Why doesn't the Church teach its members how to give talks?

[person0]

The reason most talks are boring is almost never because of the material or the words being spoken.  The reason the talks are boring is because most people are not good public speakers, and most do very little, if anything, to change that.

Perhaps you should get permission to start a public speaking course one night a week to train members to do better at public speaking.  The problem is, the people who would attend would only be the ones who care and who want to do better.  The rest of the people would stay hidden and hope they don't get asked to speak in church.

[mgridle]

16 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Good link.  I am not suggesting the church can ensure good talks.  But they could do a bit more coaching.  And sure it would be done at the local level. 

Why are you abrogating personal responsibility in this whole mess?  Is it the Church's responsibility to provide good talks? Absolutely not.

It is the individual who is giving the talk who has the responsibility of giving a good talk; the problem is that many people see a talk as something they are just required to do, but not necessarily a responsibility. The key to a good talk is preparation, the rest is just mechanical-but it all boils down to preparation.  And it takes a good bit of time to actually prepare a good talk.  Last 15 min-20min. talk I gave required about 6 hours of preparation, sure it is actually really easy to give a 15 min "talk", that amounts to extemporaneous speaking, I can do that in a couple of hours, maybe an hour.  But to give a well-prepared, well-thought out, scriptural based talk takes time.

The Church does provide a wonderful template for talks, it's called General Conference, it's called Stake Conference, etc. Everybody loves GC talks, but do individual members actually take the time to make their talks GC like??

Coaching will do nothing if the individual members don't take the personal responsibility to make their talks well prepared.

[mgridle]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

The reason most talks are boring is almost never because of the material or the words being spoken.  The reason the talks are boring is because most people are not good public speakers, and most do very little, if anything, to change that.

I disagree to an extent.  The first thing is what is the purpose of a Church talk.  Is it to be entertaining? Is it to teach doctrine? Is it to uplift?

I don't go to Church to be entertained; so to me a typical non-boring talk might be totally inappropriate and I'd get frustrated at listening to some clown in Sacrament (even if it was "entertaining").

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I'll take French Vanilla, please.

Quote

Apparently the First Presidency don't find it a top priority, but I figured maybe someone here might know why?  Perhaps not.  

Actually, this has been answered.  But since you haven't (until now) asked this question directly (it is different than the question in the title).  I believe the answer is 1) It simply isn't that big of a problem.  2) The implementation of such a program has flaws greater than the one you're trying to solve.

Quote

Instead, it appears that people would rather attack me for bringing up the topic, suggesting that I'm not being a team player, etc.  You're a complainer for mentioning it, etc.  Whatever.  

I don't think I was attacking you.  I even agreed with most of what you said.  I even said "thank you" for your efforts you've made so far.  And I even wanted to engage in an intellectual exercise type game with you.  But it appears you like complaining more than making conversation.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Guest

[person0]

36 minutes ago, mgridle said:

I disagree to an extent.  The first thing is what is the purpose of a Church talk.  Is it to be entertaining? Is it to teach doctrine? Is it to uplift?

I don't go to Church to be entertained; so to me a typical non-boring talk might be totally inappropriate and I'd get frustrated at listening to some clown in Sacrament (even if it was "entertaining").

I wasn't really talking about the purpose of a talk, just the reason they are boring.  Being annoyed/frustrated with the talk/speaker is different than the talk being boring.  I don't like those types of talks either.  Also, being a good public speaker is not really about entertaining, it is about being equipped to share the message in a way that will reach the most people, which in turn will enable more people to learn by the Spirit.

[anatess2]

So.  Last Sunday, one of the speakers in our ward gave her entire talk in a language that I didn't understand.  I caught maybe only 5 or so words and 2 of them were Jesus Christ.  Plus, sacrament meeting is held in a building where you can hear the neighbors talking and playing and dogs barking and chickens crowing, etc. etc.  I had to super-concentrate to hear what she is saying without getting distracted by all the noise and then I had to concentrate on sounds to try to understand what she is saying.  I didn't understand it, of course, but for some reason, I was still touched by the Spirit as she gave a very solemn talk.  The thing that stuck to my head the whole time I was listening was "Reverence" and "Solemnity".

My beef with Sacrament Talks is that a lot of times people give their talks like a stand-up comedy routine or something.  It lacks a certain solemnity that I was used to while growing up listening to Catholic priests give sermons.  But that's just me.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I am sure I am going to get push back on this, but some talks are absolutely boring.  And there is very little reason they have to be...week after week, we have speakers struggling to figure out how to give a talk and a congregation that is hoping to feel the spirit.  Things could be a lot better.

The Church doesn't instruct its members in the art of rhetoric because the Church doesn't care about rhetoric. Some people are engaging speakers -- wonderful. Some people aren't -- unimportant. The Spirit teaches us. ONLY the Spirit teaches us. The Spirit does not depend on rhetoric. I don't care if the speaker is dry as day-old toast, if the Spirit is present with him or her, we will be filled.

Unless, of course, we don't have the Spirit with us. But in that case, rhetoric is useless. We might as well go to a political rally or watch a TED talk.

The Church is about the Holy Spirit, not rhetoric.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, zil said:

When the leadership start giving people a month to prepare (nevermind the 6 months that GAs generally have for GC), maybe they'll start getting people who are more prepared.

In many cases, the problem does not lie with unorganized bishoprics giving last-minute assignments, but with unreliable speakers. Realistically, the bishop and his counselors can only fill in so many times before spreading things around. In my experience, bishoprics typically try to make assignments about a month out. When assigned General Conference speakers pull out four days before Conference, my guess is that the General Authorities have recourse to other strategies than to ask someone else to fill in.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I suspect the church avoids telling people how to give talks, because they don't want the same format time and again, and they don't want people being criticized who don't use that format

Or perhaps the Church leadership already knows that half of the people they ask to speak say "No", and that percentage will only increase as the requirements for rhetoric become more stringent.

I have often heard speakers and teachers say that they learned more from preparing the lesson or sermon than anyone is likely to get out of their presentation or talk. If that's the case, why would any of us begrudge our fellow Saint for giving a talk that may have taught them invaluable lessons, even if we weren't entertained as much as we had hoped?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Good link.  I am not suggesting the church can ensure good talks.  But they could do a bit more coaching.  And sure it would be done at the local level. 

Quote

He that receiveth the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is taught by the Spirit of truth.

There is no "method" or pattern of speech that invokes the Spirit.  It is taught as one has the Spirit with them.  I believe you're more worried about being emotionally fulfilled than spiritually fulfilled.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Guest

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

In many cases, the problem does not lie with unorganized bishoprics giving last-minute assignments, but with unreliable speakers. Realistically, the bishop and his counselors can only fill in so many times before spreading things around. In my experience, bishoprics typically try to make assignments about a month out. When assigned General Conference speakers pull out four days before Conference, my guess is that the General Authorities have recourse to other strategies than to ask someone else to fill in.
. . .
I have often heard speakers and teachers say that they learned more from preparing the lesson or sermon than anyone is likely to get out of their presentation or talk.

In theory, if the membership were as studious as we ought to be, the Bishop should be able to pick someone out of the congregation at random, 5 minutes before the meeting, and have them give a talk during that meeting.  Preparing for the talk in advance would be more akin to simply gathering thoughts together in a coherent order rather than a brand new study experience.  Of course, I don't see such a major shift in member study habits happening any time soon, but it should!

[Anddenex]

This question reminds me of a story provided by President Henry B. Eyring when he was a young man and he asked his father the same question. His father's answer (paraphrased), "In sacrament, when someone begins to speak I listen carefully, as I listen I create my own devotional on the topics they are sharing. I follow the scriptures, and then link them to other scriptures. I have never heard a boring talk."

Although I agree there are boring talks, how we view boring talks, speak more about us then it does about the talks themselves.

The Church has provided plenty of manuals and handbooks to help people learn how to present and give better talks and course instruction. We just need to hearken better as a membership than we do. We all have plenty of excuses as why we aren't doing something. Get rid of these excuses and we improve.

[Lost Boy]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is no "method" or pattern of speech that invokes the Spirit.  It is taught as one has the Spirit with them.  I believe you're more worried about being emotionally fulfilled than spiritually fulfilled.

Perhaps.  Perhaps I want both.   I agree that method and pattern alone are not enough.  The talk needs to be prepared by the help of the spirit and given by the spirit.  But I contend that if people don't have a basic understanding of how to give a talk, the fear of giving the talk gets in the way of preparing with spirit.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Perhaps.  Perhaps I want both.   I agree that method and pattern alone are not enough.  The talk needs to be prepared by the help of the spirit and given by the spirit.  But I contend that if people don't have a basic understanding of how to give a talk, the fear of giving the talk gets in the way of preparing with spirit.

I believe it's perfectly normal for people to want both.  I do, however, think that the fault is ours if we let the lack of emotional fulfillment get in the way of the spiritual fulfillment.

[zil]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

The reason most talks are boring is almost never because of the material or the words being spoken.  The reason the talks are boring is because most people are not good public speakers, and most do very little, if anything, to change that.

Perhaps you should get permission to start a public speaking course one night a week to train members to do better at public speaking.  The problem is, the people who would attend would only be the ones who care and who want to do better.  The rest of the people would stay hidden and hope they don't get asked to speak in church. 

The way to get people to this class is to promise that those who attend the class will not be called on to speak until the bishopric have run through the list of those who did not attend the class.

(OT: Phew.  I was having a panic attack scrolling through all those icky new emojis looking for my friends the old emojis.)

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

(OT: Phew.  I was having a panic attack scrolling through all those icky new emojis looking for my friends the old emojis.)

AH!! That's what was happening.  I was having to use keystrokes to evoke emojis when they didn't come up on the pull-down menu.

Yeah, these new ones will take some getting used to.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, these new ones will take some getting used to. 

Pffff.  I vote them off the island!

[Lost Boy]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe it's perfectly normal for people to want both.  I do, however, think that the fault is ours if we let the lack of emotional fulfillment get in the way of the spiritual fulfillment.

Sure, but if you are the type that tends to fall asleep during a meeting, a better talk certainly helps keep you awake.....😃

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, but if you are the type that tends to fall asleep during a meeting, a better talk certainly helps keep you awake.....😃

😄 That may be true sometimes.  But since I am one of those who falls asleep during meetings, I know this isn't true for me.  But I'm weird.  I understand.

I'll tell you that there is a lady in the ward who is HIGHLY educated and is a very dynamic speaker.  She teaches Relief Society.   And everyone raves about how exciting her lessons are.  I thought that was a good thing.  But about a month or two ago she finally spoke in Sacrament.  I was actually looking forward to it because of everything people said about her (including my wife).  

How DISAPPOINTING!

She spoke very well.  She had lots of source material, great quotes, wonderful analogies, clear speech, just enough humor sprinkled in.  But I began to lose interest when i realized that she was giving 100% the philosophies of men.  In all her quotes there were exactly two scriptures and one modern prophet quote.  Among the dozens of others from philosophers and great thinkers in history that had nothing to do with gospel principles, that was a scant meal indeed.  Then I realized that I recognized her central theme.  It was not a gospel principle.

I began losing interest very quickly and fell asleep.

[person0]

56 minutes ago, zil said:

The way to get people to this class is to promise that those who attend the class will not be called on to speak until the bishopric have run through the list of those who did not attend the class.

Pure Genius!

Interestingly, the Church, in the 1986 New-Era, published a formula for how to give a good talk.

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

This question reminds me of a story provided by President Henry B. Eyring . . .

Although I agree there are boring talks, how we view boring talks, speak more about us then it does about the talks themselves.

Here is the quote:

Quote

He seemed to be enjoying what I thought was a terrible talk.
. . .
Like all good fathers, he must have read my mind because he started to laugh. He said: “Hal, let me tell you something. Since I was a very young man, I have taught myself to do something in a church meeting. When the speaker begins, I listen carefully and ask myself what it is he is trying to say. Then once I think I know what he is trying to accomplish, I give myself a sermon on that subject.” He let that sink in for a moment as we walked along. Then, with that special self-deprecating chuckle of his, he said, “Hal, since then I have never been to a bad meeting.”

Here's the thing.  In order to correct the problem that the talk was boring, Elder Eyring's dad just completely stopped listening all together and started teaching himself.  In my mind, that is an admission that the speaker actually was boring, and that Elder Eyring's dad simply found a work around to effectively use the service time to be edified.

Anecdotally, when I was a missionary and had to translate talks, if the speaker was particularly incoherent, I would just start making it up and give my own version of the talk until the speaker would get back on track with something that made sense.  I also frequently fixed statements that were doctrinally incorrect (like when one member claimed that Jesus repented).

Edited May 2, 2018 by person0

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

😄 That may be true sometimes.  But since I am one of those who falls asleep during meetings, I know this isn't true for me.  But I'm weird.  I understand.

I'll tell you that there is a lady in the ward who is HIGHLY educated and is a very dynamic speaker.  She teaches Relief Society.   And everyone raves about how exciting her lessons are.  I thought that was a good thing.  But about a month or two ago she finally spoke in Sacrament.  I was actually looking forward to it because of everything people said about her (including my wife).  

How DISAPPOINTING!

She spoke very well.  She had lots of source material, great quotes, wonderful analogies, clear speech, just enough humor sprinkled in.  But I began to lose interest when i realized that she was giving 100% the philosophies of men.  In all her quotes there were exactly two scriptures and one modern prophet quote.  Among the dozens of others from philosophers and great thinkers in history that had nothing to do with gospel principles, that was a scant meal indeed.  Then I realized that I recognized her central theme.  It was not a gospel principle.

I began losing interest very quickly and fell asleep.

That can happen as well.

[mgridle]

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then I realized that I recognized her central theme.  It was not a gospel principle.

I began losing interest very quickly and fell asleep.

I daresay this is becoming all too common in Church.

When I give talks I go heavy scriptures, generally at least 5-10 scriptures with several GC quotes. We all have our own philosophies, but at least if I've got that much back-up, I'm much less likely to deviate from God's word.

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, mgridle said:

I daresay this is becoming all too common in Church.

Is it?  I have seen it here and there.  But I wouldn't call it rampant.  Then again, I suppose it's also accurate to say it really shouldn't be happening at all.

[mgridle]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is it?  I have seen it here and there.  But I wouldn't call it rampant.  Then again, I suppose it's also accurate to say it really shouldn't be happening at all.

I should say all more too common.  I would say what has become more all to common is the lack of willingness to stand for something for fear of being offensive.

When was the last time in sacrament you heard a talk about women being stay at home moms?  Nope, too offensive.  What about disciplining children effectively? Nope, too offensive.  What about appropriate sexual mores (outside of generic chastity)? Nope, too offensive. What about how to really effectively keep a marriage together and how divorce is bad? Nope, too offensive.  What about how to deal with spiritual issues like depression, anxiety, etc.? Nope, too offensive and it doesn't belong in Church it belongs somewhere else.

The Gospel preached at church in many ways has become very bland b/c to actually tackle the hard, important topics in today's society requires risking offending people and we can't have that now.  So the talks either go into very bland, very generic talks backed by scripture or talks that aren't based in the Gospel.

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, mgridle said:

When was the last time in sacrament you heard a talk about women being stay at home moms?  Nope, too offensive.  What about disciplining children effectively? Nope, too offensive.  What about appropriate sexual mores (outside of generic chastity)? Nope, too offensive. What about how to really effectively keep a marriage together and how divorce is bad? Nope, too offensive.  What about how to deal with spiritual issues like depression, anxiety, etc.? Nope, too offensive and it doesn't belong in Church it belongs somewhere else.

In my ward in Florida (I live in 2 parts of the planet) - last February or March.  It was a Relief Society lesson.  In my ward in the Philippines?  Well, divorce is illegal in the Philippines and depression and anxiety are seen here as first world problems.