Talks

[mnn727]

In Church yesterday, we had 3 speakers, one youth, one adult female and one High Priest. The subject was on Family History. While it appears that all three prepared their lesson (so kudo's for not just winging it like some people do) each told personal stories about their families and ancestors, no one mentioned why we do family history, no one mentioned: God, Jesus, or Heaven (any kingdom). Aren't our Sacrament talks supposed to bring us closer to Christ? Should we at least mention him?

We're spending a lot of time these days teaching teachers how to teach, why don't we spend some time teaching speakers how to speak?

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

In Church yesterday, we had 3 speakers, one youth, one adult female and one High Priest. The subject was on Family History. While it appears that all three prepared their lesson (so kudo's for not just winging it like some people do) each told personal stories about their families and ancestors, no one mentioned why we do family history, no one mentioned: God, Jesus, or Heaven (any kingdom). Aren't our Sacrament talks supposed to bring us closer to Christ? Should we at least mention him?

We're spending a lot of time these days teaching teachers how to teach, why don't we spend some time teaching speakers how to speak?

Every six months the church holds an 8 hour training session for speakers.  The church regards these as so important that all other regularly scheduled meeting are cancelled on those weekends.   These training sessions available to rewatch on the internet and are later published in magazine form.  Good stuff.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ksfisher

[mnn727]

Took me a couple seconds..... Nope, those are not training sessions and few people emulate them, although many use them like a book report.

Good try but my statement stands. Most speakers at the Ward and even the Stake level are very poor at giving talks.

Edited October 17, 2016 by mnn727

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

In Church yesterday, we had 3 speakers, one youth, one adult female and one High Priest. The subject was on Family History. While it appears that all three prepared their lesson (so kudo's for not just winging it like some people do) each told personal stories about their families and ancestors, no one mentioned why we do family history, no one mentioned: God, Jesus, or Heaven (any kingdom). Aren't our Sacrament talks supposed to bring us closer to Christ? Should we at least mention him?

We're spending a lot of time these days teaching teachers how to teach, why don't we spend some time teaching speakers how to speak?

Pickering!!!

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Most speakers at the Ward and even the Stake level are very poor at giving talks.

That has not been my experience.  I have been in the same ward for 11 years.  I have seen a broad spectrum, quality-wise, of talks, with the bulk tending to be on the "pretty good" to "excellent" end of the spectrum.

And while people will occasionally delve into a gospel topic and not specifically connect it back to Jesus Christ, that is rather a rare thing.  Our Sacrament Meeting talks are generally quite focused on the Savior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Every six months the church holds an 8 hour training session for speakers.  The church regards these as so important that all other regularly scheduled meeting are cancelled on those weekends.   These training sessions available to rewatch on the internet and are later published in magazine form.  Good stuff.

Yikes! Can you imagine if local people gave sacrament meeting talks with the cadence, tone, and voice of many GC speakers? I enjoy it when GC speakers speak like they talk (same with local speakers).

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yikes! Can you imagine if local people gave sacrament meeting talks with the cadence, tone, and voice of many GC speakers? I enjoy it when GC speakers speak like they talk (same with local speakers).

I was just teasing mostly.  But we could all learn from the preparation that General Conference speakers put in.  I often times cringe when someone starts out their talk "I didn't have a lot of time to prepare..."

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I was just teasing mostly.  But we could all learn from the preparation that General Conference speakers put in.  I often times cringe when someone starts out their talk "I didn't have a lot of time to prepare..."

Or, "Websters defines faith as . . ."

Or, "Since Elder Anderson says it so much better than I can, I'm just going to read his talk to you."

 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Aren't our Sacrament talks supposed to bring us closer to Christ? Should we at least mention him?

No.  So sick of this complaint.  Christ is the center, not the entire contents of the gospel.  Christ never advocated focusing on him, just on the principles he brought from the Father.  The gospel existed before Christ ever did and will exist long after a million other Christs have lived and died.

Quote

We're spending a lot of time these days teaching teachers how to teach, why don't we spend some time teaching speakers how to speak?

Polished sermons were often denounced in the early days of Mormonism.  Prepared discourses were often seen as preventing the spirit from speaking through you.  I'm not opposed to prepared sermons but let's not make our openness any less and our scripted presentation any more formulaic.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  So sick of this complaint.  Christ is the center, not the entire contents of the gospel.  Christ never advocated focusing on him, just on the principles he brought from the Father.  The gospel existed before Christ ever did and will exist long after a million other Christs have lived and died.

Polished sermons were often denounced in the early days of Mormonism.  Prepared discourses were often seen as preventing the spirit from speaking through you.  I'm not opposed to prepared sermons but let's not make our openness any less and our scripted presentation any more formulaic.

Yesterday we had a return missionary speak from another ward, he had been home for a couple of weeks. He was entertaining, his whole talk spoke of some hilarious stuff that happened on his mission. And he tied it all into the topic, being grateful. But I really enjoyed that he told it like it was on his mission, he did end the talk that he knew the church was true. But all the rest of his talk, didn't touch on Jesus or the church. But a good message all in all. 

I loved the hymns too, they were very Christ centered. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

That has not been my experience.  I have been in the same ward for 11 years.  I have seen a broad spectrum, quality-wise, of talks, with the bulk tending to be on the "pretty good" to "excellent" end of the spectrum.

And while people will occasionally delve into a gospel topic and not specifically connect it back to Jesus Christ, that is rather a rare thing.  Our Sacrament Meeting talks are generally quite focused on the Savior.

Thanks,

-Smac

My experience has been similar to Smac's. 

I do wish, though, that we saw less of the practice of beginning a talk with "For those who don't know me, my name is -----" 

I see it chiefly among youth speakers and even among some younger adults such as returned missionaries. We have three teenage children, and I have tried to train them not to begin their talks that way, even though they see their peers do it frequently, almost like it were required protocol.

Not only is it cliche, but it is redundant. The person conducting the meeting has already introduced the speaker; he needn't re-introduce himself. 

I think it is a rather lazy way to begin s talk. And it wastes an opportunity for a good attention-getter that sets the stage for what is to follow. 

The opening sentence is arguably the most important part of the talk because it is the best opportunity to engage the audience. Youth should be trained in writing good openers, and that doesn't necessarily mean telling a joke. I am a firm believer in the power of a good story to convey a message as well as to engender interest among the hearers 

Whenever I interview someone in preparation for writing an article, I will invariably ask the person to tell me a story, knowing that the story is apt to end up in the article. Readers (and hearers) love stories. 

And to bring this back to the topic of the OP, stories can be, and generally are, good ways to convey gospel truths. Our scriptures are laden with them, and we focus on stories from our Church's history, knowing how they can build faith and motivate us to righteousness and faithfulness. 

[mnn727]

On 10/17/2016 at 10:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

No.  So sick of this complaint.  Christ is the center, not the entire contents of the gospel.  Christ never advocated focusing on him, just on the principles he brought from the Father.  The gospel existed before Christ ever did and will exist long after a million other Christs have lived and died.

 

So its OK with you that no talk on a particular Sunday mentions: God, Jesus or Heaven? which is what happened in my Ward last Sunday.

Why bother to go to Church then? The NFL game of the week doesn't mention them either.

Quote

Polished sermons were often denounced in the early days of Mormonism.  Prepared discourses were often seen as preventing the spirit from speaking through you.  I'm not opposed to prepared sermons but let's not make our openness any less and our scripted presentation any more formulaic.

Funny then that One of the Apostles mentioned he looked at the 29th rewrite of a senior Apostles GC Talk. I'd like it if our Ward members did 1 or 2 re-writes. I usually do 4 or 5 rewrites myself, whether if for a talk or when I teach.(which has never stopped me from adding something as I speak if I feel prompted to.)

Edited October 19, 2016 by mnn727

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

So its OK with you that no talk on a particular Sunday mentions: God, Jesus or Heaven? which is what happened in my Ward last Sunday.

Why bother to go to Church then? The NFL game of the week doesn't mention them either.

Funny then that One of the Apostles mentioned he looked at the 29th rewrite of a senior Apostles GC Talk. I'd like it if our Ward members did 1 or 2 re-writes. I usually do 4 or 5 rewrites myself, whether if for a talk or when I teach.(which has never stopped me from adding something as I speak if I feel prompted to.)

President Packer in his later years advocated that people not script out their talks in advance. He reasoned that this hinders the person having it given to him "in the very moment" by the Spirit what he should say.

On the other hand, I do know that President Nelson starts months in advance on his upcoming general conference address. Of course, general conference talks have to be scripted because of the nature and logistics of the occasion.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, mnn727 said:

So its OK with you that no talk on a particular Sunday mentions: God, Jesus or Heaven? which is what happened in my Ward last Sunday.

Why bother to go to Church then? The NFL game of the week doesn't mention them either.

Absolutely ok.
I guess opening the meeting by addressing God in the name of Christ doesn't count.
I guess partaking of the emblems of the flesh and blood of our Lord and committing to remembering him isn't applicable.
I suppose closing the meeting by addressing God in the name of Christ just isn't enough mention?
Still a frustrating complaint.  No, we do not need a talk on a member of the Godhead EVERY week.

I go to Church to learn more of the gospel.  ALL of the gospel.  Not to limit which principles and words of God are focused on that week.

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Packer in his later years advocated that people not script out their talks in advance. He reasoned that this hinders the person having it given to him "in the very moment" by the Spirit what he should say.

This is the principle I was referring to.
 

[Rivers]

I don't like hearing talks. 

I'd rather listen to a sermon.

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I don't like hearing talks. 

I'd rather listen to a sermon.

What's the difference?

[SeekerB]

On 10/17/2016 at 2:27 PM, ksfisher said:

I was just teasing mostly.  But we could all learn from the preparation that General Conference speakers put in.

I have more than once heard a conference speaker remark that the talk he so carefully prepared was torn up the night before conference and completely rewritten into the one he was currently giving.

[Rivers]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I don't like hearing talks. 

I'd rather listen to a sermon.

A talk is just that. A person talking.

Then there is the sort of thing that we get from Jeffrey R. Holland.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, SeekerB said:

I have more than once heard a conference speaker remark that the talk he so carefully prepared was torn up the night before conference and completely rewritten into the one he was currently giving.

That may have been the case many decades ago. But having covered general conference for the Church News for more than the past 30 years, I can tell  you that sort of thing has not been feasible for a long, long time. Talks are written well in advance so they can be printed and distributed by Public Affairs to news media well in advance. They must be prepared for simultaneous translation, and they are carefully timed for broadcast purposes. The texts are also needed for the TelePrompTer.

A departure from this procedure would be extremely rare. The only time I can remember it happening was when the three newest apostles were sustained last year. At least one of them was scheduled to give a talk in the conference at which he was sustained, but his planned talk was postponed for later, as he gave remarks along the lines of a response to his having been called and sustained as an apostle.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That may have been the case many decades ago. But having covered general conference for the Church News for more than the past 30 years, I can tell  you that sort of thing has not been feasible for a long, long time. Talks are written well in advance so they can be printed and distributed by Public Affairs to news media well in advance. They must be prepared for simultaneous translation, and they are carefully time for broadcast purposes.

If true, this is very sad.
Doesn't mean God can't inspire the preparation of the talk, but it does, as you put it, "hinder the person having it given to him 'in the very moment' by the Spirit what he should say."

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If true, this is very sad.
Doesn't mean God can't inspire the preparation of the talk, but it does, as you put it, "hinder the person having it given to him 'in the very moment' by the Spirit what he should say."

I don't believe that the Lord, knowing all the preparation that goes into translation and such, would inspire one of his servants to change their talks at the last moment.  Too much has gone into behind the scenes preparation so as to make it possible for all members of tne church to near gospel preached in their own language.  "My house is a house of order" seems to be wisdom in the preparation and delivery of general conference talks.

I was at a BYU devotional when I was in the MTC where President Benson started his talk by saying that he was going to change his subject matter, then said he wasn't, the changed his mind again all in the space of 30 seconds.  

[rongo]

I've always been interested to know the dynamics behind major changes to conference talks (Elder Poelman, President Packer, etc.). In President Packer's case in 2010, he was president of the quorum of the 12, and his original talk seems to me to reflect what his views were and have always been (his statement that the PotF was a revelation and official doctrine was removed, as was the teaching that homosexuality is not an "inborn tendenc[y]." And the statement "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?").

Who, exactly, insisted on the change? His colleagues as apostles? Or, PR department people? Did he agree with the change, or did he disagree but not want to rock the boat? It was remarkable because he was the president of the quorum of the 12, and his teachings and manner were well-known to generations of Church members. 

I think his (and others') talks should stand, as is, without being sanitized for publication. It's like with Journal of Discourses: there are relatively few things that were said that modern people cringe at, but they were said, and the Church didn't try to hide it. In fact, the Church published stenographic transcripts of them. Similarly, I would like to hear our leaders' own thoughts and explanations, even when they may differ from my own, and even when they aren't tightly correlated or the PR department doesn't like "how it plays." 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If true, this is very sad.
Doesn't mean God can't inspire the preparation of the talk, but it does, as you put it, "hinder the person having it given to him 'in the very moment' by the Spirit what he should say."

I can't feel to weep about that. I think as things are, plenty of inspiration flows to General Authorities. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

I've always been interested to know the dynamics behind major changes to conference talks (Elder Poelman, President Packer, etc.). In President Packer's case in 2010, he was president of the quorum of the 12, and his original talk seems to me to reflect what his views were and have always been (his statement that the PotF was a revelation and official doctrine was removed, as was the teaching that homosexuality is not an "inborn tendenc[y]." And the statement "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?").

Who, exactly, insisted on the change? His colleagues as apostles? Or, PR department people? Did he agree with the change, or did he disagree but not want to rock the boat? It was remarkable because he was the president of the quorum of the 12, and his teachings and manner were well-known to generations of Church members. 

I think his (and others') talks should stand, as is, without being sanitized for publication. It's like with Journal of Discourses: there are relatively few things that were said that modern people cringe at, but they were said, and the Church didn't try to hide it. In fact, the Church published stenographic transcripts of them. Similarly, I would like to hear our leaders' own thoughts and explanations, even when they may differ from my own, and even when they aren't tightly correlated or the PR department doesn't like "how it plays." 

Church Public Affairs is not the tail that wags the dog. I've known many employees of that department over the years, and I can tell you they do the bidding of the Brethren, not vice versa. 

The fanciful image of Public Affairs or Church Correlation as some shadowy star chamber that dictates the behavior of even the apostles and the First Presidency is a thing I find amusing. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Church Public Affairs is not the tail that wags the dog. I've known many employees of that department over the years, and I can tell you they do the bidding of the Brethren, not vice versa. 

The fanciful image of Public Affairs or Church Correlation as some shadowy star chamber that dictates the behavior of even the apostles and the First Presidency is a thing I find amusing. 

So who encouraged President Packer to immediately make significant changes to the written talk? Other apostles?

The nature of the changes were such that I believe he said what he meant. They were changed along PR lines. That doesn't seem like President Packer.