- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My pet peeve is the 5 minute story at the beginning of a talk about what they were doing when they got asked to give the talk and why it was an inconvenience for them followed by a glance back at the bishop… If the speaker doesn’t want to be there why should I care. So out comes the phone. 
They talked in eq last week about people looking at phones and not paying attention in sm. I don’t remember what they said because I was on my phone though…
But seriously, reading the scriptures on my phone is the only way to learn something about Jesus some Sundays. Maybe if speakers talked about Jesus and not about themselves… now there’s a novel idea!
Ditch talks that refer to specific groups, as soon as I hear a talk about young men/women, “Duty to God”, etc, I switch off. I was never in them and if I ever get round to having children it will be a while before they’re eligble. So why do I have to sit through a long talk on this? My first suggestion is to make Sacrament Meeting what it is meant to be: a worship service. The talks should focus on worship in some very direct way. Sunday School and RS/PH are the time to discuss other topics. I had a Bishop who was obsessive and very direct about that, and our Sacrament Meetings were incredibly spiritual experiences.
wuwei wrote:My pet peeve is the 5 minute story at the beginning of a talk about what they were doing when they got asked to give the talk and why it was an inconvenience for them followed by a glance back at the bishop… If the speaker doesn’t want to be there why should I care. So out comes the phone.
I totally agree. Pet peeves of mine, some of which I mentioned earlier:– (like you said) long… not interesting story about how they should have looked at the caller ID and avoided being asked to talk… It only serves to make me wish they had too.
– long introduction summarizing their lives up to this moment. Look, the best intro they can give is the talk they are about to deliver. If they feel a need to make an introduction, I’m fine with it as long as it’s 30-seconds. “My wife, Janet, and I moved from here from Topeka a few months ago and have really enjoyed it, and look forward to getting know you all better.” That’s all that needs to be said.
– telling a joke that has nothing to do with the subject. Humor is great, but only if it flows naturally with the talk.
– reading a talk. This is the worst for me. I can put up with many others because I realize that people have different levels of comfort, and joke-telling and introductions work to use up the clock… but reading is just the worst. Obviously reading a small snippet from another source is fine, but I’ve seen people reading off a sheet of paper, “Hi, my name is xyz… my wife and I moved here from Topeka…” I mean if they can’t even do that without reading from a prompt, maybe they need a little help or practice in a less-daunting setting. I feel that there are many people who think that that’s the way it is done… first you “write the talk” which is a funny oxymoron, anyway, then you “read the talk”… which… again… What ever happened to the talk part? Years ago, I gave a talk in SM, and afterward, a friend of mine asked if he could “have a copy of it”. I told him I didn’t have it written down and he seemed dumbfounded. As if the concept was beyond comprehension. It’s not like I was making stuff up on the fly… I had a note card with few bullets on it, so that I’d be sure to cover the various points in a specific order, and I knew what I wanted to say, I just neither wrote it out nor memorized it. Strange new world for my friend.
I’ve heard some really great talks in SM, so don’t want to make it sound like I’m a heckler in the back of the room, but there are a few things, listed above, that do set me into not-listening mode.
As an aid to help people understand what not to do in a talk, I think it would be great if the church would produce a New Testament video, in which Jesus stands up to deliver the Sermon on the Mount, starts by saying, “Good morning… … for those of you who don’t know me, my name is Jesus…”, then jokes about being asked to give this talk, and how next time he won’t answer the phone if it’s Brother Smith, then spends several minutes with a long pointless joke about “a Rabbi, a Pharisee, and a Sadducee”, after which he pulls out a piece of paper and starts to read the sermon, stumbling over some sentences, and mispronouncing some words… losing his place… saying, “uh, let’s see… oh yeah,” then resuming. Toward the end, he looks at his watch, and says, “I know my time is short, so I’ll skip a bunch of this…”, and at the end says, “inthenameofthysonjeeschristamen.” That would be, “Inthenameofme, amen.” :silent: On Own Now wrote:As an aid to help people understand what not to do in a talk, I think it would be great if the church would produce a New Testament video, in which Jesus stands up to deliver the Sermon on the Mount, starts by saying, “Good morning…
… for those of you who don’t know me, my name is Jesus…”, then jokes about being asked to give this talk, and how next time he won’t answer the phone if it’s Brother Smith, then spends several minutes with a long pointless joke about “a Rabbi, a Pharisee, and a Sadducee”, after which he pulls out a piece of paper and starts to read the sermon, stumbling over some sentences, and mispronouncing some words… losing his place… saying, “uh, let’s see… oh yeah,” then resuming. Toward the end, he looks at his watch, and says, “I know my time is short, so I’ll skip a bunch of this…”, and at the end says, “inthenameofthysonjeeschristamen.” Ha! That would be epic. I’d be much happier for my tithing $$ to fund this than The Book of Mormon Mall.
Yesterday in SM, we had two speakers. Of course, as per the new norm, they were each given a General Conference talk as their topic. But what made this one even more fun to sit through was that they were both, apparently by mistake, given the same GC talk. Ugh.
Please make it stop. GC talks are not good “topics” for talks.
Old-Timer wrote:My first suggestion is to make Sacrament Meeting what it is meant to be: a worship service. The talks should focus on worship in some very direct way. Sunday School and RS/PH are the time to discuss other topics.
I had a Bishop who was obsessive and very direct about that, and our Sacrament Meetings were incredibly spiritual experiences.
Ray, I’m really interested in how your bishop did this. I’m the bishop’s counsellor in charge of making speaking assignments. My bishop gives me topics and talks from the last GC and I line up speakers. I have a written hand-out I give to the person asked to speak which gives them a theme for the meeting, a scripture that supports the theme, and the name of the conference talk. I then have this line: “Please do not simply re-state the Conference talk in your own talk. The Conference talk and scripture are intended to get you in spirit of the meeting’s theme. Please incorporate the scriptures, the words of living and past prophets, and your own experiences into your talk.” I was worried that this was too blunt, but since I started adding this to my hand-out, we’ve had a dramatic reduction in the number of people just re-hashing the conference talk. I’d love to hear how your bishop reinforced this principle with his flock.
Kumahito, While awaiting Ray’s response, I have a question for you. Is the concept of using GC talks as a basis for SM talks something that has come down as a church directive or is it just what your bishop has decided to do because that’s what he has seen other bishops do?
On Own Now wrote:
Please make it stop. GC talks are not good “topics” for talks.Yesterday it wasn’t the topic, it was the script. The speaker read the GC talk start to finish.
Ann, all I can say is 👿 😥 🙄 :yawn: :think: :thumbdown: Kumahito, my Bishop talked openly about it in Sacrament Meeting – about the need to focus on worship in that meeting and the need to prayerfully consider and pray for guidance in what to share in talks. He emphasized personal experiences and almost forbade the reading of large blocks of text. He gave people their topics a month in advance and asked them to think actively about their talks throughout the time he had given them to prepare.
In other words, he talked about it – and he modeled it for the first couple of months after he talked about it by intentionally picking ward leaders and good speakers and asking them to model it for the ward. He made it a top priority, and everyone understood he was passionate about it.
On Own Now wrote:– reading a talk. This is the worst for me. I can put up with many others because I realize that people have different levels of comfort, and joke-telling and introductions work to use up the clock… but reading is just the worst. Obviously reading a small snippet from another source is fine, but I’ve seen people reading off a sheet of paper, “Hi, my name is xyz… my wife and I moved here from Topeka…” I mean if they can’t even do that without reading from a prompt, maybe they need a little help or practice in a less-daunting setting. I feel that there are many people who think that that’s the way it is done… first you “write the talk” which is a funny oxymoron, anyway, then you “read the talk”… which… again… What ever happened to the talk part? Years ago, I gave a talk in SM, and afterward, a friend of mine asked if he could “have a copy of it”. I told him I didn’t have it written down and he seemed dumbfounded. As if the concept was beyond comprehension. It’s not like I was making stuff up on the fly… I had a note card with few bullets on it, so that I’d be sure to cover the various points in a specific order, and I knew what I wanted to say, I just neither wrote it out nor memorized it. Strange new world for my friend.
Well, this is all they do in General Conference, read their talks off the Teleprompter. You can tell when it stops working. I don’t mind people reading their talks as long as they know how to read aloud.
I really dislike reading a talk someone else already gave in a different setting, but I have no criticism of members who read their own talks (and, really, no criticism of the people who read GC talks, even as I really don’t like it). I know enough members who suffer from serious anxiety issues associated with public speaking that reading their own talk is an incredible example of faith and courage I rarely, if ever, meet. For some, just standing at the pulpit and reading someone else’s talk is a major leap of faith. I do what I can to help when I’m in a position to help, but I honor the effort – unless I know the person can do much better and simply was being lazy.
On Own Now wrote:Kumahito,
While awaiting Ray’s response, I have a question for you. Is the concept of using GC talks as a basis for SM talks something that has come down as a church directive or is it just what your bishop has decided to do because that’s what he has seen other bishops do?
+1 as a question. I was on a branch presidency 18 months ago and we never gave out conference talks. We’d usually give a ‘theme’ (maybe a line from scripture) and try to ensure there was some loose connection between the three talks.
I’ve never heard of a single conf talk as the designated content for a talk and am very glad to say I’ve never been in a ward that did this.
Really feel for those of you who do. I wonder whether a (respectful) email to the Bishopric would help? Frankly, I think they’re simply being lazy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.