Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

I disagree. Revising a deposition is like preparing the conference talk. Rough drafts and revisions lead to the finished product. Delivering the talk in GC is like being on the witness stand and giving testimony.

Right.  Because it's not like anyone ever prepares to give a deposition.

Share this post


Link to post

And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And, as I said, as long as those sitting in judgment of Elder Poelman are comfortable having that exact standard applied to themselves and to what they do.

About a month ago the directions to one of the questions on a test were confusing. When I passed the test back to the students I apologized for the confusion. I told them to note the extra credit that appeared on the grade in the amount that problem was worth. The students who answered the question correctly kept the original credit plus received the extra credit.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Thinking said:

I disagree. Revising a deposition is like preparing the conference talk. Rough drafts and revisions lead to the finished product. Delivering the talk in GC is like being on the witness stand and giving testimony.

Your analogy fails, because conference talks are edited like a deposition. 

They’re not final like court testimony. Which BTW is also often erroneous. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Whatever. :rolleyes: 

And, as I said, as long as those sitting in judgment of Elder Poelman are comfortable having that exact standard applied to themselves and to what they do.

What judgment or standard do you think is being applied to Elder Poelman?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Your analogy fails, because conference talks are edited like a deposition.

Deposition ---> Testimony

Preparation of Talk ---> Giving Talk in GC

Methinks the editing of the talk should happen during the preparation phase, before it is delivered at GC.

Quote

We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give. Robert D. Hales

Yep. Giving the talk in GC is not part of the editing phase. It is the final draft.

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

They’re not final like court testimony.

With the weeks and months through sleepless nights, one would think that talk would be final.

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Which BTW is also often erroneous. 

But still on the record.

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nice try.

 

But you continue to ignore the fact that the Church DOES allow editing. Therefore the deposition analogy stands. 

 

BTW. Why is the fact that speeches can be edited such a big deal to some of you?

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Why is the fact that speeches can be edited such a big deal to some of you?

Like I wrote in a previous post...

On 12/19/2018 at 9:35 AM, Thinking said:

It's not that the LDS Church has corrected mistakes. It's how it has corrected them. It seems that the goal is to correct a mistake and hope that nobody notices. If people do notice, the brethren are content to have the apologists explain why the mistake wasn't really a mistake, but really just a misunderstanding. The correction is really just a clarification.

When a talk is re-recorded to make it look like it was the original talk, that's covering not correcting.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, rockpond said:

What judgment or standard do you think is being applied to Elder Poelman?

No one owes me any sort of an explanation.  As long as whomever is applying whatever judgment or standard to Elder Poelman would be comfortable having that same judgment or standard applied to himself or herself, it's not my concern (see Matthew 7:2).  That's between him or her and God.  Again, while no one owes me any sort of an explanation, If someone says, "Hey, I'm not making Elder Poelman (or anyone else) an offender for a word (see Isaiah 29:21)," that's fine with me.  Whether s/he is or whether s/he isn't is between him or her and God.

If the Glass Slipper fits, wear it, Prince(ss)!

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/19/2018 at 10:56 AM, Jeanne said:

One would think that an apostle or any leader would make sure that what he says is correct and if not, he should be the one to correct any misunderstanding. 

That's exactly what happened here, unless you're privy to information I don't have, in which case, please share! :) 

Quote

To me it is a different kind of white wash...will they ever get it right the first time???  I seem to take a first version..the conference talk itself and that it explains what he believes, what the church believes and with a standard of something they call divine.  Why change that??

It seems that you're referring here to a plethora of alleged examples in which "they didn't get it right the first time."  It seems to me that circumstances such as the ones under discussion (in which a General Conference talk was edited so as to not give those who want an excuse to not follow the Brethren ammunition) are pretty rare.  It seems, vastly, to overstate the case to argue that such exceptions are, in fact, the rule, when, in reality, they are not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Thinking said:

... But still on the record.

So, you wouldn't mind, if I had sufficient IRL information about you, if I were to do a little digging to find stuff that's still "on the record," then? ;) 

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Thinking said:

About a month ago the directions to one of the questions on a test were confusing. When I passed the test back to the students I apologized for the confusion. I told them to note the extra credit that appeared on the grade in the amount that problem was worth. The students who answered the question correctly kept the original credit plus received the extra credit.

And so?  Ergo, what?

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No one owes me any sort of an explanation.  As long as whomever is applying whatever judgment or standard to Elder Poelman would be comfortable having that same judgment or standard applied to himself or herself, it's not my concern (see Matthew 7:2).  That's between him or her and God.  Again, while no one owes me any sort of an explanation, If someone says, "Hey, I'm not making Elder Poelman (or anyone else) an offender for a word (see Isaiah 29:21)," that's fine with me.  Whether s/he is or whether s/he isn't is between him or her and God.

If the Glass Slipper fits, wear it, Prince(ss)!

You keep referring to the “judgment or standard” applied to Elder Poelman.  What judgment or standard is that?  I’m genuinely confused on this:  people seem to be inquiring as to why he would have changed his conference address so dramatically but I’m not clear on what judgment or standard is being applied to themselves equally. 

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You keep referring to the “judgment or standard” applied to Elder Poelman.  What judgment or standard is that?  I’m genuinely confused on this:  people seem to be inquiring as to why he would have changed his conference address so dramatically but I’m not clear on what judgment or standard is being applied to themselves equally. 

I'm afraid I'm going to be unable to dispel your confusion then.  :(  Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm afraid I'm going to be unable to dispel your confusion then.  :(  Sorry.

Why?

You indicate that people are applying a certain judgment or standard to Elder Poelman that they should apply to themselves. I'd really like to know what that judgment/standard is?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And so?  Ergo, what?

In direct response to me, you wrote...

On 12/20/2018 at 4:20 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

And, as I said, as long as those sitting in judgment of Elder Poelman are comfortable having that exact standard applied to themselves and to what they do.

So I gave you a recent example of how I corrected a mistake in my class. Why are you confused?

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/21/2018 at 6:19 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

So, you wouldn't mind, if I had sufficient IRL information about you, if I were to do a little digging to find stuff that's still "on the record," then? ;) 

You do know that as a public school teacher pretty much everything I write is on the public record. In fact all those nasty emails that I write to the parents are still there for you and anybody else to find and use to get me disciplined. 😏

I have a website that is attached to my school google account that has many of my lessons in pdf format for students to download. If I find a mistake, I correct it and reload the lesson. When I do that the new upload date is recorded right next to the name of the file. When the Church reloaded Elder Poelman's talk, it tried to make it look like it was the actual talk he gave in conference. There's no indication anywhere on lds.org that it's been corrected.

Edited by Thinking

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/17/2018 at 3:23 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a little strange to make changes considering that the talks are pre-approved through correlation. Or am I wrong about that? It would seem that changes would/should be made prior to giving the conference address. BUT if it's necessary to make a change it would seem appropriate to add a note about the change that was made. Without the note it just seems like they're making a change they hope no one will notice. When you get into instances of re-recording the talk (Poleman) and present it  s if it was the talk actually given in conference, that seems very problematic.

Make changes if necessary but make sure they are noted so people know. Seems easy enough.

You are indeed wrong about the talks being “pre-approved through Correlation.” Years ago, when I worked for Church News, they told us some of the Brethren might ask them occasionally to go over their talks in advance, and they comply as a courtesy, but it is in no way a routine practice. 

Edited to add:  Of course, it is possible that things have changed since then. I would be open to any documentation you could provide. Or, if it is merely a supposition on your part, I would be open as well to that admission. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are indeed wrong about the talks being “pre-approved through Correlation.” Years ago, when I worked for Church News, they told us some of the Brethren might ask them occasionally to go over their talks in advance, and they comply as a courtesy, but it is in no way a routine practice. 

Edited to add:  Of course, it is possible that things have changed since then. I would be open to any documentation you could provide. Or, if it is merely a supposition on your part, I would be open as well to that admission. 

Hardly requires an admission considering that after I made my statement I asked whether my understanding was correct or not. That "admission" is kind of implied.

Thanks for adding your personal knowledge about it. I don't know if it's changed or not. I've heard that it is different than what you have said, but I think only the church can answer the question as to whether or not there is a correlation process prior. I'm doubtful that there would be any way to answer a CFR either for or against the notion of the correlation of talks.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hardly requires an admission considering that after I made my statement I asked whether my understanding was correct or not. That "admission" is kind of implied.

Thanks for adding your personal knowledge about it. I don't know if it's changed or not. I've heard that it is different than what you have said, but I think only the church can answer the question as to whether or not there is a correlation process prior. I'm doubtful that there would be any way to answer a CFR either for or against the notion of the correlation of talks.

Touché about the admission. 

But I believe I do have more to go on than you, as my information came directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/18/2018 at 10:58 AM, 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).

You bring up a very little known episode in General Conference history. I think it is very informative and helpful. For an exhaustive review of General Conference talks, with a content analysis by topic, I highly recommend Gary and Gordon Shepherd's wonderful book, "A Kingdom Transformed: Early Mormonism and the Modern LDS Church." It is a wonderful read and highly insightful. There are two editions - the second edition brings things more up-to-date. Their book about their experiences as missionaries in Mexico in the 1960's is also a great read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...