I’ve seen introductions I really like. In the past few years however, I’ve seen a spread of a type that I really dislike.
The variation I like is best reflected in an introduction I saw referenced of Justice Alito. He was picking clerks and they had two candidates who were recently married. He made arrangements with the other judges on the circuit court where he served at the time so that without disrupting the clerks who had been chosen, the two of them could serve together. That is an excellent example of consideration and kindness for individuals who are often seen as disposable and fungible by the courts. The introduction then went on from there.
The variant that seems to be spreading is one where the introducer talks about how they met the eminence when the person being introduced picked them out of the unwashed crowds and elevated them. The introduction then goes on to chronicle the various ways the two have interacted. Fifteen to twenty minutes later it wraps up. In many ways it is a paean to the importance of the person doing the introduction. I’ve seen these stacked two or more deep. One person spends fifteen minutes introducing the next person who only gets up to introduce someone else. I was recently at a lunch presentation that was supposed to end at 1:00. At 2:30 I had to leave for other engagements, but the speaker had been delayed by multiple long and deep introductions.
I’ve been considering introduction styles since, especially as I listen to general conference where the introductions are very short and simple. Then I listen to other presentations, ones where a half hour talk might have fifteen minutes of it taken up with the discussion of how the following speaker (a visiting authority of some sort) and their family have graced the social circles of the first speaker for the past twenty or thirty years. It has caused me to reflect on leadership styles, on respect of persons, and on what introductions mean and how they should be taken.
Is what I’ve seen unusual for the Church as a whole, some sort of regional blight, or is it wider spread?
Wheat & Tares 
I see no reason for any introduction to be longer than a minute or so… I mean, if the purpose of the entire meeting is to praise someone’s life and review their accomplishments, then do that. Otherwise, get to the point.
I’d like to comment, but first I’d like to talk about my background a bit and my qualifications to comment on a post like this. The thing that really lead to my ability to even make this comment started back in Europe when my great-great-grandfather met a young lady who was soon to become my great-great-grandmother. Together, they started a life of ….
🙂
p.s. I agree with adamf
This reminds me of one of my public speaking classes. The professor told a story about a speaker who was invited to speak on some topic. As was customary, he was introduced first by some other person (who was more familiar with the audience, etc.,)
The guy went up and said, “Our next speaker will provide the address for today…but first I’d like to provide some background…”
(and then the guy gives a rather lengthy introduction.)
At the end, the invited speaker went up and provided…his mailing address. “Well, that’s the address for today. If you want to hear what I had to say, then I guess you’ll have to mail me.”
I was in a business networking group at one time. The introduction and pitch about your business was 90 secs. period. If you can’t do it in 90 secs, you don’t know yourself or your business very well. We also introduced each other. Same thing 90 secs.
And the other hand, think of Fast and Testimony meeting. How long would a bare bones testimony take to deliver? 90 secs? The record for me was a testimony I heard that lasted 30 mins.
I don’t know about introductions, but I once timed a closing prayer at stake conference that lasted 7 minutes. This petitioner didn’t leave out a thing as he asked for blessings to get us all safely home (within a 1 miles radius).
CC – I wonder if praying/asking for everything and the kitchen sink gives some sense of control to the asker…
I think professional introductions (at awards banquets and so on) are generally intended to speak to the guest’s accomplishments without his having to do it himself. In a church setting, there’s no need for that as we already know the speakers (by name and position) at least.
The lesson of the Gettysburg address should not be lost on “introducers”. I realize the speech that preceded President Lincoln was not meant to introduce him. But its length and “grandeur” pretty much eliminated from any historical significance, especially when compared with the eloquent (and far more easily memorized by fourth graders) remarks of the top man on the program.
#5 CC: a seven minute closing prayer? Yikes!