So this happened in Church today...

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On this subject, I'm reminded of what Moses said: "Would that all God's people were prophets and that he would put his Spirit on every one."

Assigning someone to give a talk on somebody else's talk signals to me that you don't trust the person to exercise his own initiative to seek the best gifts of the Spirit -- including the gift of prophecy -- in the preparation and delivery of his own talk.

 

My Brother said that when a High Councilor here is assigned a topic he is given some talks as resources. I said what you said they don't trust them to come up with their own material? if they don't then why are they are the HC? and it's what we get every month wholesale readings, some intersperse their own ideas but some others are just reading it. The other thing too is why is the Stake giving the HC topics in the first place, unless it's something special like an upcoming event or something but wouldn't bishoprics be more in tune with what their own ward needs more so than the stake? it seems funny to me that all of the stake needs to hear Elder Rufus T. Firefly's talk when one ward may not be struggling with it and another ward is, different wards different needs. Course, I tell my brother this and he shrugs it off with a "I dunno"

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I hadn't heard he had died.  That's too bad.  I recently picked up his bio of his dad at a thrift store and really enjoyed it.

In 2013:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_McConkie

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

"We sometimes go to sacrament meeting in which all the speakers are assigned to repeat the same general conference talk. What we get are the best-crafted talks in the history of the Church and fewer people listening than ever before. In my judgment, the reason we have fewer people listening is not because of the quality of what is being said, but because the speaker is bringing nothing to the altar that constitutes his own offering. It is just a handoff: this man said something, and we have picked it up and handed it to you as though nothing went through us." Joseph Fielding McConkie

https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/es/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/becoming-master-teachers

I did a talk like that once. They eye rolling in the pews was almost audible. Never did that again.

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ceasing to frame the assignment as a mandate to give a talk on someone else's talk frees the prospective speaker of the implied or inferred confinement of being slavishly tethered to what the prior speaker said and how he said it.

That's why I say that the better thing to do would be to assign Sister Jones to speak on, say, the subject of repentance, not on what Elder Joseph J. Kimball said about repentance in the talk he gave at the last general conference. Sister Jones thus remains free to express her own inspired thoughts within a gospel framework, selecting from whatever appropriate supplemental resources are at her disposal, including Elder Joseph J. Kimball's address at the last general conference.

I do think it better to give it on topic, but have NEVER considered the conference talk as "implied or inferred confinement of being slavishly tethered to what the prior speaker said and how he said it" though if that is what people think it is then I can see why it is a problem for some. 

Like I said though, this happens over and over again with every lesson put out by the church as well too. Some people still infer what you are saying despite direction otherwise in the front of many of the manuals and in teaching people how to teach materials. 

So for me it isn't that a specific talk was given to speak on, but that people don't have the desire/knowledge/skills/understanding/example to follow to do it in other ways.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

.................................

Savannah's life will forever be changed by it...............................................

Yes, and not for the better, because she will now become the tool of those who don't have her best interests at heart.

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

.......................... the orthodox religion community and people with no faiths ................................

What exactly is this "orthodox religion community"?  Is that to be differentiated from heterodox?  And no longer part of Eastern Orthodoxy?  Is this part of some new terminology to exclude Mormons?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

My Brother said that when a High Councilor here is assigned a topic he is given some talks as resources. I said what you said they don't trust them to come up with their own material? if they don't then why are they are the HC? and it's what we get every month wholesale readings, some intersperse their own ideas but some others are just reading it. The other thing too is why is the Stake giving the HC topics in the first place, unless it's something special like an upcoming event or something but wouldn't bishoprics be more in tune with what their own ward needs more so than the stake? it seems funny to me that all of the stake needs to hear Elder Rufus T. Firefly's talk when one ward may not be struggling with it and another ward is, different wards different needs. Course, I tell my brother this and he shrugs it off with a "I dunno"

The ironic thing is we are blessed today to live in an age with a plethora of high-quality gospel material from which to draw, more than ever before, that is more easily accessible than at any time in the history of the Church. Yet this mindset persists that we need to dictate the use of specific resources and formulas when we expect people to give talks presumably guided by their own divine inspiration.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the "give a talk based on a talk" phenomena is rooted in an effort to extend correlation into sacrament meetings. If people stick closely to the words of the prophet(s) then they can't go too wrong, right? You add that desire for correlation to an ever beating drum about following the prophet, Teachings for Our Times lessons based on conference talks, and manuals based on teachings of the prophets and I think the environment is created to have members parrot the leaders.

Yesterday we had 3 talks in sacrament meeting all based on the same talk. We had a similar topic for Gospel Doctrine (happy coincidence  ) and then the exact same talk assigned for 3rd hour. It was a fine talk and all but geesh. Talk about beating a dead horse.

I have nothing against Correlation. In fact, I have championed it in the past. But, as I just pointed out, there is such an abundance of correlated material from which to draw in this day and age, there is no need to assign everybody to focus on the self-same general conference sermon. There is something about my makeup that resists such a thing. I guess it's because it seems too close to plagiarism to be to my liking.

Part of the problem might be that people don't read and study very much anymore, or they only read narrow-interest content (gun magazines, sports magazines, cooking, crafts, entertainment etc.*). So perhaps local leaders are afraid that when a typical Church member is assigned to talk on a particular topic, he will be caught flat-footed unless he is given a specific resource from which to draw.

*I became aware of this a couple of years ago when I was called up for jury duty. During the voir dire examination, we were asked in turn what kind of material we typically read. it surprised me to see how ill-read many of my fellow prospective jurors were, if they were in the habit of reading at all. They seemed intelligent enough, but they never read anything outside of their own narrow interests.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I hadn't heard he had died.  That's too bad.  I recently picked up his bio of his dad at a thrift store and really enjoyed it.

Here's a story I wrote in April 2013 about a lecture given by Joseph Fielding McConkie regarding his father.

[Anijen]

When a member of the Bishopric asks you to give a talk they will give you the subject matter and they might say keep it to 15 minutes. Better is when they say:

"I would like you to be our first speaker in two weeks, please speak on the topic of repentance, and please have your talk  end no later than 10:42"

This way, no matter if they started at 10:20 or at 10:40 they know when to end their talk!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

I do think it better to give it on topic, but have NEVER considered the conference talk as "implied or inferred confinement of being slavishly tethered to what the prior speaker said and how he said it" though if that is what people think it is then I can see why it is a problem for some. 

Like I said though, this happens over and over again with every lesson put out by the church as well too. Some people still infer what you are saying despite direction otherwise in the front of many of the manuals and in teaching people how to teach materials. 

So for me it isn't that a specific talk was given to speak on, but that people don't have the desire/knowledge/skills/understanding/example to follow to do it in other ways.

I've never had much of a problem with the lesson manuals.

But when I'm told to give a talk on somebody's general conference sermon, I immediately get this mental mindset, next to impossible to shake, justifiable or not, that I need to stick pretty much to the content of the general conference sermon as opposed to doing my own doctrinal study and source consultation and presenting my own insights.

No great harm in that, I suppose. It's just that the more constricted I am in source material, the more difficult it is for me to make an interesting -- and original -- talk.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Anijen said:

When a member of the Bishopric asks you to give a talk they will give you the subject matter and they might say keep it to 15 minutes. Better is when they say:

"I would like you to be our first speaker in two weeks, please speak on the topic of repentance, and please have your talk  end no later than 10:42"

This way, no matter if they started at 10:20 or at 10:40 they know when to end their talk!

 

One of the identifying characteristics of an inexperienced public speaker is that he/she goes way beyond his/her allotted time. It's a matter of over-preparing and then being bound-and-determined to deliver everything one has prepared.

Also, it can be difficult for one who lacks experience to adjust the length of the talk on the fly. Hard to decide at the pulpit what material can be left out without interrupting the flow and making the transitions awkward and illogical, or ending abruptly. 

I have learned over time to prepare far less than I expect I will have time to deliver. I still end up with too much content for the allotted time.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[gopher]

Have you noticed any improvement since the change was made to have Ward Councils help plan speakers and topics for Sacrament meeting?  It's no longer the bishopric or executive secretary making the decisions.  We use the entire 3rd Sunday WC to plan the next month's meeting. In theory, it should lead to more diverse ideas, better coordination with lessons in the 2nd and 3rd hour, etc.  Yesterday, we had our ward OW, pro-SSM, pro-everything-progressive activist speak and she did a great job.  I don't know if the bishopric would have dared to ask her to speak, but the WC convinced them. 

I also think very few people have the skill to give a good talk from a few notes jotted down on a card.  Write out your talk!  And read over it several times out loud before the meeting so when you deliver it, it sounds natural.  Our meetings will be more likely to end on time and I won't be ticked off at you for taking time away from my SS class

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Have you noticed any improvement since the change was made to have Ward Councils help plan speakers and topics for Sacrament meeting?  It's no longer the bishopric or executive secretary making the decisions.  We use the entire 3rd Sunday WC to plan the next month's meeting. In theory, it should lead to more diverse ideas, better coordination with lessons in the 2nd and 3rd hour, etc.  Yesterday, we had our ward OW, pro-SSM, pro-everything-progressive activist speak and she did a great job.  I don't know if the bishopric would have dared to ask her to speak, but the WC convinced them. 

I also think very few people have the skill to give a good talk from a few notes jotted down on a card.  Write out your talk!  And read over it several times out loud before the meeting so when you deliver it, it sounds natural.  Our meetings will be more likely to end on time and I won't be ticked off at you for taking time away from my SS class

Our WC did that once and I was the only person to come up with topics and it was an email. What the Bishopric does now, I have no idea but as far as I know we haven't been asked to submit ideas or speakers for topics or anything

[mnn727]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's a problem (and I agree that it is), why tie the topic, when assigning it, to a general conference talk or any other talk? Why not just assign the topic itself, whatever the topic might be? It's not as if the General Authority has proprietorship over the topic just because he gave a talk on it.

This practice of having people base their sacrament meeting talks on general conference talks appears to be a current fad in the Church, one that I hope soon runs its course. (I hold open the possibility that the practice is in line with a directive from Church headquarters. If that is the case, I would welcome being enlightened on it.)

 

You are correct there, My Bishop did it when I was Exec Sec. The current Bishop assigned my wife a Bible Verse for her talk last week and on the paper she was given it said she should use her personal experiences, revelation, and anything from LDS.org.

I thought that was a much better way of doing it.

[why me]

On 26.6.2017 at 6:30 PM, Tacenda said:

Ellen has already tweeted her.

Savannah's life will forever be changed by it. Imagine Dragons is putting on a concert in Provo coming up on Aug. 26th called "Love Loud". Steve and Barb young are supportive or behind it. I bet they'll invite Savannah to speak. She may be the new poster child. I hope her parents will be able to intervene if any of it is not in her best interest. But when you think of it, we have "America's Got Talent" that recently featured a LDS young woman about the same age I believe, so if Savannah is front and center what is really the difference? 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/7842023/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-evolve-bigotry-mormonism-interview 

C/P'd from the article:

"As a spotlight Mormon, I felt the heavy weight to speak out now and do something about it; otherwise I’d just be sitting back being an activist for bigotry. So I got together with progressive activists Steve and Barb Young in the Mormon community to put on Love Loud on Aug. 26 for all orthodox religions that teach children it’s sinful to be LGBTQ and that It’s hurting our youth. This Love Loud festival is going to get out people of all types -- the LGBTQ community as well as the orthodox religion community and people with no faiths -- and have them all come together to listen to music and to speakers who will talk about how important it is for families to not just accept it, but let their children know they’re beautiful the way they are, and if there is a God, then God is all for it. I believe in Mormons and I believe in people in orthodox religion and I believe they have good hearts. But I believe we all can be educated on the matter to create positive change. This is about awareness more than anything."

And this was the whole point behind her coming out the way she did. She will get publicity. The whole thing was staged. And I wouldn't even be surprised if the mic being turned off was also staged. It was a work of genius. Have a twelve year old girl come out as gay in a sacrament/testimony meeting right before gay pride week.

[why me]

On 26.6.2017 at 6:30 PM, Tacenda said:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/7842023/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-evolve-bigotry-mormonism-interview 

 

C/P'd from the article:

"As a spotlight Mormon, I felt the heavy weight to speak out now and do something about it; otherwise I’d just be sitting back being an activist for bigotry. So I got together with progressive activists Steve and Barb Young in the Mormon community to put on Love Loud on Aug. 26 for all orthodox religions that teach children it’s sinful to be LGBTQ and that It’s hurting our youth."

I'll bet a penny that Islam will not be included in the orthodox religion discussion. Islam will not be mentioned but mormonism will. And catholicism. Nor will the terrible treatment of gays in Islamic societies all over the world.

Edited June 27, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

3 hours ago, why me said:

And I wouldn't even be surprised if the mic being turned off was also staged. 

You think the member of the Stake Presidency who was presiding was 'in on it'?  

So everyone is lying that the absence of the Bishop was unexpected and instead the parents knew he would be out of town and knew who would be presiding instead somehow (could have been anyone from the Stake Presidency, Bishopric, High Council in my understanding or even the HP Group Leader or EQ Pres if no one higher up in the hierarchy was present)?

Just how did they know who to contact to let them know when to shut it off?  How did they managed to get someone so supportive of the activism to be chosen to preside that day?

I think this is ridiculous and saying such only undermines credibility.  Any claim need to be thought through and explored if they could be practically done.  This could not be.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Calm

[Anijen]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of the identifying characteristics of an inexperienced public speaker is that he/she goes way beyond his/her allotted time. It's a matter of over-preparing and then being bound-and-determined to deliver everything one has prepared.

Also, it can be difficult for one who lacks experience to adjust the length of the talk on the fly. Hard to decide at the pulpit what material can be left out without interrupting the flow and making the transitions awkward and illogical, or ending abruptly. 

I have learned over time to prepare far less than I expect I will have time to deliver. I still end up with too much content for the allotted time.

My suggestion about giving an end time was advice given to us from our Stake President. I think it is still good advise, even if it makes an awkward ending, but I think it is more polite to have an awkward ending than to use up the following speakers time.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Anijen said:

My suggestion about giving an end time was advice given to us from our Stake President. I think it is still good advise, even if it makes an awkward ending, but I think it is more polite to have an awkward ending than to use up the following speakers time.

Doesn't that just switch to cutting off the earlier speaker instead of the last?  I would suggest giving a time estimate, but also a deadline so that everyone could get a fair division if time is short upfront because of ward business or something else.  So like eight or ten minutes (divide by how many speak, give youth speakers half the time) or 10:40 (based on the ideal time if ward business and Sacrament take expected time) whichever comes last...(or first, distracted so can't think it through at this point.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Doesn't that just switch to cutting off the earlier speaker instead of the last?  I would suggest giving a time estimate, but also a deadline so that everyone could get a fair division if time is short upfront because of ward business or something else.  So like eight or ten minutes (divide by how many speak, give youth speakers half the time) or 10:40 (based on the ideal time if ward business and Sacrament take expected time) whichever comes last...(or first, distracted so can't think it through at this point.

 

Seems too complicated. I like Anijen's suggestion better.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

My suggestion about giving an end time was advice given to us from our Stake President. I think it is still good advise, even if it makes an awkward ending, but I think it is more polite to have an awkward ending than to use up the following speakers time.

With few exceptions, one sabotage's one's effectiveness as a public speaker when one annoys the audience or congregation by holding forth too long.

I think if people realized this they would be less apt to insist on delivering everything they have prepared.

Elder LeGrand Richards was well-known for his abrupt endings. He would cut it right off as soon as he knew his time was up. Yet he was one of the most popular and best-remembered speakers the Church has had.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

You think the member of the Stake Presidency who was presiding was 'in on it'?  

So everyone is lying that the absence of the Bishop was unexpected and instead the parents knew he would be out of town and knew who would be presiding instead somehow (could have been anyone from the Stake Presidency, Bishopric, High Council in my understanding or even the HP Group Leader or EQ Pres if no one higher up in the hierarchy was present)?

Just how did they know who to contact to let them know when to shut it off?  How did they managed to get someone so supportive of the activism to be chosen to preside that day?

I think this is ridiculous and saying such only undermines credibility.  Any claim need to be thought through and explored if they could be practically done.  This could not be.

I think that something was up from the beginning. First, the phone was ready for taping. Someone knew what she was going to do and they were prepared to record it. Who recorded it. I also understood that the bishop was their friend. It would be a good time to do this when he was away. I believe that this was rather well planned. But I could be wrong.

And

On the youtube version above she finishes reading her testimony off camera. Also, according to John Dehlin, it was given several weeks back.. Why take such a long time in presenting it to the public? Watching John's video made me cringe. And it leads to more questions than answers when listening to the mom.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

Yes, they always said from the very beginning they invited friends to video it so she could show to her friends at Rainbow Mutual.  There were at least two people there prepared to film it.  No one has to speculate on that because they were always up front about it.  I am getting rather tired of repeating details that were explained multiple times from near to the beginning of the thread.

There is no debate that there were many in the audience that knew ahead of time that she was going to give her speech and so they were ready when she got up to begin recording.  She invited her friends and apparently the mother did as well because the bishop reported a number of adults got up, so there were more than just her teenaged Rainbow Mutual friends.  One woman reported it was the first time in years she put on a dress and went to church,just to see her.  No secret here.

------

You claimed the shutting of the mic might be part of the setup.  So who on the stand knew ahead of time she was going to speak and then turned off the mic so it would look bad for the Church and intentionally humiliate the girl they were allegedly there to support?

If the Bishop was the best friend there so they did it while he was away, how could they convince the not so close of friend who ahead of time was presiding to shut off the mic at the right time?

Quote

And I wouldn't even be surprised if the mic being turned off was also staged. 

 

This is the accusation I believe is completely uncalled for.  You are defaming imo those who were presiding that day as well as the parents, suggesting they were in a conspiracy to humiliate the girl by planning to turn the mic off during the talk ahead of time...or do you believe she was also in on the scam and her tears were fake?

-----

An original video went up a week or two after the speech, iirc.   NNN apparently saw it or heard about it and then spent 40 hours editing and promoting it.  It started to catch on 22 days after it was filmed from what I recall seeing.  I think that was the day NNN posted his version.  The interview with Jerilyn Pool was transcribed and published May 30.  There is no mystery to it.  It would have been a mystery and obviously a set up if the edited video and the first interview were all posted and transcribed within a few days of the event.  Otoh, people volunteering time and resources, not surprising it took a few weeks.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, they always said from the very beginning they invited friends to video it so she could show to her friends at Rainbow Mutual.  There were at least two people there prepared to film it.  No one has to speculate on that because they were always up front about it.  I am getting rather tired of repeating details that were explained multiple times from near to the beginning of the thread.

There is no debate that there were many in the audience that knew ahead of time that she was going to give her speech and so they were ready when she got up to begin recording.  She invited her friends and apparently the mother did as well because the bishop reported a number of adults got up, so there were more than just her teenaged Rainbow Mutual friends.  One woman reported it was the first time in years she put on a dress and went to church,just to see her.  No secret here.

------

 

-----

I think that we can see that it was filmed in secret. It was done on the sly. I don't think that the stake presidency knew about it. Is it now okay to film a meeting? Would the stake presidency cut off the mic just before the end of the testimony knowing that it was all being filmed? And is it okay to have a public showing of a testimony meeting? Has fast and testimony meeting or sacrament meeting now become a political event where one can speak about social issues? After listening to the mother being interviewed by John and see her daughter during the interview, I can honestly say that I was cringing.

[Calm]

"think that we can see that it was filmed in secret."

If by that you mean the leadership weren't prepared, sure.  That has been agreed upon from the start.  They didn't ask for permission and never claimed they had.

If by that you mean the leaders couldn't see a number of phones popping up at the same time as soon as the girl got up there, it is possible they weren't paying attention to that or the unusual number of visitors to begin with, but I doubt they were clueless once it started and it would have been quickly obvious what was going on when the visitors apparently left the meeting and moved to join Savannah and her mother in the foyer.

I don't think it was cut off solely for filming, I think they would have ignored that until the end of her speech and then asked for phones to be put away except for the fact her speech moved from appropriate to inappropriate rejection of church teachings and teaching of false doctrine.  Leaders did not stop her as soon as phones came out or anytime prior to teaching false doctrine.  They might have let her finished and then corrected her if the phones weren't there.  With the multiple phones there, leaders had to have imagined what the intended purpose of the multiple videos might be.  It became obvious they weren't there just to record a brave girl being open about her personal experiences, but also to record her promoting false doctrine.  Whether that action was enough or they were concerned they might give the appearance that this was acceptable to be coming from the pulpit, I haven't seen any info indicating why, but it was likely one or the other and definitely not to intentionally add to the drama to aid in helping the video go viral as you suggested it might be.

=====

You are either ignoring or not paying attention to what I and others are saying because you keep saying stuff as speculation when it is established fact.  Except for your claim of leaders being in possible collusion with parents "staging" the whole thing, including the mic shut off (because only the leaders could do that).

I and others have posted information about the filming, the attendance of friends that functioned if not intentionally, practically speaking as an activist group, and the description of how the final edited version ended up on an antimormon's site.  There is no need for speculation there.

I agree with the bishop from the descriptions I have read and posted a few from people who were there:

"In the emailed statement to CNN, Law took issue with the recorded video, saying it was unauthorized.

Additionally, he said that a "group of visitors jubilantly left the service. ... Everyone is welcome and understands the standards of decorum and behavior if they decide to participate. It is unfortunate that this group of adults chose to violate them." 

Law said the video was being exploited for "political purposes.""

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html

 

======

 

So I take it you are retracting your claim that the mic cut off was possibly staged, since you said the stake Presidency representative was likely unaware.  Can I get a confirmation of this so no one assumes you are continuing to defame the church leaders who were presiding that day as being surreptitiously involved in intentionally turning the mic off to make the Church look bad or her parents that they intentionally set Savannah to be embarrassed by planning the mic to be turned off?

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Calm