Recently, I provided a report on a talk Holland gave at our stake conference. However, the joke's on all of you because:

1. Holland didn't actually say the things I said he did, at least not the controversial statements, or

2. I took things way out of context, or

3. I completely misunderstood what Holland said, either due to my poor hearing or ignorance of the topic.

In actuality, I did do my best to accurately summarize the talk. However, Holland will never be held accountable because there is no record of what he said and it is to easy for tbms to use the excuses above to dismiss my report.

I am kicking myself that I didn't record the talk. It would have been so easy to do, and it would be easy to share. Of course, at the beginning of conference we were told not to record Holland's message. That way there would be no record of the talk and therefore no accountability.

If anyone else is in a situation where a general authority is coming to town (goldenrule, I'm talking to you), I would recommend that you record the talk for posterity. We know church leaders aren't reluctant to lie for the Lord, so the more we can record their messages, the more they can be held accountable.

Did he really say that his talk should not be recorded? Why would any reasonable person not question that?

An organization that proclaims itself to be the one true church with apostles that speak with god, yet they are terrified that anything they say will be released to the general public.

As a special witness of jesus Christ should he not be doing the exact opposite?

The "don't record" policy is pretty standard for any church meeting, except general conference, or for any situation where a record could be detrimental to tscc such as blessings (thank goodness they made an exception for patriarchal blessings).

I agree with you, if Holland was really an apostle, he would want his inspired words (and he made it clear they were inspired) to go out to the world.

We had another apostle visit our stake once and they also prefaced his remarks with a similar "don't record" statement.

The thing is, though, if someone makes a report of a talk and writes it down shortly after the talk was given, and does a fair job of reporting the entire talk (not just the juicy bits), then such a record will always trump later versions of events.

It's the difference between "he said - she said" and "he said - I wrote down what he said". This will even hold up in most courts.

A written report carries a certain weight, especially if the first statement of the report is that it is based on notes taken during the talk because the person in question requested that it would not be recorded.

By the way, do you have the link to your initial post? I missed it :-(

I hope this works for you...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1372792,1372792#msg-1372792

It does, thanks.

Because nothing that doesn't fit with their beliefs can ever be valid. Haven't you learned that yet? Horse... water... drink. Save your energy for those you know are willing to consider the possibility something might not be quite right in Zion.

That is so weird that the attendees were specifically ordered to not record Holland's talk - why doesn't this sound off any alarms in people's heads?! In many Protestant Christian churches it is standard practice to record all sermons and special talks and to then either burn CDs/DVDs or post them to the internet for those who were either unable to attend in person or would like to relisten to the sermon.

If a Christian pastor mispeaks, he (hopefully) will admit that he was wrong and make a public correction. But of course, Christian pastors doen't claim to be God's "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" either.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2014 02:20PM by Plaid n Paisley.

There was a thing a while back when people would write down or report on what some random Apostle had said at some random stake conference that became chain email fodder--so that it became third or fourth hand reported material (usually some bat-sh*t crazy prophecy about the second coming or 3 Nephites or something), and it ended up that the word from up at the top of the chain was that no one was supposed to record material. That was special info for the special stake where the special stake conference was held.

Or something like that. Again, most likely so they don't have to eat the words that they use to get people worked up into a lather about the gospel again. ("I heard it from a SPECIAL WITNESS [TO THE NAME] OF CHRIST!!!")

A perfect example of the concept is the Generals in the Preexistence.

It has been reported all over the internet that some GA at some meeting at some time said that the teenagers of our day, or last decade, or the 1930's, were so valiant in the preexistence that they were Generals in the Lord's Army. And that after this life, if the people around you heard that you had lived in the times of GBH, or S Kimball, or whoever, that those around you would get down on their knees in worship.

The TSCC has spent years denying that this was ever said. Check it out here http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/the-quote-that-wouldnt-die/

I would encourage any closet unbelievers attending these meetings to use their smartphone and favorite recording app. Everyone has one of these anyway. Wouldn't take much to even get a directional microphone or have the sound routed elsewhere in the building foyer where you can casually record with no interference.

Maybe you could even tap into the hearing aid plugs that used to be along the right hand side of the chapel. Remember those?

The old farts don't want it recorded so in future years the arguments of 'it wasn't written down correctly' can apply to them like with Brigham, Joe and the early guys.

Accurate recording means less chance at later denial.

It's not uncommon to not allow recording or video in many places: court, churches, schools, meetings, etc. etc.That's not a problem for me.

I wouldn't be interested in the talk in the first place, as it does not apply to me. Nor am I interested in what he has to say. If he happens to land on some Universal Truth, well, that's nice, but the rest I would discount as not fitting in my world view.

He is speaking to a specific audience of LDS members/believers. Those are the only people that care about what he says.

It doesn't matter: the LDS church has the good ol' "careless scribe" excuse for anything embarrassing that doesn't put the speaker in a good light...

I wonder if there is legal precedent concerning recording a speech made to an open audience where the public is invited to listen?

Also does it show fear on the part of the speaker that what he or she says can bear accountability?

So you can hear it but not allowed to remember it. I can get the same message staying home in bed.

At least several years ago the FBI had a policy NOT TO RECORD interviews. That way they could say whatever they want in their notes of the interview. I believe all should be recorded as well as making it a policy to record statements not made to your spouse or in circumstances where you specify certain things are not to be repeated and why.

As many of you may recall Mitt said a few things that he regrets being recorded (a lot of things actually.) So the brethren are being very wise in preventing any recording of their words.

"Accountability" is not in the Mormon dictionary.