David T Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 As given: Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?." Published version: Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father. Link to comment
ERMD Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 The bold part of the first version stood out to me as the talk was delivered. Link to comment
Brade Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I hope that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. Link to comment
DeepThinker Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Doesn't seem to change the perceived interpretation much... that people suppose they have an inborn tendancy or tempation. I think the key point of question has been whether he was stating that such things are not inborn.I wonder if the printed version is the same version he had at conference, and he just read it wrong or ad-libbed part of it. Link to comment
Senator Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 As given: Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?." Published version: Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.Impeccable timing.TAO just laughingly dismissed my doubt that the church would ever use the word "Syndrome" to define SSA. He says they already have and pointed to a quote from Pres. Hinckley, wherein he used the the word "Inclinations", as if they were synonymous.I would say inclinations and tendancies are quite synonymous. Now it appears that not only is "syndrome" not good word, but "tendancies or inclinations" don't quite cut the mustard either. Temptation appears to be the word of the day. Go figure. Link to comment
TAO Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Impeccable timing.TAO just laughingly dismissed my doubt that the church would ever use the word "Syndrome" to define SSA. He says they already have and pointed to a quote from Pres. Hinckley, wherein he used the the word "Inclinations", as if they were synonymous.No, actually the statement that you made was unclear, I was not referring to the word 'syndrome'. I was referring to the existence of given weakness. And then I said they were still overcomeable.I would say inclinations and tendancies are quite synonymous. Somewhat, but I have to say tendencies has more to do with the action where inclinations has more to do with the temptation. Not much of a difference though.Now it appears that not only is "syndrome" not good word, but "tendancies or inclinations" don't quite cut the mustard either. Temptation appears to be the word of the day. Go figure.Lol, okay, let me explain, just because 'Tourettes Syndrome' has the word syndrome in it, whereas SSA does not, doesn't mean they can't be compared.Because from this aspect, they are both psychological issues, which the person has to deal with.In my case, the psychological weakness called Tourette's made it more difficult for me to overcome addictions associated with relief of stress.In their case, the psychological weakness which has not been named made it more difficult to obtain a natural affection.Both are barriers, yes, but both can be overcome if the person chooses to do so.And don't get me wrong Tourette's isn't always a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways too ;-) But I bet so can SSA, although being a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways. Link to comment
Senator Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 No, actually the statement that you made was unclear, I was not referring to the word 'syndrome'. I was referring to the existence of given weakness. And then I said they were still overcomeable.Somewhat, but I have to say tendencies has more to do with the action where inclinations has more to do with the temptation. Not much of a difference though.Lol, okay, let me explain, just because 'Tourettes Syndrome' has the word syndrome in it, whereas SSA does not, doesn't mean they can't be compared.Because from this aspect, they are both psychological issues, which the person has to deal with.In my case, the psychological weakness called Tourette's made it more difficult for me to overcome addictions associated with relief of stress.In their case, the psychological weakness which has not been named made it more difficult to obtain a natural affection.Both are barriers, yes, but both can be overcome if the person chooses to do so.And don't get me wrong Tourette's isn't always a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways too ;-) But I bet so can SSA, although being a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways.Pbbb...Whatever, TAO Link to comment
TAO Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Pbbb...Whatever, TAO*shrugs* If you didn't want a response, I apologize. Link to comment
Senator Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 *shrugs* If you didn't want a response, I apologize.No, just exasperated with the one I got. But it's not your fault. I reach that point rather quickly.No harm in calling an impasse. Agree to disagree. Link to comment
TAO Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 No, just exasperated with the one I got. But it's not your fault. I reach that point rather quickly.No harm in calling an impasse. Agree to disagree.sounds cool =). Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Is pedophilia a temptation, an inborn tendency, an inclination, a syndrome, a sin, a weakness?I'm not trying to stir the pot, by the way. Also, I'm not talking about consenting adults, butabout the person who experiences pedophilia.Bernard Link to comment
Sky Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I, for one, appreciated President Packer Link to comment
MorningStar Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I'm pretty upset the transcripts didn't include Pres. Uchtdorf's coughing and hilarious comment. Link to comment
BCSpace Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 If true, it's an excellent example of how official publication is the stamp of official doctrine. Is it not true that GC talk subjects generally aren't assigned, that the speakers generally have to come up with their own inspiration for subjects? In that case, there is indeed a need for there to be agreement on what is said before it can become doctrine (published).But the bottom line with Packer's talk is that some have misunderstood words of understanding and compassion by other authorities as tolerance for sin. Even Jesus did not always mix compassion with condemnation. Often he separated the two and we think of them as combined because they appear in the same book. Such is the nature of Biblical misinterpretation and why some people inaccurately think of Jesus as someone without an "unkind" word to say. Link to comment
Tango Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 This is not the first nor will it be the last that the LDS church has played this "change the text game". Honesty and truthfulness is best left for children, not for corporations of religion. Link to comment
Tango Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I, for one, appreciated President Packer Link to comment
MorningStar Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Oh brother. Just because you don't approve of someone's behavior doesn't mean you don't love them. Also, don't they read the talks off of teleprompters? I was under the impression that the talks were written out before conference and then the transcripts come out later. Link to comment
Joseph Antley Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 This is not the first nor will it be the last that the LDS church has played this "change the text game". Honesty and truthfulness is best left for children, not for corporations of religion.How is this dishonest and/or untruthful? Link to comment
Bunk Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 As given: Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?." Published version: Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father."Tendancies" is neutral while "temptations" has a negative connotation. So, with respect to homosexuality I agree: inborn temptations towards homosexuality do not exist, but inborn tendancies most certainly do. The church is just trying to get their facts straight so they don't sound confused.What about removing the rhetorical question that draws attention to the problem of evil? I think the change definitely turns down the the combativeness a notch. I think that was a good move from a diplomatic POV, probably inspired by the Holy Ghost. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 "Tendancies" is neutral while "temptations" has a negative connotation. So, with respect to homosexuality I agree: inborn temptations towards homosexuality do not exist, but inborn tendancies most certainly do. The church is just trying to get their facts straight so they don't sound confused.What about removing the rhetorical question that draws attention to the problem of evil? I think the change definitely turns down the the combativeness a notch. I think that was a good move from a diplomatic POV, probably inspired by the Holy Ghost.I am wondering if it is a change at all. If i understand it correctly, the speeches are vetted before the speaker the talk, i.e. the speaker supplies a written text and the talk is transcrbed from the submitted text. I am not sure if this is correct. Could anyone more familiar with the process clue me in?Glenn (who attended General Conference live once in his life) Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 This is not the first nor will it be the last that the LDS church has played this "change the text game". Honesty and truthfulness is best left for children, not for corporations of religion.When I read the two versions it struck me that they had the same basic principal, and that he made an unfortunate choice of words. I am sure that this has happened to all of us.The second version is closer to his intention, and I am certain that any change would have been approved, if not initiated, by Elder Packer.You cynically call it dishonesty, but it is a clear case of correcting the choice of words to reflect what he intended to teach. Link to comment
Lachoneus Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 As given: Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?." Published version: Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.More accurately,As givenSome suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father." Link to comment
CV75 Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.I'll one-up you: I remember him saying, "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies towards the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?. He is our Father."I think the written version is what should serve as our guidance going forward. He may have misspoken, misread, deviated from, or reconsidered his text (or someone edited it for him). Speculating on his motives or his heart and judging him harshly does no one any good. Whether an apology is in order is being discussed on another thread. Link to comment
David T Posted October 8, 2010 Author Share Posted October 8, 2010 I am wondering if it is a change at all. If i understand it correctly, the speeches are vetted before the speaker the talk, i.e. the speaker supplies a written text and the talk is transcrbed from the submitted text. I am not sure if this is correct. Could anyone more familiar with the process clue me in?Glenn (who attended General Conference live once in his life)No, talks are not submitted for approved or vetting before they are given, only for means of translation. In most cases, the first time the other GAs hear the talk is the same time we do. Afterwards, they are reviewed, and revised if necessary. Link to comment
Lost in Ohio Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Such as?? Hate for the gays? Pity for those who don't change their sexual preference because of some weakness? How about arrogance because you don Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.