- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So, the censorship has begun. In the RS meeting Monson said that we get love from God whether or not we deserve it. The transcript changed it to say whether or not you “feel” you deserve it. OK, so maybe he just misread the teleprompter? He is getting old and all. But that doesn’t work here. It seems Holland quoted Monson’s line in his GC talk, and said the original line. But then again, the transcript was changed to put “you feel” in Holland’s talk. So, they both didn’t misread the teleprompter at the same place. They both meant what they said, and then the PR dept started to read the blowback on the internet and made the change.
Here is the proof:
The original Monson talk at the 15:15 mark
Quote:God’s love is there for you whether or not you deserve love
The original Holland talk at the 5:45 mark
Quote:God’s love is there for you whether or not you deserve it
The “transcript” from the Monson talk
Quote:God’s love is there for you whether or not you feel you deserve love
The transcript from the Holland talk
Quote:God’s love is there for you whether or not you feel you deserve [it]
………whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my correlation committee, it is the same.
Interesting. I do believe God loves us whether or not we deserve it because he loves all of us. The real surprise is that Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk hasn’t been edited. Please help me to understand the difference between not deserving love and not feeling that we deserve love? The next question is whether someone can earn or deserve divine love or if it is inherent?
Sheldon wrote:They both meant what they said, and then the PR dept started to read the blowback on the internet and made the change.
What kind of blowback? Are we really so afraid of God’s love being so much more expansive than we had originally supposed?
One can feel he or she doesn’t deserve God’s love, even though in reality he or she does. I believe many people find themselves in this situation when they have sinned, especially serious sin. They don’t believe God could ever love them because of what they have done. I also believe that some people don’t feel that God loves them because they have not had experiences where they felt God’s love, or have not recognized God’s love. I suppose if one’s view of God is more like the Old Testament God as opposed to the New Testament God, one could actually believe that there are people that really don’t deserve God’s love. I would think (though I do not have data to support this) that many people might think Adolf Hitler, for instance, does not deserve God’s love.
That said, I don’t really think Pres. Monson nor Elder Holland meant to indicate that there are people who don’t deserve God’s love, I do think they meant it the way it has been edited to read – but I don’t know that for sure.
In the interest of full disclosure, my own view of God’s love is not necessarily individualized love. I do believe “God loves us so he sent his son,” I do not believe God necessarily expresses love to individuals (although he may do so to some individuals).
Isn’t the second version waaaay better than the possibly misread original? The speakers regularly go back and compare what they prepared to what they said, and small wording changes happen quite regularly after the fact. I do the exact same thing when I summarize my Sunday School lessons here. I record my memory of what I said, and, in some cases, add details I meant to include but forgot. I believe strongly it is an over-reaction to call this “censorship” and “blowback” – and I am quite positive the speakers would not allow anyone in the PR Dept. to edit their talks. I can’t say that strongly enough. Neither Pres. Monson nor Elder Holland would allow that to happen.
I know people here are sensitive to anything that might be a negative, but, as kindly as I can put this, over-sensitivity can border on paranoia – and this is a borderline example. It. Happens. All. The. Time.
Finally, the print version is better than the original version, so I choose to believe the print version is what Pres. Monson either meant to say or wanted to have in print – and Elder Holland’s reference was altered to match Pres. Monson’s desire.
To be undeserving of God’s love is an impossibility, it cannot happen – so it was clearly a mistake to suggest that it could ever in any stretch be possible. The only possibility is that someone may feelundeserving – but that feeling is in fact obviously an error. Orson wrote:To be undeserving of God’s love is an impossibility, it cannot happen
This simple interpretation speaks to me.
DarkJedi wrote:One can feel he or she doesn’t deserve God’s love, even though in reality he or she does. I believe many people find themselves in this situation when they have sinned, especially serious sin. They don’t believe God could ever love them because of what they have done. I also believe that some people don’t feel that God loves them because they have not had experiences where they felt God’s love, or have not recognized God’s love.
Thanks for the explanation DJ. It just seems that either we all deserve God’s love or none of us do (for all have sinned and fall short).
I believe that they meant to say that God’s love is unconditional. This seems consistent with our doctrine (if not our emphasis). I guess those statements could be read as saying that some people deserve God’s love and some do not, but He loves everyone anyway the same way that he sends the rain to the just and the unjust. But….it still leaves a funny feeling in my stomach to postulate that some deserve God’s love while others get it without deserving it.
Changing the wording to “Feel” actually fixes the problem from something akin to “Even if you are worthless, God still loves you!” to “Even if you feel worthless, God still loves you!”
Roy wrote:What kind of blowback?
There is a lot of talk on other less friendly internet discussion boards about how Pres Monson said God will love us even if we don’t deserve it. This implies that some people don’t deserve God’s love. No other way to interpret it.
So Ray, or anybody else, give us an explanation of how Pres Monson could have misread his talk, or made a typo, and then Holland misread his also, or made the same typo?
Sheldon wrote:Roy wrote:What kind of blowback?
There is a lot of talk on other less friendly internet discussion boards about how Pres Monson said God will love us even if we don’t deserve it. This implies that some people don’t deserve God’s love. No other way to interpret it.
So Ray, or anybody else, give us an explanation of how Pres Monson could have misread his talk, or made a typo, and then Holland misread his also, or made the same typo?
Oh, that makes sense. And given our typical position of the elder brother to the Prodigal Son – that would fit in well with our charicature. That our shared Father condescends to love and be merciful to our dissapointment of a brother…even though he doesn’t deserve it, while we have no such need for condescention.
I don’t believe that this is what Pres. Monson or Elder Holland meant when they made those statements. I believe that they were oblivious to that possible reading and are now trying to qualify their wording.
Like someone said already, any speaker can change what is published if they feel like it. I don’t think it means anything and using the word “censorship” is hyperbole, big time. If I remember correctly, I think a patriarch can change the wording in a patriarchal blessing as he is transcribing it if he feels so inspired. Pres. Monson changing his talk is pretty much the same thing. I think it was a good change. Oh and I hate Sheldon (the tv character), he bugs me.
raygun wrote:I don’t think it means anything and using the word “censorship” is hyperbole, big time.
Ok, you are correct and I was wrong to use the word censorship. A better title would have been “Correlation of GC talks begin” or something like that. But I don’t for a minute believe that TSM decided to change the talk all on his own. I believe somebody in the church that is monitoring social media saw chatter about his use of words, and told him about it.
Sheldon wrote:raygun wrote:I don’t think it means anything and using the word “censorship” is hyperbole, big time.
Ok, you are correct and I was wrong to use the word censorship. A better title would have been “Correlation of GC talks begin” or something like that. But I don’t for a minute believe that TSM decided to change the talk all on his own. I believe somebody in the church that is monitoring social media saw chatter about his use of words, and told him about it.
Yeah, I think you may have a point there. Maybe the church is getting more responsive to the voice of social media.
I’m glad they changed it…those kind of corrections are what I hope and pray the church will do. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.