Packer's Talk Edited

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
flower
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Jan 2010, 10:06
Location: Sandy, Utah
Contact:

Packer's Talk Edited

Post by flower » 07 Oct 2010, 22:33

Looks like they have made a couple edits to Pres. Packer's talk....

http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=1275
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling

http://tinymosquito.blogspot.com/

swimordie
Posts: 755
Joined: 02 Jun 2009, 21:50

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by swimordie » 08 Oct 2010, 00:26

I haven't posted in a while due to professional obligations but I came out of retirement for this one:

Packers description of the family proclamation as a "revelation" in the context of doctrine is no longer in the text version of the talk.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/ ... 23,00.html

The word and qualifying phrase for revelation were replaced simply by the word "guide", as in the proclamation is a guide.

This is actually more important due to the language about "men work, women stay home" that is prescribed in the proclamation than the definition of marriage found in the proclamation (imho).
Perfectionism hasn't served me. I think I am done with it. -Poppyseed

User avatar
bridget_night
Posts: 878
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:15

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by bridget_night » 08 Oct 2010, 04:06

Yeah, I just saw that this morning. Thanks for reporting it and it was interesting reading the commentaries on the moon link.

And this from a friend:


Just listened to my TV recording and compared the written. The major changes were these:
First change:

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition of revelation (sentence deleted). and it would do well that members of the Church would read and follow.

Second change:

Original: Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our father.

Revised: Some suppose . . . unnatural. Not so! Remember God is our Heavenly Father.


So. what do you make of it? Is it signifigant?

User avatar
Brian Johnston
Site Admin
Posts: 3500
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 06:17
Location: Washington DC

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by Brian Johnston » 08 Oct 2010, 06:17

I wonder if they will re-record the audio-video for the archives to match the text edits? It has happened before.
"It's strange to be here. The mystery never leaves you alone." -John O'Donohue, Anam Cara, speaking of experiencing life.

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7324
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by SilentDawning » 08 Oct 2010, 06:20

I think the first one is significant because it underscores that there IS a difference between revelation and "Opinion" on two levels. First, that the proclamation itself is merely a guide, and second, that Boyd K. Packer's every word isn't doctrine or revelation either -- it's his opinion.

I think the first change supports everything we've been saying here -- that much of what comes over the pulpit and at Church is opinion of the leaders in place at the time, and not actual revelation from God. Also, that the statement "conference talks are scripture for the next 6 months" is a cultural fallacy, as is our tendency to greedily assimilate every single thing our leaders say as absolute gospel.

I'm glad they made the edits because it allows me more freedom to let my own judgment and personal inspiriation prevail on matters that are not core doctrines.

The second one, I don't know. God created people with all kinds of genetic problems, so I don't see the reasoning that "God wouldn't do that" as having any validity whatsoever.
Last edited by SilentDawning on 08 Oct 2010, 08:44, edited 1 time in total.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

GBSmith
Posts: 975
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 08:51

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by GBSmith » 08 Oct 2010, 07:49

What I'd be interested in is who got the assignment of going to Elder Packer and talking to him about the changes and if he/they asked for time to pray about it.
SilentDawning wrote: The second one, I don't know. God created people with all kinds of genetic problems, so I don't see the reasoning that "God wouldn't do that" as having any validity whatsoever.
Excellent point

User avatar
observant
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 Sep 2010, 14:20

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by observant » 08 Oct 2010, 10:38

It makes sense and it is the right thing to do. I have no problem with the Brethren changing their written talks for publication. It also makes it more of an obligation upon members to read it after it's been printed than to just listen.

I know I've had to change and clarify what I've written many times in the past. I also know I've given talks where I got off track of my written notes. Man, I wish I could go back and change what I said!
"Some think it's holding on that makes one strong; sometimes it's letting go. "~Sylvia Robinson

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7324
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by SilentDawning » 08 Oct 2010, 11:46

observant wrote:It makes sense and it is the right thing to do. I have no problem with the Brethren changing their written talks for publication. It also makes it more of an obligation upon members to read it after it's been printed than to just listen.

I know I've had to change and clarify what I've written many times in the past. I also know I've given talks where I got off track of my written notes. Man, I wish I could go back and change what I said!
I think this makes sense when you say something that wasn't intended, but there have been instances of mass changes that completely alter the meaning, such as Elder Poleman's talk that was discussed here. Poleman clearly said, in apparently prepared and accurately presented remarks, that the gospel and the church are separate, with all that that implies. Then, his talk was edited to try to minimize those differences, and weld the Church and the gospel very close together again. That to me, was a form of censorship, not simply correcting a mistake.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

User avatar
observant
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 Sep 2010, 14:20

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by observant » 08 Oct 2010, 12:09

I'm aware of Poleman's talk and I'd love to know from him exactly what happened on the whys and hows of the changes. But I can see how people agree that changes are good when they agree with the change but not so good when they don't agree with the change. I'm guilty of that. Clarification good, changing the meaning of the message = not so good.

People were inferring from his talk that homosexuality is a choice and maybe the changes put his talk more in line with the current Church stance. At least I hope that is what it does.
"Some think it's holding on that makes one strong; sometimes it's letting go. "~Sylvia Robinson

User avatar
Kalola
Posts: 65
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:24
Contact:

Re: Packer's Talk Edited

Post by Kalola » 08 Oct 2010, 14:02

Brian Johnston wrote:I wonder if they will re-record the audio-video for the archives to match the text edits? It has happened before.
I viewed the video at lds.org. As of 2:00 p.m. PDT, the audio-video has not been edited.

Post Reply