Wow-- earlier the headline said Church changed the words, but now it says speakers are allowed to change their own words on Monday following the Conference.
Maybe he didn't follow his own script in GC? He misspoke? Got off script? Didn't read the words correctly? I suppose it's a possible explanation. Who knows.
SusieQ#1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe he didn't follow his own script in GC? He > misspoke? Got off script? Didn't read the words > correctly? > I suppose it's a possible explanation. Who knows.
SusieQ, that is so nicely sharp and understated it made me chuckle. Good way to start the day. :-)
I am rather surprised. Does it seem like there is more revising after-the-fact than there used to be and I wonder if there is a disconnect of some sort inside the COB. The Brethren and the Corporation are accustomed to having their view of the world go unchallenged, and I think it is a rude awakening for them. They have wanted the world's attention for years, and now they have it, but it is like the dog that chases cars and finally caught one. What to do with it now? :)
Since he spoke words in a public forum that has caused people to loose their testimonies he should call up the prophet and demand the culprit should be excommunicated, along with the admonition that the prophet lie about BKP's involvement and influence.
One thing's for sure, he now understands that sometimes one's version of the truth is not very useful.
The church (the collective leadership and committees, PR, et al) needs to distance themselves from what he said pronto. They can't be the ones who doctored the content so they have to say he did it. We all know darn well Packer said exactly what he thinks.
Sheesh. Didn't they learn anything from Oaks' embarrassing blather recently?
Why don't they have someone with half a brain proof read their talks BEFORE they talk? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what they say WILL get scrutinized by outsiders nowadays.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 08:41PM by dagny.
I think the guys at the top are so insulated and removed from the real world -- even the real LDS world -- that it never occurs to them that what seems fine and all to them could possibly outrage people with normal sensitivities.
They mostly think alike and and it all sounds fine and wonderful to them so it goes unchanged until something like the Packer debacle happens. Then it's "Whoa Nellie!" and let the damage control begin!
The inspired speechifying fairy must have been taking a break when Packer's talk got written and approved!
Do you think there was any change that the 12 didn't compare notes and and have someone review, edit and proof read each others talks before conference? Really you don't?
i have a tendency to confuse my words, too. especially after the my personal PR team reminds me of what i meant to say.
sing with me now, "we thank thee, o god, for our PR team, to guide us in these latter days. we thank thee for revisionism and retractions, to cover our asses when we seem strange. we thank thee for every deletion, when the holy ghost fails to do its job. we feel it our duty to become mainstream, so the cash flow dwindleth not."
Not suprising. Why are they doing this. What do they really think? I don't see how changing "tendencies" to "tempations" is an improvement.
As most of you know, what Packer said has been part of LDS teaching on homosexuality for years. The LDS church has been on teaching this drivel behind closed doors and in the open for YEARS! And as Trotter said this changes nothing, so why do it at all the damage is done.
Trotter: "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."
Just another Orwellian spin trick--and a piss poor one at that. I guess it will mollify some more moderate Mormons.
What's really going on is that outsiders are paying attention to this, where they didn't before. The LDS church demonstrated real political clout with Prop. 8 and there's real possibility a Mormon could be the U.S. President come 2013, and people--like the Human Rights Campaign--are paying attention and calling them to account.
The thing is, as people become more liberal, whilst they'll get even more and mroe horrified at everything even close to homophobic that the church says, it's also not long until people start doing the whole "You can't paint mormons with one brush", "Not all mormons are homophobic", "You can't hate someone just because they're a mormon", etc. In a while, it'll no longer be acceptable for people to say "I hate Mitt Romney, because he's a mormon", just like it's getting unacceptable to say "I hate so-and-so because they're female, black, gay, etc.".
It'll go both ways, but I think the civil rights movement could eventually benefit mormonism eventually, especially if they start donating more to gay-rights charities and stuff (and let's fact it, they do have the money, and they want to prove they're not homophobic. A couple of GAs would certainly do it).
He would revise, redact and spin. Joe did it to Spalding's and Rigdon's writings, pretended it was Mormon who did it as the editor of all the others in ancient america.
Now we have the church revising Packer's, pretending he did it, and claiming they've always been a loving tolerant group. I think the method has been in place since the beginning.
I don't care if this is what he "meant" to say. I suppose Nixon never said "I am not a crook," Reagan never said to "launch the nuclear weapons," and Clinton never said "I did not have sex with that woman!"
You can APOLOGIZE for it, but you can't just rewrite a speech as if it was never said. But then the Morg never apologizes for anything. It's like the backhanded "apology" they gave for MMM a couple years ago. The didn't apologize. They just said gee it's unfortunate what happened here, like they had nothing to do with it.
My mother says she agonized over whether to video tape a conference session because she was not able to watch it live. She says they are told not to tape sessions, and if they do, watch it once and delete it immediately.
The Mormon church wants very strict control over the flow and availability of information. That way, they can always say that the change was made up by anti-Mormons to try to make people lose their testimonies. Or they can say it's not important, or even that the member misunderstood.
Most rank and file members will be satisfied with those explanations, especially if they don't want to rock the boat too much.
We're here because we no longer accept those explanations.
In both of the links at the start of this thread, NateMads wrote in the Comments section:
"And for those of you who are confused about what to think, PRAY. I KNOW THAT I AM A PROUD MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, I KNOW THAT MY FATHER IN HEAVEN REVILES TRUTH THROUGH PROPHETS, SEERS, AND REVELATORS."
A Freudian slip? Or is it the Truth revealed through this wonderful member?
Not to defend the act, but... I think the same thing happens to the U.S. Congressional Record. The written report can be edited to change what the member said on the floor, and even include speeches that were never made. This bothers me. No longer Mormon, but still U.S. citizen.
a lot put in it that is not read in. Bob T is correct on that!
Conference talks are more of a big deal these days, I think.
Somehow, Packer's talk got through the screening process, as-is and nobody was concerned, or he went off script, either way, they must have gotten some negative feedback and he was told to change his statements,or someone else changed it. It was a political move, in my view. He might have gotten away with those comments a few decades ago, but not today.