- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Looks like they have made a couple edits to Pres. Packer’s talk…. 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/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.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).
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?
I wonder if they will re-record the audio-video for the archives to match the text edits? It has happened before. 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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Have any of you had any conversations with TBM friends or family members about the changes? If so 1) how have they gone?
2) what have their reactions been?
I have only had one conversation and I found it odd that the person was more concerned about the removal that stated the Proclamation on the Family was revelation than they on the other changes.
I have seen the changes in the talk as a small personal victory because I have been chastised by family members for saying that I can pick and choose what I believe when it comes to what the GA’s say.
Quote: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.
Good point!
Process-wise, Q12 talks are not pre-vetted. It’s very likely that the talk was revised because other members of the Q12 felt that it was inaccurate or not reflective of actual church stance in these 2 ways:
1) the PoF is not currently canonized revelation. Many of them were involved in putting it together, and they evidently didn’t agree with that claim. That’s one change that was clearly a change to Packer’s own view.
2) that homosexuality is a choice or a tendency that can be overcome. Based on previous talks by Packer, this is consistent with his personal opinion. It is not consistent, however, with more recent “official” statements by other members of the Q12. While homosexual relations are still considered “unchaste” because they are outside of marriage, the tendencies are not considered a “choice.” This was the biggest change to the talk because his word choice in the original seemed to be clearly about homosexuality, but now the talk is about sin and temptation, not about homosexuality.
My own take is that these changes are enormously positive. The Q12 is self-correcting here without forcing E. Packer to recant his opinions directly (forcing uniformity of thought). They are just taking out the statements that could lead people astray, essentially. In this case, the original could have led people to rely more on the PoF than they should (a guide still, but that also qualifies it quite a bit and adds more weight to its inherent caveats), and it could have led people to be even more uncharitable toward homosexuals.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.