President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am not defending or arguing against the recording but the realty is that if you have to ask who recorded something in a deacons quorum you simply do not understand the ubiquitous nature and ease that today's electronic devices, especially cell phones, have to record and post online.   A good friend of mine is a high school counselor. She knows that everything she says has a chance of being recorded and posted online by a student or any other person nearby. So she measures everything she says to a student with that in mind. Is that a good thing or a bad thing or maybe both? I don't know' but as you say "In today's world it is". Any kid with a cell phone can reach into his or her pocket and trigger the phone to record without even looking at it. This is only going to get more common. Today's cell phones are constantly listening to what is being said. (Think "OK Google" or "Hey Siri") That means these devices are constantly listening to their surroundings. This will only expand with what are called "smart devices".  Some of us may have them in our home now where things like our refrigerator or TV are listening to us 24/7.

Leadership should be aware that every public statement is being recorded and adjust accordingly. It is simply foolish to ask that they not be recorded. It just isn't going to happen.

And as long as people don't complain about or miss the now everpresent 'lack of the personal touch' or moan that everything feels rehearsed, it can be viewed as a win.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Leadership should be aware that every public statement is being recorded and adjust accordingly. It is simply foolish to ask that they not be recorded. It just isn't going to happen.

I don't think it's foolish to ask that something not be recorded.  In some ways I think it's a good way to gauge a people's trustworthiness.  But I agree it's foolish to believe that all people are trustworthy.  There will always be some that aren't (and that doesn't make them bad people).  

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's foolish to ask that something not be recorded.  In some ways I think it's a good way to gauge a people's trustworthiness.  But I agree it's foolish to believe that all people are trustworthy.  There will always be some that aren't (and that doesn't make them bad people).  

If a person never promised to not record a GA, does recording the GA make them not trustworthy?                                                                                                               

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If a person never promised to not record a GA, does recording the GA make them not trustworthy?                                                                                                               

In my view, remaining in a meeting where someone has asked you not to record is implying that you will honor the request whether you agree with it or not.

Otherwise a person is pretending to be doing what was asked while not actually do it. I would consider such pretense dishonest and a dishonest person is not trustworthy (at least not in that thing). 

Edited February 8, 2019 by bluebell

[rockpond]

IMO, if they are not willing to be recorded and have their words go out to the world as a witness of Christ, then they are not acting in their capacity as apostles.

So, if an apostle starts a meeting by making a request that he not be recorded, I consider that an announcement that he is speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Edited February 8, 2019 by rockpond

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

IMO, if they are not willing to be recorded and have their words go out to the world as a witness of Christ, then they are not acting in their capacity as apostles.

So, if an apostle starts a meeting be making a request that he not be recorded, I consider that an announcement that he is speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

This does seem contrary to what Paul and the other apostles would do. However, reliable rumor has it that Peter wanted to have his denials edited out of the gospels, but he was overruled ....🤣

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

In my view, remaining in a meeting where someone has asked you not to record is implying that you will honor the request whether you agree with it or not.

Otherwise a person is pretending to be doing what was asked while not actually do it. I would consider such pretense dishonest and a dishonest person is not trustworthy (at least not in that thing). 

I know this isn't a perfect analogy but I remembered our closing on our house with the bank. When we sat down with the loan officers, one of them said, "You don't have to read each page. I'll show you where to sign and initial and this will go much faster." My wife laughed and replied, "Now you've guaranteed that he will read each page." I finished with, "If I'm borrowing this much money, I'm going to take the time to read everything to make sure it's what it's supposed to be."

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

IMO, if they are not willing to be recorded and have their words go out to the world as a witness of Christ, then they are not acting in their capacity as apostles.

So, if an apostle starts a meeting by making a request that he not be recorded, I consider that an announcement that he is speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

I wonder if Jesus operated on such strict goals to meet your demands of a witness?  Hmm, hey, you three, let's remove ourselves and talk. Hey, let's talk amongst just us. Nope, he didn't. Sometimes, an apostle just wants to talk to the group present for reasons only he knows. What your structure does is destroy any attempt or desire to talk strictly to the people in front of them. Strange way to think.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I wonder if Jesus operated on such strict goals to meet your demands of a witness?  Hmm, hey, you three, let's remove ourselves and talk. Hey, let's talk amongst just us. Nope, he didn't. Sometimes, an apostle just wants to talk to the group present for reasons only he knows. What your structure does is destroy any attempt or desire to talk strictly to the people in front of them. Strange way to think.

I think apostles need to speak in the open as much as possible. God shouldn't want to work in darkness, but work in the light, so all might be edified.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think apostles need to speak in the open as much as possible. God shouldn't want to work in darkness, but work in the light, so all might be edified.

There is a difference between working in darkness and working in quiet personal moments, that can sometimes even happen in a group.

I can imagine how it might have been primarily meant as a special experience that was meant for just that particular group of youth, or young adults, a teaching that they could have worked on easily together as a group in the case of when Pres. Oaks talked to the deacons, as couples and friends for the Chicago devotional, might have provided a bond between them even, might have led them to explore how to make that bond work through other shared efforts.  Now any sense of intimacy between friends there has been pretty much removed imo once it is not the actual experience that is uppermost in their minds, but reactions to a recording of.

 I think the most meaningful experience I had in high school was a river rafting trip with one teacher and a variety of his students.  I think I was the only LDS there.  There was a certain companionship I never experienced anywhere else.  I can imagine how I would have felt if it had been filmed and shown in a class assembly.  The dynamic would be changed, now what we went through would be not much different than sitting in the quad or taking a swimming class, all.observed by others.  It would no longer just belong to those of us who participated. Instead we get turned into some else's entertainment.

I have had similar experiences in very large groups, walking away from temple dedications thinking this is a unique experience I shared with those around me in that one moment in that one place.  A recording removes the experience from that type of perception, it can be observed..but not experienced really...over and over.

Sometimes it is important to be there, being there is what gives the experience deep meaning.  Untying the experience from that moment, that place causes it to lose that particular meaning, though there may be others.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, CA Steve said:

... Any kid with a cell phone can reach into his or her pocket and trigger the phone to record without even looking at it. This is only going to get more common. Today's cell phones are constantly listening to what is being said. (Think "OK Google" or "Hey Siri") That means these devices are constantly listening to their surroundings. This will only expand with what are called "smart devices".  Some of us may have them in our home now where things like our refrigerator or TV are listening to us 24/7. ...

Not to mention that Siri or Google might interpret some random utterance as "Hey, Siri" or "OK, Google," might interpret some other random utterance as "Record this conversation," and might interpret yet some other random utterance as, "Send the recorded conversation to [Contact X]." 

 https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/24/family-claims-their-echo-sent-a-private-conv \ersation-to-a-random-contact/.

[Ken shudders].  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have no sympathy. They make great claims to be the Lord's anointed and have direction straight from God for the church and world. "Follow the brethren" is the mantra I have heard all my life. They need to suck it up and own it and not be afraid of the repercussions. Abinadi wasn't. 

Agreed.  I don't get why any of them would deny being recorded.  They set themselves up by claiming to be those who speak for God.  if they can't honestly accept that stated position, then what's the point of the claim?  

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I wonder if Jesus operated on such strict goals to meet your demands of a witness?  Hmm, hey, you three, let's remove ourselves and talk. Hey, let's talk amongst just us. Nope, he didn't. Sometimes, an apostle just wants to talk to the group present for reasons only he knows. What your structure does is destroy any attempt or desire to talk strictly to the people in front of them. Strange way to think.

As you know, the only recording devices in existence at the time we’re running and later recorded the life of Jesus in several different accounts. 

His words are recorded for us, including the most intimate of moments. 

There are occasions when privacy indicates that conversations should be kept confidential.  I’ve attended more Bishopric and Ward Council meetings than I would care to count but nobody ever needed to say:  please don’t record this.  However, when an apostle or the Lord is speaking in a public venue, I see no reason why he should ask for his words not to leave the room.  As I said before, for me that is him announcing that he is speaking as a man, not as a special witness of Christ. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by rockpond

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  I don't get why any of them would deny being recorded.  They set themselves up by claiming to be those who speak for God.  if they can't honestly accept that stated position, then what's the point of the claim?  

Because people portray being able to speak for God as be able to speak for God on demand on any topic. And then when they can't do that they use that to try and undermine the claim of prophethood. It happens rather regularly.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

I know this isn't a perfect analogy but I remembered our closing on our house with the bank. When we sat down with the loan officers, one of them said, "You don't have to read each page. I'll show you where to sign and initial and this will go much faster." My wife laughed and replied, "Now you've guaranteed that he will read each page." I finished with, "If I'm borrowing this much money, I'm going to take the time to read everything to make sure it's what it's supposed to be."

I don't really get the relevance of the analogy to the topic.  You had a lot at stake in your analogy.  Someone who doesn't record a public church meeting risks nothing by choosing to follow the request.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As you know, the only recording devices in existence at the time we’re running and later recorded the life of Jesus in several different accounts. 

His words are recorded for us, including the most intimant of moments. 

There are occasions when privacy indicates that conversations should be kept confidential.  I’ve attended more Bishopric and Ward Council meetings than I would care to count but nobody ever needed to say:  please don’t record this.  However, when an apostle or the Lord is speaking in a public venue, I see no reason why he should ask for his words not to leave the room.  As I said before, for me that is him announcing that he is speaking as a man, not as a special witness of Christ. 

There were times when Christ requested that His doings not be shared with people who weren't present.  It doesn't seem that any of those times had anything to do with privacy.  

I understand being wary of things said to one group that the apostle says is not applicable to all (that perhaps the teachings are not of God) but I don't understand a blanket determination that an apostle would never, acting as a special witness of Christ, share something that was meant for a specific group and not for the church or world as a whole.

 

[CA Steve]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As you know, the only recording devices in existence at the time we’re running and later recorded the life of Jesus in several different accounts. 

His words are recorded for us, including the most intimant of moments

This seems like such a strange objection to make, using Jesus as an example. Can you imagine what we would know today if Jesus had encouraged people to write down everything he said and did?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This seems like such a strange objection to make, using Jesus as an example. Can you imagine what we would know today if Jesus had encouraged people to write down everything he said and did?

Yep.  It would be incredible. 

[CA Steve]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Because people portray being able to speak for God as be able to speak for God on demand on any topic. And then when they can't do that they use that to try and undermine the claim of prophethood. It happens rather regularly.

Asking people to not record is not going to limit this from happening at all, in my view. What the church should be doing, like law enforcement does, is making sure they have their own recordings of all public appearances of the general authorities so if the need arises they can provide their side of what took place.  Take for example this mess in Washington between three groups of people, high school kids, native American guy and the Black Israelites. The original social media reports, as well as some mainstream reports, were heavily biased against the high school kids. Some stories I read indicated this bias against the kid was started intentionally by out-of-the-country FB accounts in order to create an issue where there really was none. Were it not for the fact that other recordings were made, these kids lives would have (they may still be) destroyed. It is a social media world. In any sizable audience to which an apostle speaks, there are going to be those who in spite of admonitions to the contrary, are going to record and post their encounter with an apostle, and those postings will be only partial glimpses of the encounter which may or may not convey the message intended.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Asking people to not record is not going to limit this from happening at all, in my view. What the church should be doing, like law enforcement does, is making sure they have their own recordings of all public appearances of the general authorities so if the need arises they can provide their side of what took place.

I can't see them doing that unless things get much worse. Rather I suspect they'll just dumb down such public appearances and be very cautious in what they say. Eventually it may reach the point of General Conference were carefully prepared talks are all we get. Which is what I fear by all this. I kind of like what happened on my mission where Pres. Hinckley spoke on what it meant to have your calling and election made sure for over an hour. I'm sure not everything he said was completely accurate, but you got a pretty compelling view of his views on the matter. That doesn't happen anymore.

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't see them doing that unless things get much worse. Rather I suspect they'll just dumb down such public appearances and be very cautious in what they say. Eventually it may reach the point of General Conference were carefully prepared talks are all we get. Which is what I fear by all this. I kind of like what happened on my mission where Pres. Hinckley spoke on what it meant to have your calling and election made sure for over an hour. I'm sure not everything he said was completely accurate, but you got a pretty compelling view of his views on the matter. That doesn't happen anymore.

Funny how things are different based on which LDS leader is speaking. On my mission, at a zone conference, Elder Packer invited questions from the missionaries. "What do you want to know?" He said. Some overly enthusiastic missionary raised his hand and asked him about that very subject, to which Elder Packer replied "You don't need to know that."

 

Oh and things are already "much worse". I just don't think the church realizes it yet. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by CA Steve

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  I don't get why any of them would deny being recorded.  They set themselves up by claiming to be those who speak for God.  if they can't honestly accept that stated position, then what's the point of the claim?  

Think about it.

The chance, actually likelihood, of being quoted out of context is big.  Typically, these people are speaking to a specific audience at a specific time.  The advice and Opinions they offer may only apply to that audience.  This entire stupid thread is about extrapolating one isolated speech to becoming doctrine and advice for the whole church.  Of course, the chance of misspeaking or having a Freudian slip for any speaker, are always present as well.

Many times the statements or advice given are opinions, not statements of policy or doctrine, but the statements are taken as such.  Again, witness this useless thread.  Even doctrinal statements can be taken with a grain of salt.  They have not been vetted by the Prophet or the Church as a whole.  And again can be taken out of context of where and when and to whom spoken.

While Apostles can speak for God, this really only happens as the Catholics would say ex Cathedra.  And it's done by the Prophet.

These guys have a lot of experience with the spirit and my judgement is that by and large they are certainly worth listening to.  But remember, this church was built on the Rock of Revelation.  And everyone must have their own.  One should take these speeches for what they are nothing more and seek personal guidance for oneself.

So inconclusion, I would not want to be taped on everything I say, for sure.  And considering the hazards stated above, I can certainly understand why the GAs avoid this.

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Oh and things are already "much worse". I just don't think the church realizes it yet. 

I'm skeptical. We may see retention drop down to around 50% for a decade or two and then go back up. As I mentioned, according to Jana Reiss retention is actually staggeringly high among devout - people whose kids go to seminary and so forth. I think what's happening is that there is a group - perhaps primarily in Mormon central areas where you don't need a testimony but can have more of a de facto social attachment to Church. In previous decades such people would stay in the Church because that's what people do. Now that presumption isn't there, the larger non-Mormon (and post-Mormon) community is attractive providing more options, so those loosely bound and particularly their kids are apt to leave. Combined with this is a dramatic decrease in the number of kids Church members have. So I suspect we'll see a big drop in growth over the next 5 - 10 years. And that's on top of the problems with missionary work that are already there.

However my sense is that the Brethren are already quite aware of this.

Of course by "much worse" you mean in terms of recordings, particularly those that then get used by critics. I think that's happening. I think they're struggling to be able to not only speak from prepared remarks. Speaking off the cuff without making a verbal error is tough at the best of times. (I can't do it) Asking people in their 80's or older to do it while being so cut off from speech habits and taboos is really asking a lot. I think Oaks in particular recognizes that there are two competing demands. One distrusts organization and sees prepared remarks as inauthentic. The other wants all speech to be exactly as they want it. It's an impossible demand.

I think one answer is emeritus apostles and calling younger people. That has its own dangers and difficulties though.

Edited February 8, 2019 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There were times when Christ requested that His doings not be shared with people who weren't present.  It doesn't seem that any of those times had anything to do with privacy.  

I understand being wary of things said to one group that the apostle says is not applicable to all (that perhaps the teachings are not of God) but I don't understand a blanket determination that an apostle would never, acting as a special witness of Christ, share something that was meant for a specific group and not for the church or world as a whole.

 

Yes, Christ didn’t want certain actions shared as they could be used to bring an earlier end to his ministry.  Is that why the apostles don’t want to be recorded?

If they are speaking directly to a group, a message specific to that group, having their words recorded seems to be the best way to clarify that the message is specific to that group rather than allowing word of mouth to spread bits and pieces. 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, Christ didn’t want certain actions shared as they could be used to bring an earlier end to his ministry.  Is that why the apostles don’t want to be recorded?

 

I doubt it.  My only point is that there are legitimate reasons that a messenger from God might not want his words recorded, just besides privacy issues.

Quote

If they are speaking directly to a group, a message specific to that group, having their words recorded seems to be the best way to clarify that the message is specific to that group rather than allowing word of mouth to spread bits and pieces. 

It seems like they disagree with you on that.  And reasonable people can disagree on the best way to handle the issue (without one of them automatically disqualifying themselves from speaking for God just because they disagree with the other).