- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
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!”
Agree. I don’t know why/how two speakers said the same thing, but the edit is good, right?
I think Pres. Monson realized the wording wasn’t what he meant, so it was changed. Since Elder Holland quoted him, I think he agreed to have his reference corrected to what Pres. Monson wanted. I think it’s simple; I think it is good; I think it is exactly what should have happened; I think there is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, wrong or bad about it; I think lots of people jump on anything to discredit the Church and make mountains out of molehills; I think that’s what is happening in this case.
I’m NOT saying you are one of those people, but I think anyone who is struggling in any way with a faith crisis needs to be very, very careful about this sort of over-reaction. It’s making someone an offender for a word in the most obvious way – since this makes them offenders for a GOOD word change.
I used to translate / interpret General Conference into my mission language way back in the day. We usually receieved the talks several days in advance for a member of the Seventy, two days in advance for an apostle, and just the day before or even day of for a First Presidency member. We would translate the talk, and then read it along with the speaker as they presented their address. We had to pay very close attention, though, becuase they frequently didn’t stick to the script word for word. If it seemed like Elder Haight was just winging it in his conference talks towards the end, you’d be right; his eyesight was so bad he couldn’t read the teleprompter. Having said all that, it didn’t surprise me in the least that President Monson’s written talk was changed from what his actual verbal address; it has happened all the time. I’ll agree that’s a fairly significant difference, but it’s not surprising. And I agree with cwald – that’s the kind of change I can get behind – makes it better, no?
Elder Christofferson also edited his talk about gender roles to remove “feminist thinkers” from it as an example of people who denigrate homemaking. Another excellent editing choice.
:clap: :clap: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56982696-180/conference-lds-feminist-thinkers.html.csp The print version is what is published in the Ensign that gets read by lots of members in places where they can’t access the video versions online. I am really glad the speakers can edit the talks for that sort of publication.
For the record, I too think the change was for the better. I think these changes have always happened, but now with the internet we all know about them. BKPs talks get toned down, TSM’s talks get cleaned up, and we get a more polished Ensign version. Too bad they couldn’t have done this with BY and the JoD. Maybe we wouldn’t have this Blood Atonement stuff still hanging around! Sheldon wrote: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.
It’s just a figure of speech. I’ve known a few people that I figured didn’t deserve God’s love but that’s me, not God’s opinion. I think you’re reaching, bro.
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?
A lot of less positive websites insist the talks are written by the correlation department. Shouldn’t this should be proof that they don’t?
Like I said earlier, I’m glad the correction was made. Church leaders make mistakes and speak in their weakness. Just like every other human.
Are we right in apparently assuming the correlation department made these changes? I think they were simply wording errors in retrospect, perhaps after people took the literal meaning to heart and reacted. I say things I don’t mean all the time — and only learn about it when people react — and then I have to clarify myself. I like the Monson change. I think our religion should teach that everyone deserves God’s love.
Quote:Are we right in apparently assuming the correlation department made these changes?
They didn’t, andf they don’t. These changes are made by the speakers, although it wouldn’t surprise me at all if someone close to them said, “Hey, did you realize how that sounds / what people might read into that?” – and the speaker responded, “Oh, crap, you’re right. That’s not what I meant.”
My wife does that to me all the time, in various situations, and I do it to her.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.