Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I was reading the SL Tribune's coverage of the revised transcript of President Packer's talk (available athttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50440474-76/ ... h.html.csp) when I came across an interesting paragraph: "While minor edits may be common, such substantive changes are rare. For instance, a general authority had to revise and retape a General Conference sermon he gave in 1984 that some saw as out of step with church teachings."

[Aside: Truthfully, the edits on Pres. Packer's talk are quite minor to many edits; for instance, some of Pres. Monson's stories have been totally excluded. I think those might be cases of his prepared remarks differing from his actual talk, but there are definitely differences in the delivered talk and the transcript.]

I was aware the Church edited talks before their inclusion in the Ensign; however, I had never heard of this 1984 talk that required an entire retaping. I considered submitting the question to the board since there was no name attached to it, but I decided to look on my own first. I came across a fascinating story about Ronald E. Poelman's "The Gospel and the Church."

Poelman's talk was about the differences between what the gospel is and accomplishes and what the church is and accomplishes. After giving the talk, some Church members thought it might lead to the conclusion that as one develops in personal gospel living, the Church becomes unnecessary. (I didn't read the original quite that way, but it's a sensible argument.) The Church had Elder Poelman (Member of the 1st Quorum of Seventy) re-write certain aspects of talk for publication. The Church had him re-tape the entire talk, added a cough track to it, then spliced it in with the original broadcast for video and audio duplication. (Some church members and many opponents thought this was misleading and that the Church was being too covert about it.)

Many anti-Mormon sites use this as fodder. Interestingly enough, I found this experience to be a testimony builder and an interesting display in understanding the Church's role. Similarly, I found studying Elder Poelman's comments (none of which I think are false) and the revised versions to be enlightening for what they say about how we ought to view the Church. You can see the differences at http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml ; be warned though, the rest of the site is an anti-Mormon site (as is most of what you'll find on the matter.)

I found that just the other day, too! How interesting. There was another one from the 1930s about the Church and humanitarian living or something. I'll try to find that, it was never published by the Church for some reason.

Yeah, it is the only time I'm aware of that they've made changes to the actual recordings. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it IS critical that folks not get the wrong impression here.

Careful, Mico, I just may ask the question about the 1930s talk and address it to YOU.

Crag Jessop, don't you dare! Bam! It is entitled "Bringing Humanity to the Gospel," and since I haven't read it yet I can't say why it was not published by the Church.

Censorship is a bit of a scary thing, especially within the Church simply because people trust it. And they should be able to. So finding out something was censored, for me at least, makes me wonder why they feel the need to do that.

I just read the talk. It's GOOD. And I can totally see why the Church censored it.

mic0 wrote:Censorship is a bit of a scary thing, especially within the Church simply because people trust it. And they should be able to. So finding out something was censored, for me at least, makes me wonder why they feel the need to do that.

I completely understand! This is something I am having a really really hard time with in relation to Elder Packer's talk. I feel like if he was inspired to make certain statements in his talk, as others have as well, then why should it be edited? He wrote his talk with the guidance of the spirit, why does it need to be edited? I guess I just feel like he edited it to make it more pc. I did recently learn that the talks are edited after conference (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12749665) but then I also have to wonder if he said exactly what he had written down or if he veered off at all. It's just something I'm having a difficult time with. It doesn't make sense to me. I even commented on it on my facebook and have had 40 responses and I still don't understand it completely. Maybe I never will.

melbabi wrote:He wrote his talk with the guidance of the spirit, why does it need to be edited?

Maybe the spirit told him to write it that way initially, and now the spirit's telling him to make some changes for clarification. Or the more likely scenario: maybe the spirit just told him to talk about this principle, and the words were his own (in which case, he's free to make whatever changes he wants). I don't think revision should be a testimony killer.

thebigcheese wrote: Or the more likely scenario: maybe the spirit just told him to talk about this principle, and the words were his own (in which case, he's free to make whatever changes he wants). I don't think revision should be a testimony killer.

I completely agree with BOTH these statements. I don't think the Spirit told him the exact language to use to present the inspired ideas, and that as he wrote it his cultural and personal bias came through. I believe that the Spirit prompted Elder Packer to make the changes, but that does not make the original idea less inspired.

It's like in April conference when E. Foster talked about cows. Do you think the Spirit prompted him to talk about cows? Doubtful. More likely, he was prompted to speak on a specific topic (sadly, I don't remember what that was … oops? … and I only have a few seconds here before Dragon Baby needs me again) and he used his background (cattle ranching) to explain it.

Point of interest, he's from my hometown and his cows used to graze in the field across from my house. In fact, my photographer brother took a picture of them once and it's now the background on my parents' blog because they're on a mission and wanted their blog to be about being "out in the field" and I thought it was appropriate.

heh, another point that has been brought up in the other thread; some things aren't meant for all people. We know that revelation is had and kept quiet, and we don't consider that censorship, why must this be any different? What was said in conference was sufficient when heard with the ears, but the reading eye may not grasp the tone, thus a change was called for.

melbabi wrote:

mic0 wrote:Censorship is a bit of a scary thing, especially within the Church simply because people trust it. And they should be able to. So finding out something was censored, for me at least, makes me wonder why they feel the need to do that.

I completely understand! This is something I am having a really really hard time with in relation to Elder Packer's talk. I feel like if he was inspired to make certain statements in his talk, as others have as well, then why should it be edited? He wrote his talk with the guidance of the spirit, why does it need to be edited? I guess I just feel like he edited it to make it more pc. I did recently learn that the talks are edited after conference (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12749665) but then I also have to wonder if he said exactly what he had written down or if he veered off at all. It's just something I'm having a difficult time with. It doesn't make sense to me. I even commented on it on my facebook and have had 40 responses and I still don't understand it completely. Maybe I never will.

To be frank, the guidance of the Spirit isn't an assurance that everything someone says (even Apostles) will mesh completely with (1) Church doctrine or (2) even truth. In my opinion, part of the reason we have the Church as a whole is to keep things relatively stable and not to be "tossed about with every wind of doctrine." Even apostles are strong willed, opinionated individuals who come to Church leadership with their own cultural impressions and personal biases. Having a quorum of twelve people helps things to stay stable.

President Packer grew up in a time when hostility toward homosexuals was accepted as the cultural norm. While the idea of "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" was taught as much then as it is now, culture as a whole had a strongly anti-homosexual stance to it. Even our understanding of what causes homosexual tendencies and what exactly constituted "sinning" (i.e. homosexual tendencies versus homosexual behavior) were undeveloped or wrong. Hatred and even violence towards homosexuals were accepted forms of social expression. (e.g. In criminal law, there is a doctrine called provocation. Essentially, it states that if someone provokes you into anger, and you then kill them, you will receive a lesser sentence then someone who is unprovoked. Traditionally, words could not be considered provocation. But some states made exceptions that if a homosexual made verbal advances towards another man, that could constitute provocation. In that is an unsavory statement about the treatment of homosexuals by society.) I do not think that President Packer has those feelings, but I do think that the staunch society he grew up in has affected him. The Church is there to help clarify what the Lord's position on things is, when human biases deliver that message through a distorted filter of the human experience. Rather than doubting Pres. Packer as an inspired apostle, this type of experience helps me appreciate (1) him as an individual who has accomplished so much despite being human and (2) the Church for being such an incredible institution in keeping the doctrines of the gospel pure, simple, and plain.

By the way, I love Stephen L. Richards.

wired wrote:By the way, I love Stephen L. Richards.

Me too.

wired wrote: To be frank, the guidance of the Spirit isn't an assurance that everything someone says (even Apostles) will mesh completely with (1) Church doctrine or (2) even truth.

This is certainly accurate; I would however add that the guidance of the spirit in listener helps clarify these sort of issues.

I disagree with how you've represented President Packer. You've accurately characterized his formative environs, however, I (since I disagreed with the interpretations of his talk from the beginning, in spoken form) disagree with the way his talk has been lambasted. I think this is merely a case of being prompted to speak on a particularly controversial subject, (and personally, I think there were promptings for this on both sides of the veil) wanting to do so in a way that was both efficacious and cogent, individuals misinterpreting what he had to say, and there being a moment of "that's not what I meant! I'd better make some edits to clarify. I don't want people to get the wrong idea."

I can agree with your interpretation. I think my statement still holds true in that I believe Pres. Packer's "filter," as I've termed it, is part of what caused him to deliver the message in a way that didn't necessarily mesh with Church doctrine. His intent meshed with Church doctrine and if you understood his comments in the context that he gave them, it wouldn't necessarily contradict Church doctrine. But, on their face, they could easily be interpreted to not mesh with Church doctrine. Thus, Pres. Packer and the Church come in and say, "Well, the way people are taking this is not how it was meant. We need to clarify it for them so that more people will interpret it more clearly and in a way that is consistent with established Church policy."

Yeah, I feel like some apostles have a stronger hold on language than others. Elder Oaks, for example, is extremely precise with his language, very careful to define what he's talking about, and would likely be more careful about how his audience interprets his words. I don't think he'd ever spark the same "mis-interpretation" controversy as Elder Packer has. Elder Packer's talk used words so loosely and concepts so broadly defined that a lot of people have read into it whatever they wanted to read into it. That's the challenge of speaking on a controversial topic — you not only have to convey your point, you've also got to close off any other possible interpretation of what you said. And, since you can only talk about so much, you have to worry about what you leave unspoken as well as what you say. For example, some feel Elder Packer didn't reiterate enough that we need to treat homosexual people with love and respect, even though that's taught in detail elsewhere.

So in summary, here's how I feel about it: I don't think I really have a problem with what he said, but he took on a difficult topic to write about, and he certainly didn't write with adequate precision—even in the revised talk. In other words, he, like Moses, is only human.

Exodus 4:10:
And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

So, the church is still true, and I still sustain him in his calling. He stumbled a bit, but who doesn't?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I find it a little ironic that Mormons are willing to accept that Pres. Packer wasn't the most eloquent and may have made a mistake in his wording but when any other church has issues with wordings, for example the Catholic church, I have heard many, many Mormons attribute that to them not being a part of the true church and being mislead. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean every single Mormon has said that about other religions, I'm just saying I have heard it plenty before and it seems ironic to me.

melbabi wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but I find it a little ironic that Mormons are willing to accept that Pres. Packer wasn't the most eloquent and may have made a mistake in his wording but when any other church has issues with wordings, for example the Catholic church, I have heard many, many Mormons attribute that to them not being a part of the true church and being mislead. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean every single Mormon has said that about other religions, I'm just saying I have heard it plenty before and it seems ironic to me.

That's a frustration of mine as well. Although, to be fair, I think the crowd who is willing to say that there may have been a better choice of words is a different Mormon crowd than the one doing what you're complaining about. Those folks don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of inspiration and humanity in the same leaders, at the same time.