Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this c/p belongs or not, but thought it interesting: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3386750&itype=CMSI

Why top Mormon leaders' private writings may never become public

LDS Church • Policy dictates they belong to the church, and some historians fear that may keep full story from emerging.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to provide specifics, which means members and researchers may never know the full story.

That's because the only people who can say what transpired in such cases are Mormon prophets, apostles and other top leaders, and their journals — as well as the minutes of their meetings — are off-limits to researchers, or at least severely restricted.

This protocol remains in place even as LDS leaders are opening up about the faith's founder through the landmark Joseph Smith Papers Project and boosting transparency with essays on Mormon history and theology.

In the 1980s, assistant church historian Richard E. Turley explains, the Utah-based faith began requiring all Mormon general authorities to sign an agreement, pledging that any "work product" — including their "journals, speeches, photographs and other records of enduring value" — belongs to the church's history department "for long-term preservation."

The Church History Library, he says, "seeks to make as much information as it can publicly available from these records within legal, ethical, and religious boundaries and practical resource constraints."

The agreement is fairly common among large organizations and research libraries, Turley says, but Mormonism has unique concerns, namely, "to protect church members in their confidential communications and discussions, and to preserve the sanctity of ceremonies and blessings."

Though routine, the rule already has had a profound impact on the potential to write a rich and honest account of 20th- and 21st-century Mormonism — a time when the LDS Church was emerging from polygamy, when it struggled with what it wanted to be amid debates about principles and programs, when it faced questions about evolution, communism and ecumenism, when it finally jettisoned its racist past, when it confronted feminism and when its understanding of gay rights morphed.

In a nutshell, this journals policy gives the institutional church, particularly employees in the history department, the final say in what portions of an apostle's dairies, if any, are available to researchers, going back to the early days of the 20th century.

"I view this as counterproductive to the church," says writer Greg Prince, who co-wrote "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," a groundbreaking volume on the life and administration of the faith's ninth president.

Given the sacred mandate for all Mormons to keep journals and their immense value, he says, it makes no sense to block access to them or to hand over control of personal accounts to others.

The policy could have a self-censoring effect on apostles, for instance, robbing their retellings of any frankness, raw details or negative emotions. It could yield sanitized versions of touchy topics. Or worse, it could prompt some Mormon leaders to forgo recording their remembrances at all.

The absence of such chronicles, Prince says, has three potential losses:

• It deprives the individual of the kind of introspection that can come from writing a daily diary.

• It denies immediate and extended families of LDS leaders the most intimate record of the ministry that became the focal point of their loved ones' lives.

• It means that when future accounts of Mormonism are written, they will lack the voices of some of the most important figures of that time.

"If the inside voices are absent, the outside voices will predominate," Prince says, "and a balanced story of the church and its leaders will be only an illusory wish."

Lucky exceptions • In the past few decades, the journals of a couple of Mormon prophets landed in family and university hands.

Both offered invaluable firsthand looks at the personalities, perspectives and proclivities of Spencer W. Kimball and, as mentioned, David O. McKay, as well as significant glimpses of the church they led and the colleagues with whom they served.

Kimball, who led the faith from 1973 to 1985, kept detailed personal journals for decades, beginning before and kept throughout his time as an apostle and church president. Mormonism's 12th prophet entrusted his words to his family, particularly son Edward Kimball, to write a frank, two-part biography.

His father believed in telling history "as is, without emphasizing the negative, or betraying things of a confessional nature," Edward Kimball says now. "He thought journals were important."

Though Kimball was careful about naming members he was counseling or who faced church discipline, the journals are "surprisingly open about his life," says grandson Jordan Kimball, "candidly discussing his health problems and struggle with his eldest son distancing himself from church activity; and he revealed personal discouragements along with personal spiritual experiences."

Much more in the article...

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just making sure I understand you.

You're suggesting that if the spoken word is changed in the written/official record, it doesn't matter ethically if the change is noted or not. Is that correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  The decision can be agreed with or disagreed with on multiple levels and is not a matter of being either moral or immoral.

Quote

If it is correct, would you apply that same judgement to organizations/institutions that are not the church? For example, if the President of the United States gave the State of the Union address which is watched by millions of people, but then changed some key elements of the address when it was written down and archived in the Library of Congress, but didn't make note of those changes, you wouldn't have any problem with that?

No, I wouldn't really care.  From a historical perspective, it would be of interest to me but not on any other level.  

Quote

Or what if a news station or news paper stated something that was incorrect. Instead of noting the change or printing a retraction they simply ran another story with the correct language and pretended like the incorrect reporting never happened in the first place. Would that be ethical?

I think that news is a different issue.  News is about reporting facts.  GC is not about that.  I see this comparison as an apples/oranges kind of thing.  

Quote

Like I've said before, I have no problem with changes being made when changes are needed, but when there are multiple versions (audio, visual, print) versions of the same message, and they differ, it seems like in todays world where all versions are accessible, it is especially needful to note the changes and even explain the correction.

I think it would be good if the changes were noted, but I don't think that it's a matter of ethics.  

Quote

I think it is unethical to make a correction and simply hope people don't remember the original statement, especially when said by someone of substantial authority.

Reasonable people can disagree.

Quote

POTUS wouldn't get away with it.

Probably not, but I think that's just because there will always be people who would be looking for reasons to malign the president.  I don't think he wouldn't get away with it because anyone sincerely believed the change in words mattered at all or would have any kind of impact on the nation.   

Quote

If a correction is needed, make a correction. Hoping people don't notice the change seems to be the definition of sweeping things under the rug and illustrates a lack of respect of the audience intended to receive the message.  I'm sure they are right most of the time and people simply forget the discarded version, but expecting us to forget, or not care, or not question or criticize the changes is an unhealthy way for an organization to function in it's communications.

Or, it could be something else.  I disagree that we should assume the most uncharitable motivation we can think of is the most accurate option.

Besides that, I didn't ever say that I thought it was about hoping people didn't notice the change.  I say that it was (at least partly and sometimes, going by the quotes in the article) about hoping the old version would be forgotten.   Those are two different things.  And I said that based on this quote-

In April 1932, apostle Stephen L Richards gave a conference address titled “Bringing Humanity to the Gospel.”

“I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion,” Richard declared to the Latter-day Saint faithful. “Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. … They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees.”

Church President Heber J. Grant began getting complaints about the speech from members around the country, but Richards said he would rather resign than change his words.

Grant told his colleagues that “it would have been very difficult to print Richards’ address since the text would need to be accompanied by a statement, which would call more attention to the talk,” Geisner writes. “Grant decided to ‘let the matter drop, and if it doesn’t appear in the conference pamphlet, it will soon be forgotten.’”

Stephen Richards refused to edit his talk and so the decision was made by the prophet to leave the talk out of the printed version all together. It was a tough call and one where either option was going to have some negative affects.  I think there's room to agree or disagree with it but I disagree that one option is the moral one and one the immoral choice.  I don't think that Pres. Grant needs to repent and ask God for forgiveness for his choice (which immoral choices require).

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if this c/p belongs or not, but thought it interesting: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3386750&itype=CMSI

Why top Mormon leaders' private writings may never become public

LDS Church • Policy dictates they belong to the church, and some historians fear that may keep full story from emerging.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to provide specifics, which means members and researchers may never know the full story.

That's because the only people who can say what transpired in such cases are Mormon prophets, apostles and other top leaders, and their journals — as well as the minutes of their meetings — are off-limits to researchers, or at least severely restricted.

This protocol remains in place even as LDS leaders are opening up about the faith's founder through the landmark Joseph Smith Papers Project and boosting transparency with essays on Mormon history and theology.

In the 1980s, assistant church historian Richard E. Turley explains, the Utah-based faith began requiring all Mormon general authorities to sign an agreement, pledging that any "work product" — including their "journals, speeches, photographs and other records of enduring value" — belongs to the church's history department "for long-term preservation."

The Church History Library, he says, "seeks to make as much information as it can publicly available from these records within legal, ethical, and religious boundaries and practical resource constraints."

The agreement is fairly common among large organizations and research libraries, Turley says, but Mormonism has unique concerns, namely, "to protect church members in their confidential communications and discussions, and to preserve the sanctity of ceremonies and blessings."

Though routine, the rule already has had a profound impact on the potential to write a rich and honest account of 20th- and 21st-century Mormonism — a time when the LDS Church was emerging from polygamy, when it struggled with what it wanted to be amid debates about principles and programs, when it faced questions about evolution, communism and ecumenism, when it finally jettisoned its racist past, when it confronted feminism and when its understanding of gay rights morphed.

In a nutshell, this journals policy gives the institutional church, particularly employees in the history department, the final say in what portions of an apostle's dairies, if any, are available to researchers, going back to the early days of the 20th century.

"I view this as counterproductive to the church," says writer Greg Prince, who co-wrote "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," a groundbreaking volume on the life and administration of the faith's ninth president.

Given the sacred mandate for all Mormons to keep journals and their immense value, he says, it makes no sense to block access to them or to hand over control of personal accounts to others.

The policy could have a self-censoring effect on apostles, for instance, robbing their retellings of any frankness, raw details or negative emotions. It could yield sanitized versions of touchy topics. Or worse, it could prompt some Mormon leaders to forgo recording their remembrances at all.

The absence of such chronicles, Prince says, has three potential losses:

• It deprives the individual of the kind of introspection that can come from writing a daily diary.

• It denies immediate and extended families of LDS leaders the most intimate record of the ministry that became the focal point of their loved ones' lives.

• It means that when future accounts of Mormonism are written, they will lack the voices of some of the most important figures of that time.

"If the inside voices are absent, the outside voices will predominate," Prince says, "and a balanced story of the church and its leaders will be only an illusory wish."

Lucky exceptions • In the past few decades, the journals of a couple of Mormon prophets landed in family and university hands.

Both offered invaluable firsthand looks at the personalities, perspectives and proclivities of Spencer W. Kimball and, as mentioned, David O. McKay, as well as significant glimpses of the church they led and the colleagues with whom they served.

Kimball, who led the faith from 1973 to 1985, kept detailed personal journals for decades, beginning before and kept throughout his time as an apostle and church president. Mormonism's 12th prophet entrusted his words to his family, particularly son Edward Kimball, to write a frank, two-part biography.

His father believed in telling history "as is, without emphasizing the negative, or betraying things of a confessional nature," Edward Kimball says now. "He thought journals were important."

Though Kimball was careful about naming members he was counseling or who faced church discipline, the journals are "surprisingly open about his life," says grandson Jordan Kimball, "candidly discussing his health problems and struggle with his eldest son distancing himself from church activity; and he revealed personal discouragements along with personal spiritual experiences."

Much more in the article...

hmm, they just came out with David O. McKay's diary from his presidency 

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/confidence-amid-change/

 

F. Burton Howard, GA for a long time, wrote an autobiography

"A patch of good ground: stories from my life"

The CHL isn't the only place you can find these items. I bought Elder W. Grant Bangerter's Autobiography and his collected speeches, etc from his son! hahahaha!

Edited December 18, 2018 by Duncan

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if this c/p belongs or not, but thought it interesting: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3386750&itype=CMSI

Why top Mormon leaders' private writings may never become public

LDS Church • Policy dictates they belong to the church, and some historians fear that may keep full story from emerging.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to provide specifics, which means members and researchers may never know the full story.

That's because the only people who can say what transpired in such cases are Mormon prophets, apostles and other top leaders, and their journals — as well as the minutes of their meetings — are off-limits to researchers, or at least severely restricted.

This protocol remains in place even as LDS leaders are opening up about the faith's founder through the landmark Joseph Smith Papers Project and boosting transparency with essays on Mormon history and theology.

In the 1980s, assistant church historian Richard E. Turley explains, the Utah-based faith began requiring all Mormon general authorities to sign an agreement, pledging that any "work product" — including their "journals, speeches, photographs and other records of enduring value" — belongs to the church's history department "for long-term preservation."

The Church History Library, he says, "seeks to make as much information as it can publicly available from these records within legal, ethical, and religious boundaries and practical resource constraints."

The agreement is fairly common among large organizations and research libraries, Turley says, but Mormonism has unique concerns, namely, "to protect church members in their confidential communications and discussions, and to preserve the sanctity of ceremonies and blessings."

Though routine, the rule already has had a profound impact on the potential to write a rich and honest account of 20th- and 21st-century Mormonism — a time when the LDS Church was emerging from polygamy, when it struggled with what it wanted to be amid debates about principles and programs, when it faced questions about evolution, communism and ecumenism, when it finally jettisoned its racist past, when it confronted feminism and when its understanding of gay rights morphed.

In a nutshell, this journals policy gives the institutional church, particularly employees in the history department, the final say in what portions of an apostle's dairies, if any, are available to researchers, going back to the early days of the 20th century.

"I view this as counterproductive to the church," says writer Greg Prince, who co-wrote "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," a groundbreaking volume on the life and administration of the faith's ninth president.

Given the sacred mandate for all Mormons to keep journals and their immense value, he says, it makes no sense to block access to them or to hand over control of personal accounts to others.

The policy could have a self-censoring effect on apostles, for instance, robbing their retellings of any frankness, raw details or negative emotions. It could yield sanitized versions of touchy topics. Or worse, it could prompt some Mormon leaders to forgo recording their remembrances at all.

The absence of such chronicles, Prince says, has three potential losses:

• It deprives the individual of the kind of introspection that can come from writing a daily diary.

• It denies immediate and extended families of LDS leaders the most intimate record of the ministry that became the focal point of their loved ones' lives.

• It means that when future accounts of Mormonism are written, they will lack the voices of some of the most important figures of that time.

"If the inside voices are absent, the outside voices will predominate," Prince says, "and a balanced story of the church and its leaders will be only an illusory wish."

Lucky exceptions • In the past few decades, the journals of a couple of Mormon prophets landed in family and university hands.

Both offered invaluable firsthand looks at the personalities, perspectives and proclivities of Spencer W. Kimball and, as mentioned, David O. McKay, as well as significant glimpses of the church they led and the colleagues with whom they served.

Kimball, who led the faith from 1973 to 1985, kept detailed personal journals for decades, beginning before and kept throughout his time as an apostle and church president. Mormonism's 12th prophet entrusted his words to his family, particularly son Edward Kimball, to write a frank, two-part biography.

His father believed in telling history "as is, without emphasizing the negative, or betraying things of a confessional nature," Edward Kimball says now. "He thought journals were important."

Though Kimball was careful about naming members he was counseling or who faced church discipline, the journals are "surprisingly open about his life," says grandson Jordan Kimball, "candidly discussing his health problems and struggle with his eldest son distancing himself from church activity; and he revealed personal discouragements along with personal spiritual experiences."

Much more in the article...

I can understand why historians wouldn't like this.  I have a degree in history and historians generally believe they should have access to everything!  From a spiritual perspective though, I'm not sure that knowing the "personalities, perspectives and proclivities" of church leaders matters all that much.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

I can understand why historians wouldn't like this.  I have a degree in history and historians generally believe they should have access to everything!  From a spiritual perspective though, I'm not sure that knowing the "personalities, perspectives and proclivities" of church leaders matters all that much.

I looked up the article after hearing someone say on a podcast that leaders were told not to keep journals and then their written journals up to that point were the church's or something. But I either heard wrong or the person on the podcast embellished or lied, because in this article it doesn't state that leaders cannot still write down in journals. But interesting to know that they belong to the church, or did I read wrong?

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  The decision can be agreed with or disagreed with on multiple levels and is not a matter of being either moral or immoral.

No, I wouldn't really care.  From a historical perspective, it would be of interest to me but not on any other level.  

I think that news is a different issue.  News is about reporting facts.  GC is not about that.  I see this comparison as an apples/oranges kind of thing.  

I think it would be good if the changes were noted, but I don't think that it's a matter of ethics.  

Reasonable people can disagree.

Probably not, but I think that's just because there will always be people who would be looking for reasons to malign the president.  I don't think he wouldn't get away with it because anyone sincerely believed the change in words mattered at all or would have any kind of impact on the nation.   

Or, it could be something else.  I disagree that we should assume the most uncharitable motivation we can think of is the most accurate option.

Besides that, I didn't ever say that I thought it was about hoping people didn't notice the change.  I say that it was (at least partly and sometimes, going by the quotes in the article) about hoping the old version would be forgotten.   Those are two different things.  And I said that based on this quote-

In April 1932, apostle Stephen L Richards gave a conference address titled “Bringing Humanity to the Gospel.”

“I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion,” Richard declared to the Latter-day Saint faithful. “Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. … They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees.”

Church President Heber J. Grant began getting complaints about the speech from members around the country, but Richards said he would rather resign than change his words.

Grant told his colleagues that “it would have been very difficult to print Richards’ address since the text would need to be accompanied by a statement, which would call more attention to the talk,” Geisner writes. “Grant decided to ‘let the matter drop, and if it doesn’t appear in the conference pamphlet, it will soon be forgotten.’”

Stephen Richards refused to edit his talk and so the decision was made by the prophet to leave the talk out of the printed version all together. It was a tough call and one where either option was going to have some negative affects.  I think there's room to agree or disagree with it but I disagree that one option is the moral one and one the immoral choice.  I don't think that Pres. Grant needs to repent and ask God for forgiveness for his choice (which immoral choices require).

I never stated that we should assume the most uncharitable motivation. I presented that possibility with others and you suggested agreement with the idea that they may "hope" the original version is forgotten. Frankly, I can think of farm less charitable motivations to assign, but I haven't done that.

I'm not sure there is much of a meaningful difference between "hoping people didn't notice the change" and "hoping the old version would be forgotten" but we can disagree on that. However, it would be strange to hope that people DID notice the change but would then forget it.

Things work a bit differently now than they did in the days of Pres. Grant and Stephen Richards. It is my understanding that since that time correlation efforts have been made to "approve" talks prior to the conference. So the correlation committee receives the talks ahead of time, approves the talk, and then the talk is given. (I'm open to correction on this if someone has better information). So it would be easier for someone like Richards to get up and say something the 1st Pres. doesn't agree with and feels the need to correct, than it would be for Pres. Packer (Pres. of the Q12) to get up and say something the 1st Pres. feels needs to be excised. In that particular case, I feel it is most likely that the change to the text was a PR response to the criticism and notoriety the talk generated. But even so, if we listen to Pres. Packer's talk should we believe what he said, or should we find meaning in what was omitted in the official print version? What is the lesson we should learn. Which version is right? Packer's original intent or the PR version?

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can understand why historians wouldn't like this.  I have a degree in history and historians generally believe they should have access to everything!  From a spiritual perspective though, I'm not sure that knowing the "personalities, perspectives and proclivities" of church leaders matters all that much.

Greg Prince makes some great points about the risks of this policy. He said...

Quote

The absence of such chronicles, Prince says, has three potential losses:

• It deprives the individual of the kind of introspection that can come from writing a daily diary.

• It denies immediate and extended families of LDS leaders the most intimate record of the ministry that became the focal point of their loved ones' lives.

• It means that when future accounts of Mormonism are written, they will lack the voices of some of the most important figures of that time.

"If the inside voices are absent, the outside voices will predominate," Prince says, "and a balanced story of the church and its leaders will be only an illusory wish."

In addition to the historian's desired access to info it seems that there is the possibility of real limitations and negative effects on the GA who may or may not decide to keep a journal, a negative impact on family to access their loved one's writings, the detail about thoughts, discussions, decisions that are made etc.

For example, we know very little about how/why the priesthood ban was originally placed and that was BEFORE this kind of a policy. How likely are we, as a church, to discover how/why current decisions are made on controversial policies etc. How do those discussion go? Does the prophet come in and say, "I had a revelation" and everyone gets in line, or is the "revelation" received more piece meal through discussion, debate, and study? Is there value in understanding the personalities and interactions of top leaders who make such important decisions? I would think that as someone with a degree in history you would appreciate the value of history in understanding motivations and behaviors of leaders and how they impact people throughout time.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Things work a bit differently now than they did in the days of Pres. Grant and Stephen Richards. It is my understanding that since that time correlation efforts have been made to "approve" talks prior to the conference. So the correlation committee receives the talks ahead of time, approves the talk, and then the talk is given. (I'm open to correction on this if someone has better information). So it would be easier for someone like Richards to get up and say something the 1st Pres. doesn't agree with and feels the need to correct, than it would be for Pres. Packer (Pres. of the Q12) to get up and say something the 1st Pres. feels needs to be excised. In that particular case, I feel it is most likely that the change to the text was a PR response to the criticism and notoriety the talk generated. But even so, if we listen to Pres. Packer's talk should we believe what he said, or should we find meaning in what was omitted in the official print version? What is the lesson we should learn. Which version is right? Packer's original intent or the PR version?

I'm not sure if you read the article that bsj linked to as part of the topic of this thread, but it includes this exchange-

In spring 1981, Hartman Rector Jr. of the First Quorum of Seventy gave a talk titled “Will the Earth Be Wasted?” focused on the themes of family and genealogical work.

In his original speech, Rector, who died last month, promised that if children have a happy family experience, according to a 2012 article in Sunstone, “they will not want to be homosexuals, which I am sure is an acquired addiction just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way, but I do not believe it is true. There are no female spirits trapped in male bodies and vice versa.”

Even at that time, the talk proved controversial enough to be picked up by local and national news media, including The New York Times.

By May, however, the talk was published in the church’s Ensign magazine with a new title, “Turning the Hearts,” writes Joseph Geisner in the Sunstone piece. “All references to abortion, birth control, sterilization, vasectomy, homosexuality, and the dying elderly were removed, thereby transforming the speech from an apocalyptic jeremiad to an upbeat pep talk about genealogy.”

When a letter writer asked about the changes, Rector responded:

“Sometimes it is not expedient to make people angry by telling them in too plain terms what their problems are. … Also the church [is] hoping to gain entrance into communist China so didn’t want to make waves,” according to an article in Dialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought. “I presume a combination of things made the First Presidency decide to eliminate certain portions of my remarks even tho’ they had received and cleared the talk before it was given.  It is OK. They know best. However, what was said is still true.”

To answer the bolded question, I think that we can find meaning in both the part that was omitted and the official printed version, that there are lessons we can learn from both, and that the Spirit can help us to know what 'version' is most correct.

 

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can understand why historians wouldn't like this.  I have a degree in history and historians generally believe they should have access to everything!  From a spiritual perspective though, I'm not sure that knowing the "personalities, perspectives and proclivities" of church leaders matters all that much.

Why would it not matter to you?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Greg Prince makes some great points about the risks of this policy. He said...

In addition to the historian's desired access to info it seems that there is the possibility of real limitations and negative effects on the GA who may or may not decide to keep a journal, a negative impact on family to access their loved one's writings, the detail about thoughts, discussions, decisions that are made etc.

For example, we know very little about how/why the priesthood ban was originally placed and that was BEFORE this kind of a policy. How likely are we, as a church, to discover how/why current decisions are made on controversial policies etc. How do those discussion go? Does the prophet come in and say, "I had a revelation" and everyone gets in line, or is the "revelation" received more piece meal through discussion, debate, and study? Is there value in understanding the personalities and interactions of top leaders who make such important decisions? I would think that as someone with a degree in history you would appreciate the value of history in understanding motivations and behaviors of leaders and how they impact people throughout time.

All of those are great questions and I would love to have an answer to all of them.  I do find value in them.  But from a spiritual perspective, and as far as our relationship to God and His gospel, I don't think the answers matter.  I don't think that everything that is of value or interest to me matters in the eternal scheme of things.

I love to be able to answer 'why' questions, but I don't think God is as focused on answering 'why' questions as most of us are.  He often withholds the why, and I don't think that's because the why has no value.  

Edited December 18, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Why would it not matter to you?

I said from a spiritual perspective, I don't think it matters.  Do you believe that knowing Pres. Kimball's personality is going to matter to you in the eternal scheme of things?

[carbon dioxide]

Are they editing the videos of the talks or just the text?   If it is just the text,  one can watch the talk.   I think as long as the person who gave the talk is ok with the edit, why should there be a problem?  A person has a right have their words sent forth in a manner that they like best. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Greg Prince makes some great points about the risks of this policy. He said...

In addition to the historian's desired access to info it seems that there is the possibility of real limitations and negative effects on the GA who may or may not decide to keep a journal, a negative impact on family to access their loved one's writings, the detail about thoughts, discussions, decisions that are made etc.

For example, we know very little about how/why the priesthood ban was originally placed and that was BEFORE this kind of a policy. How likely are we, as a church, to discover how/why current decisions are made on controversial policies etc. How do those discussion go? Does the prophet come in and say, "I had a revelation" and everyone gets in line, or is the "revelation" received more piece meal through discussion, debate, and study? Is there value in understanding the personalities and interactions of top leaders who make such important decisions? I would think that as someone with a degree in history you would appreciate the value of history in understanding motivations and behaviors of leaders and how they impact people throughout time.

What Prince writes about though is all theory. My Great Grandfather recorded in a little diary about the day my Grandma was born, all he literally wrote was "hen died today, baby born , named her Florence, cloudy out" like the staggering amounts of whaaaaaaaaaat??I have a passion project, going on 2 years now, involving over 100 diary accounts in connection with the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple in 1893, the lived reality is people either never kept a journal, journal thrown out, wrote nothing to almost nothing or very few wrote volumes of stuff. We, today want more than we get and want them to write what we want them to write about, but the reality is just not like that. Par example look at the differences between President George Q. Cannon's diary for April 20th, 1893 and then Elder John Henry Smith of the Twelve for the same day

https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/george-q-cannon/1890s/1893/04-1893?lang=eng

https://archive.org/details/ChurchStateAndPoliticsJohnSmith/page/n325

 

Elder John Henry Smith wrote absolutely nothing. He didn't write anything for almost a week, yet Pres. Cannon said he was in attendance and Pres. Cannon wrote lots of stuff but Elder Smith, apparently didn't think it was worth noting. So, we today have to take it as it is 

theory vs. reality

One thing to, we the public are not entitled to someone's journal. If the family decides to publish it then great or edit it out that's fine too, or not publish it at all or put restrictions on it, then you have to do what you can but it's someone's personal journal and we can't force people to put it out there

Edited December 18, 2018 by Duncan

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said from a spiritual perspective, I don't think it matters.  Do you believe that knowing Pres. Kimball's personality is going to matter to you in the eternal scheme of things?

Not to me.  I am just always interested in perspectives and always appreciate yours!

[CA Steve]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said from a spiritual perspective, I don't think it matters.  Do you believe that knowing Pres. Kimball's personality is going to matter to you in the eternal scheme of things?

I think that if it is important to publish the journals of Joseph Smith,  the same can be said for other prophets.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting article. I don't have a problem with the church editing talks to ensure doctrinal accuracy. I think that makes sense but I do think it should be noted. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/12/17/lds-conference-sermon/

"In the LDS Church’s case, “either the speaker revised the remarks following delivery for clarity or to correct errors, or the church has altered the published versions for the same reason,” Hawkins says. “The original versions are preserved for historic purposes.”

Such changes are rarely, if ever, noted on the official account, however, an observation the spokesman declined to explain. That can be a problem for members and professional scholars." 

On lds.org the church does edit content and remove content. I think it is wise if past articles, policies or opinions are considered to now be in error, it is better for members researching talks and lessons not to use dated information. But, I think it would be nice to have the items maintained and searchable for researchers and historians. I can't remember which talk it was recently that had a ensign article was referenced and footnoted but the article is not available on lds.org. Other writings by excommunicated members with past articles in the ensign, have been removed. 

"Scouring the official Conference Reports, which began publication in 1897, Geisner discovered 11 speeches that were “either significantly edited before publication or altogether excised from the official published conference report.”

One of the talks discussed was even re-taped. I think this was a mistake...not a fun thing to discover when people are having doubts or issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIr30dtCvo I do believe the church is moving toward greater transparency.

The First Presidency has the keys to control these messages. It’s the perfection of the message that is important, not its imperfect initial delivery, no matter how thoroughly that delivery was stricken, edited or rerecorded. Some things like the Joseph Smith papers enhance the current ("living") message, old pre-edited general authority talks, not so much. Theatrical enhancement in the case of the rerecorded talk is for continuity in this important format of presentation. Otherwise conference would not be broadcast at all, just sent out by e-mail.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think that if it is important to publish the journals of Joseph Smith,  the same can be said for other prophets.

It could be.  But JS is unique, even in mormondom.  

[pogi]

19 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I see you’re close to having as many likes as you have posts, so I’m going to make it a habit to like all your posts going forward since I find your posts sincere and enlightening.  Unless, of course, you say something crazy. 🙂

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

😆

Congratulations bluebell, you made it!  We should all celebrate by eating a doughnut for every reputation point she has earned...I am starting with a package of crumb donuts right now.  Wish me luck!

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure if you read the article that bsj linked to as part of the topic of this thread, but it includes this exchange-

In spring 1981, Hartman Rector Jr. of the First Quorum of Seventy gave a talk titled “Will the Earth Be Wasted?” focused on the themes of family and genealogical work.

In his original speech, Rector, who died last month, promised that if children have a happy family experience, according to a 2012 article in Sunstone, “they will not want to be homosexuals, which I am sure is an acquired addiction just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way, but I do not believe it is true. There are no female spirits trapped in male bodies and vice versa.”

Even at that time, the talk proved controversial enough to be picked up by local and national news media, including The New York Times.

By May, however, the talk was published in the church’s Ensign magazine with a new title, “Turning the Hearts,” writes Joseph Geisner in the Sunstone piece. “All references to abortion, birth control, sterilization, vasectomy, homosexuality, and the dying elderly were removed, thereby transforming the speech from an apocalyptic jeremiad to an upbeat pep talk about genealogy.”

When a letter writer asked about the changes, Rector responded:

“Sometimes it is not expedient to make people angry by telling them in too plain terms what their problems are. … Also the church [is] hoping to gain entrance into communist China so didn’t want to make waves,” according to an article in Dialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought. “I presume a combination of things made the First Presidency decide to eliminate certain portions of my remarks even tho’ they had received and cleared the talk before it was given.  It is OK. They know best. However, what was said is still true.”

To answer the bolded question, I think that we can find meaning in both the part that was omitted and the official printed version, that there are lessons we can learn from both, and that the Spirit can help us to know what 'version' is most correct.

 

So it should not be taken for granted which version is most correct and it will be left to the individuals to glean meaning from both versions.

I will state the obvious and say that 1- it would be problematic for many people if the church were to correct/amend a talk and make it less correct 2- it would be extremely difficult for the average person to find meaning from both versions (both the omitted and official printed version) if they weren't even aware a change had been made. In 1981 correlation would most likely have reviewed and approved the talk in advance so it would be reasonable to think that the church approved of the original version as given in conference. Most members would not have had access to both the video and print versions at the same time to aid them in comparing/contrasting the two, thus it would have been challenging to find truth in the differences.

This is another good example of a time when it seems likely the church made the change, at least in part, as a PR move, yet we really don't know whether or not it is a "correction". This also illustrates why it would be useful to have access to journals etc to understand the personalities behind the talk & the change, and the deliberations that went on behind the scenes in an effort to understand what the leaders actually believed to be true, and not just expedient for public consumption. How the church leaders handle the difference between what they believe to be truth and what is best PR for the moment would seem to be important for members to understand.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I said from a spiritual perspective, I don't think it matters.  Do you believe that knowing Pres. Kimball's personality is going to matter to you in the eternal scheme of things?

I absolutely think it could matter for church members in determining whether or not they should follow what he says.

For example, IF (hypothetical) his personal journals showed him to be a raging racist who underwent a personal spiritual transformation on the issue, and/or showed a revelatory moment, it might help people appreciate the race/priesthood change, more than if his journals showed his growing concern about how the church is being perceived in the world, or threats to its finances or challenges to BYU accreditation etc. IOW- if his personal journals showed the change was based on personal spiritual experiences it would be more accepted than if they showed the decision was more politically/PR based. Why did it take until 1978 to make the change? We don't really know, but journals could help shed light on that. What was Pres. Monson's procedure in creating the "policy"? Was he mentally stable or even coherent at the time? Was he even able to write or dictate a journal? Who was influencing him? What did that process look like? Is there evidence of revelation like Pres. Nelson says? If there is, I think it would help many people feel better about it, even if they still disagreed.

In other words, context matters...a lot.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

What Prince writes about though is all theory. My Great Grandfather recorded in a little diary about the day my Grandma was born, all he literally wrote was "hen died today, baby born , named her Florence, cloudy out" like the staggering amounts of whaaaaaaaaaat??I have a passion project, going on 2 years now, involving over 100 diary accounts in connection with the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple in 1893, the lived reality is people either never kept a journal, journal thrown out, wrote nothing to almost nothing or very few wrote volumes of stuff. We, today want more than we get and want them to write what we want them to write about, but the reality is just not like that. Par example look at the differences between President George Q. Cannon's diary for April 20th, 1893 and then Elder John Henry Smith of the Twelve for the same day

https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/george-q-cannon/1890s/1893/04-1893?lang=eng

https://archive.org/details/ChurchStateAndPoliticsJohnSmith/page/n325

 

Elder John Henry Smith wrote absolutely nothing. He didn't write anything for almost a week, yet Pres. Cannon said he was in attendance and Pres. Cannon wrote lots of stuff but Elder Smith, apparently didn't think it was worth noting. So, we today have to take it as it is 

theory vs. reality

One thing to, we the public are not entitled to someone's journal. If the family decides to publish it then great or edit it out that's fine too, or not publish it at all or put restrictions on it, then you have to do what you can but it's someone's personal journal and we can't force people to put it out there

I agree that there is no guarantee everyone will keep a good journal. I don't.

But Prince shows how a culture is being created that discourages honest/candid journaling by leaders. That particular policy discourages journaling, making it even less likely to get anything useful from journals and therefore understand the context of the individuals in history.

[Calm]

Quote

 I say that it was (at least partly and sometimes, going by the quotes in the article) about hoping the old version would be forgotten

I think there is concern there may be created unhealthy debate on which is the more correct version (given what I have seen in the past)..  I believe our leaders would prefer our study avoid conflict, even within one person, over what likely amounts to trivial amounts of change in a mass of writings and focus more on how scripture and the inspiration we receive through our study of leaders' words can change our lives.  I know my own natural inclination would be to get distracted by any changes and spend more time on wondering why changes, large or minute were made than the full purpose of the talk simply because I think it might give a little window into how someone thinks....which is not the purpose of conference and other talks leaders give.

I do think in this day and age this keeping the Saints focused on what they spiritually get from a talk might be better achieved by including a general disclaimer that from time to time edits are made during the presentation or publishing of a talk and that the final form is believed the one best suited to teaching the principles desired to be focused on in talks.  And it might be best form to include notes about what talk has been altered, but I am unsure of that just because of how strange sometimes people react.  I would like to see a study done including Saints from all walks of life and ages to see how they react, what their preference would be and then choose the one that best suits their needs, the one that prevents derails from getting on with the work they feel inspired to do, whether distracted through debate over changes going unnoted or debate or which wording is more inspiring or debate over who pushed for the change, etc.

[SouthernMo]

The aspect of how historians view this is interesting and important.

But, I think the bigger issue at stake is if one should be held accountable for one’s words?  If I say something to millions of people I regret or would like to rephrase, I should be able to say and do so.  I often mis-speak!

But to revise my words without an explanation, or note, or “oops” or any retraction would not be in line with my views on what accountability is.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Most members would not have had access to both the video and print versions at the same time to aid them in comparing/contrasting the two, thus it would have been challenging to find truth in the differences.

I think there is a big assumption in the above that the effort and concern put into studying the differences if they were easily made available is an effective use of a person's time if they are intent on using that time to grow in understanding of what God would have them do.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is concern there may be created unhealthy debate on which is the more correct version (given what I have seen in the past)..  I believe our leaders would prefer our study avoid conflict, even within one person, over what likely amounts to trivial amounts of change in a mass of writings and focus more on how scripture and the inspiration we receive through our study of leaders' words can change our lives.  I know my own natural inclination would be to get distracted by any changes and spend more time on wondering why changes, large or minute were made than the full purpose of the talk simply because I think it might give a little window into how someone thinks....which is not the purpose of conference and other talks leaders give.

I do think in this day and age this keeping the Saints focused on what they spiritually get from a talk might be better achieved by including a general disclaimer that from time to time edits are made during the presentation or publishing of a talk and that the final form is believed the one best suited to teaching the principles desired to be focused on in talks.  And it might be best form to include notes about what talk has been altered, but I am unsure of that just because of how strange sometimes people react.  I would like to see a study done including Saints from all walks of life and ages to see how they react, what their preference would be and then choose the one that best suits their needs, the one that prevents derails from getting on with the work they feel inspired to do, whether distracted through debate over changes going unnoted or debate or which wording is more inspiring or debate over who pushed for the change, etc.

This seems to be a variation of the old desire/expectation that everything in the church should be faith promoting. It sounds nice, but leads to a whitewashing of reality. It shows a lack of confidence in people to presume that they can't handle the truth; that something a prophet, seer, revelator said in conference wasn't appropriate or right. Yes, it does create dissonance when contrasted with the expectation that leaders speak for the Lord, but it is reality. It's time to own that. Don't hide or cover up changes hoping that people won't remember the original. Explain why a change is made. Explanations can be very enlightening and may even help people to recognize both the fallibility and humility of leaders.