Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

So this is still developing news, but apparently the brethren made several changes to Elder Packer's talk as delivered in conference.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_st ... spx?rss=20

Excerpt:

Packer’s sermon claimed that homosexuality was not born of inbred “tendencies.”

In the Church’s online text version of Packer’s talk, the word “tendencies” was changed to “temptations.”

During his original talk, Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

Another change to Elder Packer’s talk includes the omission of the entire sentence, “Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”

Additionally, where Elder Packer called The Family: A Proclamation to the World a "revelation" in conference, it is now a "guide." (Source)

So, any thoughts? How much of Elder Packer's talk, in its original or current form, can be considered doctrinally sound, and how much of it can be considered his personal opinion? Additionally, what is the canonical status of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

If the Correlation Committee had been around during the 50s and 60s, how different would some of those talks be?

More to think about!

I won't be commenting on how doctrinally sound Elder Packer's talk was, but I would like to say that I wish the church had publicly stated that they were changing the words from the original talk. Obviously, the changes are being publicized through news sources, but I still think a church official should explain to the public why the changes are being made, and perhaps issue an apology or some kind of retraction.

I think this question has been asked (and perhaps answered) before, but this sort of thing makes me wonder whether General Conference talks have to get some sort of approval beforehand. Like do they have to run it by the First Presidency, etc.

They're not run past correlation, I don't think. If they were you wouldn't get the whole awkward Saturday morning "oh, gosh, another Seventy just gave my same talk" moments. I don't necessarily think that the Church should apologize for President Packer's talk, nor do I think they should openly publicize the changes beyond what they've already done, but I do worry what some members thought when they heard it. I, for one, was squirming, but the old people next to me in the Conference Center thought it was amazing that he came out and corrected such a liberal, apostate doctrine as the genetic influence on homosexuality. I'm worried that this talk will be quoted without end in elders' quorums to prove that gay people are evil in and of themselves... and we "dirty apostates" will have to hang our heads and not bring it up for fear of starting a fight.

I wonder what the live translation was. Did anybody listen to it in another language?

P.S. "dirty apostate" was snark if you couldn't tell

I think it's important to realize that President Packer isn't the only apostle to talk about the church's position on whether people are born as homosexuals or whether they will be able to completely rid themselves of those inclinations in this life, though he is the most senior. (I'm going over the language he used in Conference, obviously.) Some examples:

Elder Holland, 2007 - http://new.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helpi ... n?lang=eng - "As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement. ... Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."

Elder Oaks, 2008 - http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-s ... attraction - "That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on."

And I'm right with Unlucky Stuntman on this one. I wish the church had made a statement about it. I'd rather have heard it from them than my queer friends.

Sigh... a mission companion commented on the changes on Facebook, and one of his super-Mormon* friends flat out denied that the change took place and claimed that both my companion (and I, when I commented on the issue) were hearing things. President Monson would have corrected President Packer, but that's not even necessary because President Packer would never make a mistake, right?

*Some consider me a super-Mormon, but I've never liked Brian Regan so I don't think I exactly qualify.

Right.

Also, video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNuHzKDU ... r_embedded

There's been an official Church statement released (from the ABC article Sauron linked to) :

UPDATE: Late Friday evening, Scott Trotter, LDS Church spokesman, released the following statement regarding the edits made in Elder Packer's talk:

“The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent. As we have said repeatedly, the Church’s position on marriage and family is clear and consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of God’s children.”

Haven't seen it on the official LDS site yet, but I'm sure it will show up.

Just curious, when correlation changes other conference talks, should they make a statement about those, too? Or just this one since it's a highly controversial subject? (Really, I promise, I'm not trying to be argumentative, even though I know this might sound that way. I really am genuinely interested in your opinions.)

A few things.

1.I don't think the church should come out publicly and say that changes were specifically made. If they did that every time, we'd be inundated with all the changes. I honestly don't think the changes alter his message, at all really. I think they (the brethren), as the quote C is for put up alludes to, make changes because the written word is percieved differently than the spoken word. Things that are powerful and moving when spoken can often be misconstrued when written.

2.I don't understand why his talk was even an issue. Bob can back me up on this, I was annoyed when a newspaper article declared "Apostle says homosexuality not inborn." That's one way to read it, but not the only way. The way I read it is to suggest that having attractions to the same gender (which may be inborn) do not force one to act on them, as we are often made to believe. As a heterosexual man it is possible for me to live my entire life without so much as touching a woman romantically. President Packer was simply stating that it is possible for someone with homosexual desires to also refrain from acting on them. That opens up the possibility for an entire discussion as to whether someone who feels attracted to their own gender should have to restrain themselves; Elder Packer (and by extension, the church) feel that they should. Others may disagree, and they are free to do so.

3.I feel for president Packer, I really do. Another point Bob and I have discussed, president Packer always seems to get the assignment to speak on the more controversial topics. I don't know if he chooses them because he does them well, or if he does them well because he so frequently has to do them. Either way, much of the heat that the church gets from its critics is directed squarely at him, and I'm sure he feels it intensely.

4.Did this talk come as a surprise to anyone? I mean, honestly? I can't say I was surprised at all. Not by the topic, not by the speaker chosen, not by the timing.

@C is for - Thanks for posting that.

@Dragon Lady - No, I don't think it is necessary every time. But in this case, the two word changes create really big differences in meaning, and it's a talk that has gotten loads of attention, locally and nationally. Not everyone is familiar with the slight changing of wording in Conference talks a few days after the fact apparently being commonplace (I know I wasn't), so it raises a whole new set of questions. Add to that all of the media coverage of LGBTQ youth suicides recently, and I think it would have been really great of President Packer or the church to come out and say, This is what was actually meant. This just makes the whole thing harder.

@Marduk - As the person who first told me about the talk can attest, my first reaction was to ask whether he said that people could stop being gay in this life or if he said that they simply didn't have to engage in same-sex relationships. They said it sounded like the former to them. I went and read and listened to the whole talk, and I'd have to agree. It's true, you could have interpreted his remarks any number of ways, but you COULD interpret anything any number of ways, and to me that's the interpretation that followed from his words. Of course, if he really did mean what the talk on lds.org now says, that's a different thing, I suppose. However, there are consequences when you are such a high-up person in such an important organization. You have to be careful about things like wording when the whole church, including thousands and thousands of people (and young people) who are struggling with such incredibly significant issues, is listening. Even now, the wording changes are not going to reach everyone, and that's going to have serious consequences for individual members of the church. That's why it's a big deal.

This talk affected me because I respect the church for the progress its made in the way it regards people who are attracted to members of their own sex. The church has gone a long way from the 90s and President Hinckley calling them "so-called gays and lesbians." The church had stopped saying that same-sex attraction was "curable" or a "choice." Now many members have more reasons to go on thinking that if you just pray enough you can be healed. Maybe that's what he meant and maybe not. But words have consequences, and you have to be more careful than that.

I'm with Marduk on this one, not sure why people are making such a fuss over it all. The statement in question is the negation of the thought that an earthly challenge is insurmountable. This comes as a surprise to people?

"This just in: apostle claims God actually cares for all of his children and won't put things before you that are beyond your capacity to handle. More details at 10."

Now if you want some really juicy misconstrued sentences, may I recommend the Journal of Discourses? Amazing the things you can get the prophets and apostles to say if you want them to.

And on a somewhat related note, can I say that I'm sick of the recent news coverage of the suicides? I don't even have a TV and I've been hit with it nigh on to more than I can stand. Yes, the suicides are tragic, as any would be, but there were just as many (if not more) last year, and yet the news only now deigns to pick up on it? Whose agenda is being furthered by the sudden interest in a decades-old problem? "I'm sorry ma'am, but your son killed himself in the wrong month, kindly ask his friends to kill themselves closer to elections and they'll get some airtime." Will next week see breaking news on violence in the Congo?

Sorry, my distaste for commercialized media has been drawn to the surface recently. I wouldn't be surprised if the rash of attention actually increases bigotry and the rate of suicides. In fact, there may not be any more agenda needed; make something popular, so more kids see it and follow suit, then you've got next week's news as well. Profits all around. That is, until people get tired of hearing about it, then it'll be on to some other firestorm they can find or create. Aaaand I'm ranting again. Sorry once more.

Tao-

Whose agenda is being furthered by the news media ignoring said problem for decades?

I agree. I mean, at least this got any kind of discussion going about teenage LGBTQ suicides, which we should all be talking more about. We should be talking more about teenage suicides in general, in my opinion.

When has Q been thrown on the LGBT label? I know it means "queer," but what's the difference between that and gay? I always assumed it was a slur, not a legitimate word.

regarding publicizing suicides: I'm not sure how I feel. I do know there has been research on imitation or copycat suicides; increased coverage of a suicide can actually increase the risk of others committing suicide (especially if the original suicidee(?) was portrayed as happy-go-lucky/normal). I'm reducing the research, but there are legitimate psychological reasons to discourage media coverage of suicides. I think it would be more productive to report suicides as statistics, maybe even by county. BYU has a relatively low suicide rate with about one every other year. I think we can talk about suicide without encouraging imitation.

I was wondering about the Q in LGBTQ, too. I thought it meant Questioning? Like, to give people who aren't sure a place? Queer makes sense, though.

Too right.

Craig Jessop wrote:When has Q been thrown on the LGBT label? I know it means "queer," but what's the difference between that and gay? I always assumed it was a slur, not a legitimate word.

most people who label themselves "queer" don't have a specific sexuality. they date and sleep with whoever they fall for, which means they may date a man who identifies as totally straight, or a trans-woman who identifies as a lesbian. basically.