen use of computer tablets by Brother Callister and Sister Oscarson. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I watched the live Internet stream yesterday of the Worldwide Teacher Council Meeting on lds.org. Pretty impressive. Elder Holland presided. On the panel were all five general auxiliary presidents plus 18 men and women who are all members of their respective ward teacher councils.

All were using hard-copy versions of the scriptures -- except two. Brother Tad R. Callister, Sunday School general president, who conducted the meeting, and Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women general president, were each using a tablet computer to look up and read and cite scriptures. I got the definite impression this is their typical practice. 

General auxiliary leaders routinely visit wards and stakes out and about, where they give counsel and instruction. It is a substantial part of their calling. 

I found myself wondering which local bishop or ward leader is going to have the temerity to say, "Excuse me, Brother Callister, but we won't permit you to use your device in our meeting. We find it disrespectful and distracting," or "Sister Oscarson, iPads are not allowed in our chapel. You can check yours at the door, and we'll bring you some paper scriptures from the meetinghouse library."

P.S. You can still view the telecast on lds.org and see the brazen use of computer tablets by Brother Callister and Sister Oscarson. 

We had stake conference last weekend. The visiting authority (Area Authority Seventy) used one of those newfangled convertible tablet laptop things to reference all scriptures he read, and he referenced quite a few. I was in all three sessions, he only carried this device with him, no other bag or hard copy scriptures. He also apparently had some notes on the thing as he had it open in front of him on the podium the whole time he was up there. I think some of his notes were linked directly to scriptures because he could find them faster than I could, but he did have the advantage of knowing which scripture he was going to before the rest of us did. Pretty hard to tell a guy like that he's wrong.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found myself wondering which local bishop or ward leader is going to have the temerity to say, "Excuse me, Brother Callister, but we won't permit you to use your device in our meeting. We find it disrespectful and distracting," or "Sister Oscarson, iPads are not allowed in our chapel. You can check yours at the door, and we'll bring you some paper scriptures from the meetinghouse library."

I think the conversation would be more like this.

"Brother Callister, we have had a significant problem with members playing games and surfing the net on their electronic devices during church. Consequently I have asked the members to not use them at all. Would you be so kind as to bring your printed versions when you visit? Thanks."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think the conversation would be more like this.

"Brother Callister, we have had a significant problem with members playing games and surfing the net on their electronic devices during church. Consequently I have asked the members to not use them at all. Would you be so kind as to bring your printed versions when you visit? Thanks."

Even then, I think it would be awfully weird and presumptuous, if not discourteous, to treat a visiting General Authority or general Church officer that way. If I were a member of the local congregation, I would be embarrassed if I heard it happened.

 

[cinepro]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even then, I think it would be awfully weird and presumptuous, if not discourteous, to treat a visiting General Authority or general Church officer that way. If I were a member of the local congregation, I would be embarrassed if I heard it happened.

 

Hopefully we have leaders of quality enough that he would respond by saying "Sounds like an inspired policy for your area; I would be happy to print out my talk if needed to support you in this matter."

If Christ can wash the feet of his disciples, I'm sure an Apostle could manage to print out a talk.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Hopefully we have leaders of quality enough that he would respond by saying "Sounds like an inspired policy for your area; I would be happy to print out my talk if needed to support you in this matter."

 

 

It would still be a weird, presumptuous and embarrassing thing to expect of an important visitor.

And it's my impression based on past observation that these visits are often not limited to the "stand-at-the-pulpit-and-preach" variety of discourse. Rather they are apt to be interactive and impromptu, involving to a great extent the looking up and citing of scripture on the spur of the moment similar to what occurs in a classroom. If the visiting authority or general auxiliary officer were at-home-with and used to the digital version of the scriptures on his/her device, it would strike me as an imposition to hamstring him/her by expecting him/her to not bring it along, even if he/she were to agree to such a thing. It would be like depriving someone of his personal copy of the scriptures that he had marked and annotated.

Quote

If Christ can wash the feet of his disciples, I'm sure an Apostle could manage to print out a talk.

I think it would be improper to try to dictate to Christ parameters within which to carry forth His ministry.

It was His choice to wash the disciples' feet; no one required it of Him.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/24/2016 at 8:08 AM, Oliver_Cowdery said:

How do you know that?  

Are the 15 still making explicit claims of being in continual contact with Jesus Christ? 

It stands to reason.

Don't you think the prophets and apostles pray frequently in the course of their callings and roles?

And I know enough of the process of receiving revelation to surmise that they, by virtue of their sacred callings, are apt to receive revelation frequently, very often if not most frequently in answer to prayers. And that, by virtue of their callings, it would be revelation that pertains to administering the affairs of the entire Church.

I'm not sure why you would ask that question. The answer strikes me as Mormonism 101.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[sdc999]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think the conversation would be more like this.

"Brother Callister, we have had a significant problem with members playing games and surfing the net on their electronic devices during church. Consequently I have asked the members to not use them at all. Would you be so kind as to bring your printed versions when you visit? Thanks."

Nothing like getting to the root of the problem.   "Why" have you had that problem?  Usually when someone chooses the alternative it is because it is way more interesting than the primary.  How come the speakers have never been addressed?  "Brother Speaker, we have had a significant problem with members playing games and surfing the net on their electronic devices during church.  Could you please make sure your talk is informative, attention grabbing and worth listening to?"  

I have heard it said several times that speaking in church has helped people to speak better in public.  If this is the goal, then sell it as such.  Tell the members that they are most likely going to hear some terrible talks given but it is their obligation to give pure attention to achieve a higher goal.