Mormon Leaks

[Duncan]

I wonder why the released these and not anything recent, if they did hack them

[Calm]

Possibly they looked for those that would be inflammatory or newsworthy and most weren't.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Anyone who wants to speak off-the-record now faces the possibility that their remarks will come back to haunt them.

Why would these videos have that effect?

 

[Duncan]

Just watched the YSA thing, and boy would I not want to be asked a question by Pres. Packer! I think they are bang on about YSA stuff and marriage stuff

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Just watched the YSA thing, and boy would I not want to be asked a question by Pres. Packer! I think they are bang on about YSA stuff and marriage stuff

How do you mean?

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do you mean?

oh, he was asking about family and how they didn't mention that and then the discussion centered around that  and he seemed I dunno, his questions were well thought out. They seem in touch with what I've heard elsewhere about what people think, feel etc. and activity rates

[Calm]

The Pirates of the Caribbean clip makes sense in the context of the update, which was pointing out that in spite of the suffering and economic losses due to piracy, governments were doing little to curtail it and the public was tending to glorify them into a Robin Hood stereotype.  And then he used the movie clip (saying later it was for a bit of fun and it was obviously taken that way with the chuckles, he was probably trying to add some zip into being essentially a news commentator) to demonstrate how the Pirate mythology turned pirates into likable characters and authorities into incompetent idiots, which mythology influences how society responses, which at the time was ineffectively to a real threat.

[Tacenda]

I wonder why these meetings are videotaped. Maybe for training purposes?

[Judd]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why these meetings are videotaped.

To keep them secret.

[Yirgacheffe]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I think his saying God had a hand in the Iraq war so missionaries could get in was the worst of all

I think he said he voted for the war because he could see God's hand in it and that that hand was working to further the missionary activity of the church. I found the whole video very disturbing and off putting.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why these meetings are videotaped. Maybe for training purposes?

These were info briefings.  So they would probably want to have them on file like news media keeps their old stuff on file for future reference.  It is also possible that it got recorded so that apostles that couldn't attend could also keep up to date.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Judd said:

To keep them secret.

If we wanted them absolutely secret we would burn all records associated with them. However, that is exactly what our enemies would be expecting us to do so we videotape them and keep written records to throw them off.

We are cunning that way.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I think he said he voted for the war because he could see God's hand in it and that that hand was working to further the missionary activity of the church. I found the whole video very disturbing and off putting.

So a normal politician?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I think he said he voted for the war because he could see God's hand in it and that that hand was working to further the missionary activity of the church. I found the whole video very disturbing and off putting.

People get what they vote for, if they don't like the current politicians then elect new ones. I didn't get that far in the video but I doubt God caused the war but the Church is trying to make some good of it. I've heard similar statements about the Korean War

[JulieM]

Here is a list of the videos and topics with links:

http://kutv.com/news/local/watch-leaked-videos-show-briefings-of-lds-leadership

I haven't had a chance to listen to them but will try to today.  It's probably the second one listed with the comments about gays and the gay agenda.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by JulieM

[JAHS]

Here's some commentary on the subject

In our opinion: LDS Church leaks reveal an engaged and informed leadership

"In a not-so-friendly post, Mehta says the videos show just “how sheltered and out of touch these leaders are” and how they “live in a complete bubble.”

In fact, the videos show the complete opposite. These are precisely the kind of briefings Latter-day Saints should want their leaders to have in order to be informed on the most pressing contemporary issues."

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's some commentary on the subject

In our opinion: LDS Church leaks reveal an engaged and informed leadership

"In a not-so-friendly post, Mehta says the videos show just “how sheltered and out of touch these leaders are” and how they “live in a complete bubble.”

In fact, the videos show the complete opposite. These are precisely the kind of briefings Latter-day Saints should want their leaders to have in order to be informed on the most pressing contemporary issues."

Well, yes and no... it's great that they were getting a briefing on Wikileaks.  But then in the Q&A that follows, rather than focusing on security ramifications they seem to be overly concerned about the sexual orientation of the participants and the media reporting (or lack thereof) of their sexual orientation.  

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, yes and no... it's great that they were getting a briefing on Wikileaks.  But then in the Q&A that follows, rather than focusing on security ramifications they seem to be overly concerned about the sexual orientation of the participants and the media reporting (or lack thereof) of their sexual orientation.  

Yeah. So? They are concerned about everything that affects church members.

[rockpond]

I listened to the hour long clip about YSA concerns this morning. 

First, the data:  as of the filming (2008) we had only a 30% activity rate for YSA's in North America.  20% internationally.  And internationally, only 6% of members were temple married by age 30.  

What followed was a really good discussion.  Some of the ideas presented have been implemented in the 8 years since. 

They had Sister Beck in the room, which was great.  I wish they had given her a bit more time to give her input and discuss but they did listen to her. 

As you watch/listen you can see what Greg Prince calls "trickle up revelation".  Ideas implemented in wards and stakes around the globe are being reported to the Brethren and discussed for implementation at an institutional level. 

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yeah. So? They are concerned about everything that affects church members.

The sexual orientation of the founder of Wikileaks is something that affects church members?

[stemelbow]

I sat through a couple of them and I'm feeling embarrassed.  I don't get the talk about whether someone is gay and the mention of a gay agenda.  It was weird.  Elder Oaks wonders if there's some "gay agenda" and if the media is saying the soldier was gay behind things as it relates to the soldier who leaked info..."no" says the presenter, "it was reported in the media". 

I might listen more, but not feeling impressed, for sure. 

[BlueDreams]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I sat through a couple of them and I'm feeling embarrassed.  I don't get the talk about whether someone is gay and the mention of a gay agenda.  It was weird.  Elder Oaks wonders if there's some "gay agenda" and if the media is saying the soldier was gay behind things as it relates to the soldier who leaked info..."no" says the presenter, "it was reported in the media". 

I might listen more, but not feeling impressed, for sure. 

I only watched the mini-clip and then the longer one. I've also watched pieces of other ones. It did give me a moment of realization what Oaks was probably thinking when he mentioned while talking about the report we've had 2 threads on. (ie. A sense that only specific reports or events would be covered by the media. If it may put LGBT issues in a negative light it may not get air-time). But it's a minute aside and without much context. I wonder why this was a few minutes long whiled other things were nearly an hour. It's also looking at a slightly ajar window in time. The context is in the peak of the Gay rights movement in 2008 you have prop 8 passing and the legal battle that followed there and in other states was continuing well past 2011. So it's not surprising that this would be on their minds. The tone about what to do has softened and changed to one less of battle grounds and more on finding common ground and protecting rights to practice as we please while others practice what they believe in their own way. My guess is that these meetings where they discussed LGBT concerns, if we had a continued window into them, would vary from this period of time. I would hope that this change may have also been about some of these presentations where other people, including LGBT members may have also come in to talk with them. As well a change in making the best of the new U.S. climate.

I've watched parts of other videos and there's really not much to be embarrassed about. They're just discussing current issues, concerns, etc.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 3, 2016 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

I wanted to add this part separately. So far the videos are not all that concerning to me. They're interesting, but they're not earth shattering. I'm glad they're talking about the issues, seeking out experts in the field, etc. 

The only thing I would hope that happens in these meetings (again, there's no indication as to how representative these meetings are for what I assume are fairly regular presentations) is their lack of women and a concern about having a variety of voices. Some of the presenters have obvious bias. Which is ok. But I would hope that others with differing biases were also present to give differing perspectives. The other is the amount of women shown. Julie B. Beck was there for one meeting on YSA's, but I'm not seeing a lot of women there. Both of these can cause group think if the people there are not super diverse in perspectives or ideas. I would assume sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. This may have changed, since many of these leaks were at the cusp of pushing more female involvement in meetings. 

Overall though, I think this is generally a good thing and indicates that they really are trying to keep the leaders up to date on social trends. Have varying opinions. etc.

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I wanted to add this part separately. So far the videos are not all that concerning to me. They're interesting, but they're not earth shattering. I'm glad they're talking about the issues, seeking out experts in the field, etc. 

The only thing I would hope that happens in these meetings (again, there's no indication as to how representative these meetings are for what I assume are fairly regular presentations) is their lack of women and a concern about having a variety of voices. Some of the presenters have obvious bias. Which is ok. But I would hope that others with differing biases were also present to give differing perspectives. The other is the amount of women shown. Julie B. Beck was there for one meeting on YSA's, but I'm not seeing a lot of women there. Both of these can cause group think if the people there are not super diverse in perspectives or ideas. I would assume sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. This may have changed, since many of these leaks were at the cusp of pushing more female involvement in meetings. 

Overall though, I think this is generally a good thing and indicates that they really are trying to keep the leaders up to date on social trends. Have varying opinions. etc.

 

With luv,

BD

You know what struck me as well as lack of women, lack of color. I saw mostly white men. Or did I miss something. This struck me though. I'm not trying to start something. But what you said made me remember my experience.

[phaedrus ut]

The videos are pretty underwhelming. I think that's going to be the problem.  They get a detailed briefing about hacking vulnerability and insiders leaking to wikileaks and the discussion turns to Chelsea(Bradley) Manning's sexuality, whether or not Julian Assange is also a homosexual, and how the press is covering up news for a homosexual agenda? 

 

Phaedrus