Mormon Leaks

[notHagoth7]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... I think that is why hearing the senator's staff described as "church-broke" and a joke being made...

If *that* is what the clip says, I may owe you a serious apology for asserting you had done anything blithely.

I intend to go back and revisit the clip, perhaps tonight.  

If that is the case, I still don't see it as shocking, although unusual, but could could see how *if* that is what was said, some might opt to take issue with it.

Edited October 5, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

If *that* is what the clip says, I may owe you a serious apology for asserting you had done anything blithely.

I intend to go back and revisit the clip, perhaps tonight.  

If that is the case, I still don't see it as shocking, although unusual, but could could see how *if* that is what was said, some might opt to take issue with it.

Good luck with that.  That clip made me sick.

[ChristKnight]

In case anyone is interested, the NYT has an article on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:

In case anyone is interested, the NYT has an article on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Thank you for posting this.  I had heard about it but not read it yet 

[Glenn101]

My question is, Why is anyone viewing those clips? I have not and will not. I would not view clips from a Catholic Leaks or a Prebsbyterian Leaks site either. I question the integrity of those who posted the clips. Just as I do the one who secretly recorded an interview with with a bishop.  Have we become a nation of data voyeurs? 

Maybe I'm being self-righteous. Maybe I'm being old fashioned.

Glenn

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

My question is, Why is anyone viewing those clips?

The transcripts of the videos were leaked, but the church itself decided to go ahead and release the videos.  No more disrespectful than looking at interior photos published by the church of the SLC temple when someone had taken unauthorized photos.

Very interesting listening to a representative of the Catholic Church speaking to the church leaders about defending religious freedom.  It was like listening to a BYU forum address.  For me it answered the question on where many of the General Authorities get the topic for their talks at General  Conference.  Many of them seem so topical and about current issues.

Anyway, no big deal.  Neither secret nor sacred. The church actually assisted in verifying the authenticity of the leaked documents.

Edited October 8, 2016 by cdowis

[VideoGameJunkie]

No one is paying attention to the NYT article. People are paying more attention to the hurricane and clowns. 

[Duncan]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The transcripts of the videos were leaked, but the church itself decided to go ahead and release the videos.  No more disrespectful than looking at interior photos published by the church of the SLC temple when someone had taken unauthorized photos.

Very interesting listening to a representative of the Catholic Church speaking to the church leaders about defending religious freedom.  It was like listening to a BYU forum address.  For me it answered the question on where many of the General Authorities get the topic for their talks at General  Conference.  Many of them seem so topical and about current issues.

Anyway, no big deal.  Neither secret nor sacred. The church actually assisted in verifying the authenticity of the leaked documents.

where did the Church release the videos?

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

where did the Church release the videos?

I don't think cdcowis is correct.  The videos were what was leaked.  Much easier and faster to put them up on youtube than to make a transcript of them.  I've made transcripts of recordings before.  Very laborious. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by ksfisher

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I don't think cdcowis is correct.  The videos were what was leaked.  Much easier and faster to put them up on youtube than to make a transcript of them.  I've made transscripts or recordings before.  Very laborious. 

OIC

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

OIC

You didn't let me fix my spelling mistakes before you quoted me.  How embarassing.

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You didn't let me fix my spelling mistakes before you quoted me.  How embarassing.

i'll keep your secret

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

My question is, Why is anyone viewing those clips? I have not and will not. I would not view clips from a Catholic Leaks or a Prebsbyterian Leaks site either. I question the integrity of those who posted the clips. Just as I do the one who secretly recorded an interview with with a bishop.  Have we become a nation of data voyeurs? 

Maybe I'm being self-righteous. Maybe I'm being old fashioned.

Glenn

I, too, am sick of hidden camera, whistleblower-type leaks. Even when they're against people I don't like politically, and stand to hurt them, I don't like this "data voyeurism," as you call it.  I really like that phrase you've coined! 

Everyone has to be able to have privacy where they can be frank without fear of being "exposed." No matter how reprehensible it is what they're saying (and these Church leaks aren't even close to reprehensible). The other thread with the secretly taped conversation with a bishop --- ridiculous!

I also can't believe how many moles there are in seemingly all organizations --- especially the Church Office Building. I guess some people want their 15 minutes of fame or accolades from the gallery so badly, they are willing to be completely integrity-free. 

 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think cdcowis is correct.  The videos were what was leaked.  Much easier and faster to put them up on youtube than to make a transcript of them.  I've made transcripts of recordings before.  Very laborious. 

Sorry, but it seems that the videos were indeed leaked.

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/2/2016 at 2:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Haven't watched all of them yet, but from the ones I've seen, those who are expecting some sort of sensational smoking gun that will condemn the Brethren are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

Scott, Scott, Scott!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!  Haven't you learned by now that critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are gonna see what they wanna see?  

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/3/2016 at 1:53 PM, ksfisher said:

He's a senator.  Why would he know if something was classified or not?

I don't think anything he discussed was marked classified at the time he discussed it, so he's completely in the clear.  

Edited October 7, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think anything he discussed was marked classified at the time he discussed it, so he's completely in the clear.  

Only Hillary can get away with this.

[ALarson]

On 10/4/2016 at 9:17 PM, Calm said:

Sister Beck was at the YSA one, the couple of others I have glanced at, I didn't see any women, but that could have just been the camera views. 

Here is one person's opinion regarding the meeting where Sister Beck was in attendance:

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/05/leaked-worldwide-only-25-of-young-single-mormons-are-active-in-the-lds-church/

I have not watched any of these videos, so I can't vouch for what she states here:

Quote

 

For one thing, while then-Relief Society president Julie Beck is present at the meeting, she doesn’t speak until two and a half minutes from the end, when Elder Boyd K. Packer says, “President Beck, we should hear a mother’s point of view.”

Despite his use of the title “President,” the invitation has the pro forma feel of indulging the one woman in attendance – especially since he closes the meeting immediately after her remarks and no one appears to take her ideas seriously. (For the record, Pres. Beck challenged the whole paradigm of having singles wards, which she said “drain the lifeblood” of conventional wards internationally and aren’t all that successful in promoting marriage in the first place. But no one at the meeting seemed to be listening.)

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here is one person's opinion regarding the meeting where Sister Beck was in attendance:

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/05/leaked-worldwide-only-25-of-young-single-mormons-are-active-in-the-lds-church/

I have not watched any of these videos, so I can't vouch for what he states here:

 

Isn't it great that we can feel offended for someone else.  Even though we weren't in attendance,  its comforting to know that we can feel offended for someone years after the fact, just in case the person themselves didn't feel sufficiently offended at the time.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here is one person's opinion regarding the meeting where Sister Beck was in attendance:

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/05/leaked-worldwide-only-25-of-young-single-mormons-are-active-in-the-lds-church/

I have not watched any of these videos, so I can't vouch for what she states here:

 

She did make some great points.  I was disappointed that the meeting ended immediately after she spoke.  Hopefully someone took note of what she said and discussed it later.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

She did make some great points.  I was disappointed that the meeting ended immediately after she spoke.  Hopefully someone took note of what she said and discussed it later.

I haven't listened, but it's interesting that Jana Riess was accurate about this.  I'll try to watch the video as now I'm interested  

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[juliann]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here is one person's opinion regarding the meeting where Sister Beck was in attendance:

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/05/leaked-worldwide-only-25-of-young-single-mormons-are-active-in-the-lds-church/

I have not watched any of these videos, so I can't vouch for what she states here:

 

She described it fairly. I found it very startling that there wasn't even a "good thoughts" response.. She stopped talking and Elder Packer didn't wait more than 2 seconds jump in to end the meeting without one acknowledgment she had even said anything. But most interesting to me was that she turned the discussion to international needs, she had a perspective that was completely different. If this isn't an example of why women's perspectives are critical I don't know what is. 

What bothered me the most was that the men were talking freely and spontaneously throughout whereas she had to be called on in a manner that said, well, we are done, so the mother can talk now. Her comments had no more to do with mothers than theirs did fathers.  

The good things were that she called on at all,  wasn't interrupted and that Packer used "President."  It does matter that she had to speak. Research shows this is the most effective way to include women in male dominated groups. The worst confirmed the research on male communication styles that silence women. Men give each other more feedback (which they did.) Women get far more negative feedback (which didn't happen, yay) but more important, men give women dramatically less positive feedback and she got none. If they run their councils like this it won't matter much if women are there or not, other than men do (statistically) use women's ideas as their own.

We do need to remember, however, that these videos are dated. Almost all of the progress for women has happened since then.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

She described it fairly. I found it very startling that there wasn't even a "good thoughts" response.. She stopped talking and Elder Packer didn't wait more than 2 seconds jump in to end the meeting without one acknowledgment she had even said anything. But most interesting to me was that she turned the discussion to international needs, she had a perspective that was completely different. If this isn't an example of why women's perspectives are critical I don't know what is. 

What bothered me the most was that the men were talking freely and spontaneously throughout whereas she had to be called on in a manner that said, well, we are done, so the mother can talk now. Her comments had no more to do with mothers than theirs did fathers.  

The good things were that she called on at all,  wasn't interrupted and that Packer used "President."  It does matter that she had to speak. Research shows this is the most effective way to include women in male dominated groups. The worst confirmed the research on male communication styles that silence women. Men give each other more feedback (which they did.) Women get far more negative feedback (which didn't happen, yay) but more important, men give women dramatically less positive feedback and she got none. If they run their councils like this it won't matter much if women are there or not, other than men do (statistically) use women's ideas as their own.

We do need to remember, however, that these videos are dated. Almost all of the progress for women has happened since then.

That's true (and progress in this area is good to see).

Thanks for your analysis as I value your opinion on this topic.  I will definitely be trying to watch the video over the weekend.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

She described it fairly. I found it very startling that there wasn't even a "good thoughts" response.. She stopped talking and Elder Packer didn't wait more than 2 seconds jump in to end the meeting without one acknowledgment she had even said anything. But most interesting to me was that she turned the discussion to international needs, she had a perspective that was completely different. If this isn't an example of why women's perspectives are critical I don't know what is. 

What bothered me the most was that the men were talking freely and spontaneously throughout whereas she had to be called on in a manner that said, well, we are done, so the mother can talk now. Her comments had no more to do with mothers than theirs did fathers.  

The good things were that she called on at all,  wasn't interrupted and that Packer used "President."  It does matter that she had to speak. Research shows this is the most effective way to include women in male dominated groups. The worst confirmed the research on male communication styles that silence women. Men give each other more feedback (which they did.) Women get far more negative feedback (which didn't happen, yay) but more important, men give women dramatically less positive feedback and she got none. If they run their councils like this it won't matter much if women are there or not, other than men do (statistically) use women's ideas as their own.

We do need to remember, however, that these videos are dated. Almost all of the progress for women has happened since then.

Do you think it's fair to anyone involved in the video to take some general principles of male/female communication and say that that is the reason why President Beck was not heard from earlier, had to be called on to speak, and the meeting closed after that?  We really don't know the reasons for any of those things.  

For all we know President Beck may have been an integral part of many other discussion which were not leaked.  

Edited October 8, 2016 by ksfisher

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you think it's fair to anyone involved in the video to take some general principles of male/female communication and say that that is the reason why President Beck was not heard from earlier, had to be called on to speak, and the meeting closed after that?   

 

Yes. What was available was textbook male/female communication with a couple of praiseworthy exceptions. 

Quote

For all we know President Beck may have been an integral part of many other discussion which were not leaked.  

And when that is leaked, it can also be held up to male/female communication research. I'm not sure what your point is. Local church councils mirror research on successful integration of women's voices into male dominated meetings. In my experience, women are expected to speak rather than going silent, which they will,  and with a good bishop they are not interrupted and they can receive needed feedback. . If more women could be on councils this would be the best solution to training them to speak up. (Not to say Beck needed any training, she was loud with a strong opinion.)