David Bednar's recent conference talk is said to have been plagiarized

[Chum]

The accusation is that Pres Bednar lifted this conference talk from this 2016 religious blog posting.

From the Religion News Service:

Quote

 

What the former university president did not tell those listening is that the interpretation of the parable was not entirely his own. Instead, his analysis was taken, often word for word, from a 2016 article about the parable written by John O. Reid, a leader in a little-known sect known as the Church of the Great God.

Bednar also read several quotes from Reid and from Elder James E. Talmage, an LDS leader who died in 1933, crediting some, but giving the impression that the ideas were his own. Footnotes to Reid’s article and Talmage’s work, as well as other sources, do appear in the published version of Bednar’s talk— but material from both appears without quotation marks.

 

Past this, the article digs into the matter a bit more.

I think the allegation is worth considering. If valid, it seems like a dumb play on Pres Bednar's part. A keyword search of the opening lines of Pres Bednar's talk brings up that 2016 posting - as the top result. Perhaps the final judgment will be that some customs of attribution weren't followed. I can't say as I'm no academic.

Presently though, this seems awful puzzling.

[Chum]

I remember this talk with some clarity as I thought the allegory was oddly imperfect. If those later invitees (the unwashed masses) represent believers, why were they only considered for invitation after the employees dis'd the invite? It makes believers out to be the last pick for the team.

Also, who did the employees represent? Whoever they are, they seem more desirable than us.

[JustAnAustralian]

Although it would have been good to have quote marks in all the appropriate places, he still cited the source at the end of each block (in the published text), so I'm less concerned than if he just used it without citation.

As to why the quote marks aren't there, maybe they got lost in the editing process. It's not difficult. I've even lost reference marks (and hence the reference) during the editing process before and then had to go hunt for them again.

Assuming the fully referenced talk was ready before conference, it really should have been checked properly.

Either way, all they need to do is add quote marks to the talk. The cites are already there.

[Kenngo1969]

@JustAnAustralian

You mean we should give Elder Bednar the benefit of the doubt?  Phhhh!   That's just crazy talk!   We know he had six months to prepare.  Yeah, I can see why he would crib lines from a blog post last minute.  

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah, I can see why he would crib lines from a blog post last minute.

I can't see why apostles leaving talks to the last minute should be different to me leaving talks to the last minute. Except that I don't get a teleprompter.

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, Chum said:

The accusation is that Pres Bednar lifted this conference talk from this 2016 religious blog posting.

From the Religion News Service:

Past this, the article digs into the matter a bit more.

I think the allegation is worth considering. If valid, it seems like a dumb play on Pres Bednar's part. A keyword search of the opening lines of Pres Bednar's talk brings up that 2016 posting - as the top result. Perhaps the final judgment will be that some customs of attribution weren't followed. I can't say as I'm no academic.

Presently though, this seems awful puzzling.

If you look at the printed version of the talk you’ll see that Reid is cited multiple times.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If you look at the printed version of the talk you’ll see that Reid is cited multiple times.

Not to mention being cited verbally in the talk.   i.e. "A Christian author, John O. Reid, noted...", and "Elder James E. Talmage provides this instructive commentary...."

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Not to mention being cited verbally in the talk.   i.e. "A Christian author, John O. Reid, noted...", and "Elder James E. Talmage provides this instructive commentary...."

It appears more critics who didn’t perform due diligences go down for the count.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I can't see why apostles leaving talks to the last minute should be different to me leaving talks to the last minute. Except that I don't get a teleprompter.

Last minute in this case meaning enough time for the translators to deal with it.

It was not the best talk in conference but plagiarism is a bit of a stretch.

When he started I was hoping for a new insight into the two groups of people invited but he focused on the wedding garment bit which I find the least interesting part of the parable.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If you look at the printed version of the talk you’ll see that Reid is cited multiple times.

 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Not to mention being cited verbally in the talk.   i.e. "A Christian author, John O. Reid, noted...", and "Elder James E. Talmage provides this instructive commentary...."

It looks like Religion News Service is due for a fact check. Where’s Snopes when you need it? 

[OGHoosier]

Ah, the perils of gotcha journalism.

[JAHS]

This is a pretty weak article and probably written as click bait.  
The question I have would be, is it considered plagiarism if all references are not cited during the verbal presentation of the talk but are provided in the printed version? 

[CA Steve]

Another example of critics making much ado about nothing and defenders unwilling to admit leadership might of made a mistake.

Move on, nothing to see.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

It looks like Religion News Service is due for a fact check. Where’s Snopes when you need it? 

Write Snopes asking them about it and who knows, they may just do it, though I assume they require a certain number of the question submitted before investing their time. 
 

This is more in FAIR’s area of expertise. If we get anyone actually questioning or see the argument gain some traction (I find it a ridiculous one myself given the actual citations he made were consistent with the debate and speech rules I am aware of), we will likely post a critique of the argument. 

[MorningStar]

You're welcome, everyone. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Another example of critics making much ado about nothing and defenders unwilling to admit leadership might of made a mistake.

Move on, nothing to see.

Citations in the past has been poor at times, but the current speeches do pretty good with footnoting from what I have seen. On occasion there is one I wish provided more info and I always approve of more detail, but overall I think they hold to a reasonable standard. He cited the author, so to me the only issue is the apparent leaving out of the quotation marks…which I find it believable he did so unintentionally or it might have been accidentally removed by an editor. If it was actual plagiarism, it would be stupid to provide the original author in his own speech and he is not stupid, so not seeing plagiarism here, just a typo. 

Thank goodness for the digital age which allows for easy ongoing correction of typos in print versions.

Let he who has never made a typo cast the first stone. 

[JustAnAustralian]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If you look at the printed version of the talk you’ll see that Reid is cited multiple times.

RNS's complaint is that they didn't use quote marks every single time.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

RNS's complaint is that they didn't use quote marks every single time.

Well, I hope RNS feels that they have sufficiently shot the messenger. 

[JAHS]

There is an update in the article:

"After this article was published, Anderson said the transcript had been updated again to make the attribution clearer.  He blamed an “editing oversight” for the missing Reid footnotes and attribution.

“Once errors were pointed out they were corrected.”

[Lemuel]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Last minute in this case meaning enough time for the translators to deal with it.

It was not the best talk in conference but plagiarism is a bit of a stretch.

When he started I was hoping for a new insight into the two groups of people invited but he focused on the wedding garment bit which I find the least interesting part of the parable.

Quote

His lack of proper dress revealed his inner rebellion against the king and his instructions.”

This is the most Bednar quote ever.

 

I would say that those who were bidden are Israel...and us.  The wedding garment, to me, is a cloak of charity for others, although I'm open to other interpretations.

Edited October 8, 2022 by Lemuel

[CV75]

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times: Parables are a defining feature of the Lord Jesus Christ’s masterful approach to teaching. Simply defined, the Savior’s parables are stories used to compare spiritual truths with material things and mortal experiences. For example, the New Testament Gospels are replete with teachings likening the kingdom of heaven to a grain of mustard seed, to a pearl of great price, to a householder and laborers in his vineyard, to ten virgins, and to many other things. During part of the Lord’s Galilean ministry, the scriptures indicate that “without a parable spake he not unto them.” The intended meaning or message of a parable typically is not expressed explicitly. Rather, the story only conveys divine truth to a receiver in proportion to his or her faith in God, personal spiritual preparation, and willingness to learn. Thus, an individual must exercise moral agency and actively “ask, seek, and knock”6 to discover the truths embedded in a parable. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Lemuel said:

This is the most Bednar quote ever.

 

I would say that those who were bidden are Israel...and us.  The wedding garment, to me, is a cloak of charity for others, although I'm open to other interpretations.

The wedding garment is that which identifies us as part of the bride, the Church of the Firstborn, those who will be eternally sealed to Christ's kingdom.  It is absolutely a reference to the temple garment of the holy priesthood.

Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Brahms said:

Anytime we don't give God the credit for all the good ideas he gives us we could be accused of plagiarism.  I wonder if God will hold us accountable for that when he judges us.

Scripture says yes.

D&C 59:21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

Apparently it's right there with keeping the commandments.

[morgan.deane]

I hate to say it, but I teach a unit on plagiarism and this is a classic case. Elder Bednar repeated large portions of another persons work, word for word, and sometimes almost paragraph for paragraph, without proper attribution. This is all the more sad and confusing because he made one attribution to John Reid, but then failed to provide quotes or footnotes of the repeated material. That is still plagiarism. After being asked about this, the transcript was quickly updated with some quotes and footnotes. That doesn't cover up or erase the original plagiarism. 

For example, even after the piece was updated with footnotes there are some word for word copies of the original that don't have quotes. This paragraph has a footnote, but it should have quotes, and since it doesn't that is plagiarism: 

Reid: "Commentators report that the custom in those days was for the one hosting the wedding feast—in this case, the king—to provide garments for the wedding guests. These wedding garments were simple, nondescript robes that all attendees wore. In this way, rank or station was covered, so everyone at the feast could mingle as equals."

Bednar: "The custom in those days was for the host of a wedding feast—in this parable, the king—to provide garments for the wedding guests. Such wedding garments were simple, nondescript robes that all attendees wore. In this way, rank and station were eliminated, and everyone at the feast could mingle as equals."

This is fairly serious and very disappointing because its sloppy or lazy at best, not to mention hypocritical for a former university president to do it. Spiritually its disheartening because a prophet, seer and revelator, apparently felt the need to rely on some random preacher for ideas and explanation of scripture, and then didn't even cite his source properly. On top of all that, the people on this board blame the messenger. Its not fake news or petty. Plagiarism is serious for anyone participating in the sharing of ideas, especially for oracles of God who claim that their ideas are divinely inspired. The same practices have ended the careers of politicians and generals. I agree there are lots of fatuous criticisms of the church and church leaders. This is not one of them. 

[2BizE]

 A sincere apology and admittance to the plagiarism is needed by Elder Bednar.  That is what is taught about the repentance process.