Sacrament talks and 'quality control'

[Last_Daze]

First off, I understand that people giving sacrament talks are not professional speakers, and no one expects them to be. Most of them are probably scared to death to be up there anyhow. So that is not the focus of my question.

That said, I am wondering what (if any) kind of 'quality control' is exercised in preparing speakers at meetings to avoid things like bad theology, mis-characterising church teaching, presenting things as doctrine which actually are not, discussing things that are just not appropriate for the setting*, etc. Of course, not everyone is a professional (or even amateur) theologian, but given that these talks are a form of teaching the faith, I was just wondering what exactly goes on behind the scenes with regard to that.

*I don't have a particular example in mind, but I am sure that longtime members will have plenty of ideas.

[NeuroTypical]

'Quality control' is basically the bishop and his counselors discussing who they should ask to give a talk. It's a combination of what they know about the individual, plus any added inspiration the spirit has for them. Known wildcards, people known to be still growing in the gospel, or struggling to understand what's true and what's not, don't usually end up in front of a microphone, unless someone thinks it's a good idea.

Sometimes 'damage control' may be necessary afterword.

LM

[Last_Daze]

Sometimes 'damage control' may be necessary afterword.

LM

Well, just to elaborate, that is one of the reasons that I asked the question. I heard a story recently in which Sister X had given a sacrament talk in which she posited some pretty bad theology and seriously misrepresented church teaching, generally causing scandal in the ward; in the words of the story-teller, it took "two full RS meetings and one EQ meeting to undo the damage." I was thinking to myself that it would be easier to exercise 'quality control' on the front end than to have to do damage control on the back end.

[Wingnut]

Well, just to elaborate, that is one of the reasons that I asked the question. I heard a story recently in which Sister X had given a sacrament talk in which she posited some pretty bad theology and seriously misrepresented church teaching, generally causing scandal in the ward; in the words of the story-teller, it took "two full RS meetings and one EQ meeting to undo the damage." I was thinking to myself that it would be easier to exercise 'quality control' on the front end than to have to do damage control on the back end.

In an instance like that, the Bishop should have stood up at the end of Sacrament meeting and made some pointed remarks, while taking care not to scold the woman or overly embarrass her. It should have been addressed while it was fresh.

[Gwen]

if it's "that bad" the bishop should have interrupted her talk and asked her to sit down. i've never seen a bishop do it but i've known some that came close but the speaker changed direction and it wasn't necessary.

[Wingnut]

if it's "that bad" the bishop should have interrupted her talk and asked her to sit down. i've never seen a bishop do it but i've known some that came close but the speaker changed direction and it wasn't necessary.

I've seen it done in a fast and testimony meeting.

[NeuroTypical]

Here's a recent article about brother so-and-so and his random fringe opinions. It's rather heartwarming, and worth a read.

LM

[Last_Daze]

I've seen it done in a fast and testimony meeting.

Golly, that must have been one really bad testimony! I would think cutting someone off in a testimony meeting would be even rarer than seeing it done in a normal sacrament talk, given the deeply personal nature of the thing. Was it just that the bishop had a really quick hook, or was something really, really out of bounds said?

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I've seen it done in a fast and testimony meeting.

Sigh. The wild stuff in Fast and Testimony meeting was what I used to attend for. Sorry to hear that even more color has been drained from church services.

[Wingnut]

Here's a recent article about brother so-and-so and his random fringe opinions. It's rather heartwarming, and worth a read.

LM

That's a nice, feel-good story with an important lesson learned, but I think the OP is referring more to false doctrine being taught from the pulpit, not just one eccentric ward member always having random thoughts in Sunday School.

Golly, that must have been one really bad testimony! I would think cutting someone off in a testimony meeting would be even rarer than seeing it done in a normal sacrament talk, given the deeply personal nature of the thing. Was it just that the bishop had a really quick hook, or was something really, really out of bounds said?

Well, the guy had a history, for one thing. He'd also been going on an on for 7-8 minutes already. And it wasn't really Gospel-related at all.

[Wingnut]

Sigh. The wild stuff in Fast and Testimony meeting was what I used to attend for. Sorry to hear that even more color has been drained from church services.

You would have loved this particular guy, then.

[Truegrits]

I was in a large ward where one gentleman, in Fast & Testimony, would talk for 10+ minutes and go off on bizarre tangents. He was up every F&T meeting, so the Bishopric took turns on whispering in his ear, which would end his "testimony".

Also have had the Bishop stand up after a speaker misspoke a doctrine, and correct it. It was done in a way that was informative, not in a chiding way.

[NeuroTypical]

Someone told me a story a few years back about a visitor with some sort of mental issue. She loudly commented on absolutely everything that happened. "What a nice song!" "Isn't that a good point!" "Can I have another piece of bread!?" etc. Very loud. It was testimony meeting, so when she headed towards the microphone, the bishop headed her off halfway up the aisle, right next to the person telling the story. The exchange went something like this:

"I want to get up and talk!"

"No. Please return to your seat."

"I WANT TO TALK TOO!!!!"

"I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

The lady then tried to dodge around the Bishop in what turned into a game of tackle tag, screaming "I WANT TO TALK!" the whole time. The bishop and someone else basically drug her out of the meeting, while she screamed bloody murder out of the chapel and off down the hall. After the screams died down, the bishop returned and asked people to resume the testimony meeting.

I wish I had been there.

LM

[Suzie]

Well between the lady that used to come to my ward with a rosary in hand and kneel from the door to the pulpit in fast and testimony meetings, the Nazi that told us he will kill everyoneand the one that said he had sex with the missionaries....the topic is sensitive in nature.

[Traveler]

First off, I understand that people giving sacrament talks are not professional speakers, and no one expects them to be. Most of them are probably scared to death to be up there anyhow. So that is not the focus of my question.

That said, I am wondering what (if any) kind of 'quality control' is exercised in preparing speakers at meetings to avoid things like bad theology, mis-characterising church teaching, presenting things as doctrine which actually are not, discussing things that are just not appropriate for the setting*, etc. Of course, not everyone is a professional (or even amateur) theologian, but given that these talks are a form of teaching the faith, I was just wondering what exactly goes on behind the scenes with regard to that.

*I don't have a particular example in mind, but I am sure that longtime members will have plenty of ideas.

Sometimes to be touched by the Holy Spirit during certain talks requires as much or greater preparation and effort by the hearer than that which was done by the speaker.

The Traveler

[pam]

I've seen it done in a fast and testimony meeting.

I have too.

[Gwen]

wow i'm starting to understand why so many complain about testimony meetings. ours may not be perfect but they aren't that bad. lol

[Last_Daze]

Sometimes to be touched by the Holy Spirit during certain talks requires as much or greater preparation and effort by the hearer than that which was done by the speaker.

The Traveler

Agreed completely, but that isn't really what I was getting at. My question, as Wingnut mentioned, was regarding false doctrine being preached from the pulpit. That has nothing to do with preparation, or being touched by the Spirit; false doctrine is false doctrine.

[Wingnut]

wow i'm starting to understand why so many complain about testimony meetings. ours may not be perfect but they aren't that bad. lol

As a missionary, we always tried to avoid making fast Sunday the first time we brought an investigator to church.

[mightynancy]

Our bishop has clarified things at the end of sacrament meeting.

And I'm with the Captain - testimony meeting is a favorite just for the entertainment factor. It's less "canned" than our other meetings.

[georgia2]

Interesting question. I've been a member for 33 years and this past Sunday one of the speakers, (been a member longer than me) told a story from the scriptures and added elements that are not there! I knew it wasn't right and kept looking at the BIshopric. They seemed uneasy and made body language movements to each other but no one said anything. It was wild! I came home and looked it up and sure enough, it was wrong!

[RachelleDrew]

I am fine with the people sharing their testimony not being "professional" speakers, so long as they have a point. So many people do what I call "spiderwebbing" when they give their testimony/talks. They quickly jump from topic to topic until it reaches a point where I no longer remember what they were first talking about.

I do wish the Bishops would spend a little more time with people when assigning talks. Just giving them a better idea of what is expected and what direction they would like the talk to go in.

I usually liked fast and testimony meetings, particularly if someone gave a really sincere testimony. I hated it when people sounded like they were just reading off a note card all the stuff they were "supposed" to say. Especially the little kids, i'm glad that isn't encouraged anymore. It always bothered me to see two year olds getting paraded up to the front of the chapel with their mom whispering a "testimony" in their ears. I'm sure the parents found it precious. I just found it a little bizarre.

[Traveler]

Agreed completely, but that isn't really what I was getting at. My question, as Wingnut mentioned, was regarding false doctrine being preached from the pulpit. That has nothing to do with preparation, or being touched by the Spirit; false doctrine is false doctrine.

I am not sure that it is always wise to correct a fellow saint publically. Many members are not aware the things they are teaching are incorrect. As for myself I sustain those that have been called to preside and make decisions in such cases. Sometimes when there is open discussion I believe in offering my opinion – especially when my opinion is different. However, I find it rather interesting that when Christ taught among us mortals; Samaritans were well known for their believing and teaching of false doctrine. Jesus taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan that there are more important considerations than mere doctrine when we consider things being taught.

In essence, I recommend that we all listen vary carefully and with the spirit to any individual that keeps the commandments and that we may not want to listen to carefully to the doctrine of those that have difficulty or do not want to keep certain commandments they think too difficult or not required of them. What is taught by example is more important than what is spoken.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

Well, just to elaborate, that is one of the reasons that I asked the question. I heard a story recently in which Sister X had given a sacrament talk in which she posited some pretty bad theology and seriously misrepresented church teaching, generally causing scandal in the ward; in the words of the story-teller, it took "two full RS meetings and one EQ meeting to undo the damage." I was thinking to myself that it would be easier to exercise 'quality control' on the front end than to have to do damage control on the back end.

I have seen that once, the Bishop got up at the end of the talk, put his arm around the person, thanked them for the talk and then gently corrected the errors. It was really good.

[Gwen]

for what it's worth.... if it's in ss or rs i don't hesitate to make corrections myself. sacrament mtg is the only time i rely fully on the correction to come from the presiding leaders. lol

part of the point of having so many members involved in our services/lessons is so we/they can learn and grow, so we can learn from each other. otherwise we'd send our leadership off to extensive training and no one would be allowed to preach but them. i fully expect to be corrected if i say something wrong, i want to be, if i misunderstand i want to know. in that same spirit i will put what i know to be right out there if someone is mistaken. i guess we just have a branch that is very comfortable with each other that way, we do our best to reach out and guide each other. even those of us whose personality don't mess perfectly we care and have each other's back.

lol all this actually reminds me of something that happened in a testimony mtg in our branch. my son (was 8 at the time) was sharing his testimony about christ and he was sharing what he had learned about christ's life. (i don't want to hear the comments about kids and testimonies, it's not a canned thing and the whining won't change anything) he had one small comment that it was obvious he mixed up a story, it was clear everyone in the room understood the one sentence (they chuckled), i made a mental note that we needed to discuss it as a family and clarify the events when we got home. the next sister to get up is very into history. the first thing she did was take a min to thank my son for his thoughts and then she added a very interesting tidbit of history (correcting his mistake but also sharing something unique with him). and then she shared her testimony. i thought it was a wonderful experience for everyone in the room. the gospel through the eyes of a child, learning something new, a wonderful example of correcting with love, etc. i don't think anyone left that meeting grumbling or griping (it's a small branch if they did they waited till they got home otherwise someone would have overheard).

sorry this was a bit off topic. lol i guess sometimes we forget our role and influence as members. and after having one of the worst long weekends ever i needed the reminder that at the end of the week i really am blessed to attend a solid branch.