Packer Talk Corrected in Published Version

[semlogo]

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, but

about the person who experiences pedophilia.

Bernard

According to a quick wiki search:

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.[16] Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies.

[Sky]

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

[Brenda]

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.

Does it matter? The message is the same.

[Senator]

Does it matter? The message is the same.

If that's the case...

Then I would be curious to know why someone(whomever that is) felt it necessary to change it?

[Brenda]

If that's the case...

Then I would be curious to know why someone(whomever that is) felt it necessary to change it?

Who knows? Perhaps it is what Elder Packer meant to say and misspoke. If it was a deliberate change, it's likely HE made the correction. (Many a time I wish I could do that with things I've said.) Most likely, the written text was slightly different than the spoken text, and the written text was used for publication.

[Jaybear]

You obviously aren

[CA Steve]

Does it matter? The message is the same.

If the message were the same no change would have been made. You would have to ask those that made the change why they did it to really find out the reasoning behind the change. Bottom line is someone felt it necessary to make the change. Why it was made is pure speculation at this point.

[Jason]

The published text is most likely the same text that President Packard read from as he delivered his talk - he simply didn't deliver it exactly as he had written it.

That's not unnusual. I would dare say that most talks are not delivered exactly as written.

There is no attempt to change or cover up anything here, and the message is the same regardless of which version you take as definitive.

[Senator]

The fact that you characterize your own God given sexual orientation as a "struggle" that needs to be changed or modified would lead me to conclude that you have already been indoctrinated to hate gays, or as you call them "gays".

Only when you can accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with you just the way you are, will you be able to see that there is no love for you in Packer's talk.

No indoctrinated contemptual characterization in that comment either...nope, natta!

[Jaybear]

No indoctrinated contemptual characterization in that comment either...nope, natta!

Would that be scientific indoctrination?

The American Psychological Association Answers Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

IS HOMOSEXUALITY A MENTAL ILLNESS OR EMOTIONAL PROBLEM?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated with emotional or social problems.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/643

[Brenda]

The published text is most likely the same text that President Packard read from as he delivered his talk - he simply didn't deliver it exactly as he had written it.

That's not unnusual. I would dare say that most talks are not delivered exactly as written.

There is no attempt to change or cover up anything here, and the message is the same regardless of which version you take as definitive.

Exactly! Nevertheless, I think we should all blow this way up out of proportion, and collectively assume something sinister. That's much more fun.

[Bunk]

Another important change was made in reference to The Proclamation on the Family. Now it's just a guide, not a revelation.

[Senator]

Would that be scientific indoctrination?

No.

The scientific analysis would have nothing to do with your contemptual characterization of Sky's SSA experience, or his personal posture towards it.

That's of your own (indoctrinal) making.

[Senator]

Exactly! Nevertheless, I think we should all blow this way up out of proportion, and collectively assume something sinister. That's much more fun.

No.

Just would like to hear it from the horse's mouth. But don't ever expect to.

[Jaybear]

No.

The scientific analysis would have nothing to do with your contemptual characterization of Sky's SSA experience, or his personal posture towards it.

That's of your own (indoctrinal) making.

How so? What is the "doctrine" that underlies my indoctrination? Who indoctrinated me?

[LDSToronto]

The published text is most likely the same text that President Packard read from as he delivered his talk - he simply didn't deliver it exactly as he had written it.

If I recall correctly, Scott Lloyd once mentioned that the press receives advance copies of the talks, just prior to GC. Perhaps a look at one of those pre-release talks would reveal if this was a reading error or a post-talk correction.

H.

[Senator]

How so? What is the "doctrine" that underlies my indoctrination? Who indoctrinated me?

That anyone who has a differing view as to the acceptability of homosexual behavior, is a "hater" of gays. There's no science behind that.

Who has indoctrinated you? Only you can answer that.

[David T]

The published text is most likely the same text that President Packard read from as he delivered his talk - he simply didn't deliver it exactly as he had written it.

That's not unnusual. I would dare say that most talks are not delivered exactly as written.

There is no attempt to change or cover up anything here, and the message is the same regardless of which version you take as definitive.

I never said I thought it was a conspiracy, or a cover-up. However, I do feel the change is inspired.

I'd be very surprised if 'temptation' was written in the original teleprompter version, and he said tendencies instead. I'd also be surprised if the Rhetorical question was adlibbed.

The process goes like this:

1. Talk written out before Conference. This is what is used on teleprompter.

2. Talk is given. Sometimes changes are made live, additional comments are ad-libbed, and even flubs or mistakes are made. This spoken version is trascribed.

3. The GA compares the differences in the two versions of the talk, and chooses which version to select for the printed version.

4. Sometimes, clarification or suggested changes are made that do not correspond with either version of the talk (original written or original spoken), to better articulate the intended point being made, and to curtail confusion.

No conspiracy. Regular process.

In this case, I feel the change is important, significant, and much needed, and brings the talk in line with the stated official position of the Church.

[semlogo]

Another important change was made in reference to The Proclamation on the Family. Now it's just a guide, not a revelation.

So according to official doctrine, the Proclamation on the Family isn't a revelation, just a guide. I'll keep that in mind.

Interesting

[Jaybear]

That anyone who has a differing view as to the acceptability of homosexual behavior, is a "hater" of gays.

Well, since I don't believe that and I never said that, you have no real insight to offer. But thanks for trying.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I'm not surprised to see the written version changed. Good thing we have the ability to archive what was really said, forever and forever. These statements are not equivalent; they carry different meanings. If they were equivalent, no change would be necessary, no clarification required.

H.

[semlogo]

I'm not surprised to see the written version changed. Good thing we have the ability to archive what was really said, forever and forever. These statements are not equivalent; they carry different meanings. If they were equivalent, no change would be necessary, no clarification required.

H.

Do the changes satisfy your disagreements with the live version?

[Jason]

If I recall correctly, Scott Lloyd once mentioned that the press receives advance copies of the talks, just prior to GC. Perhaps a look at one of those pre-release talks would reveal if this was a reading error or a post-talk correction.

H.

I didn't say it was a reading error, just that he didn't give the talk as written. I also don't feel the published version is a "correction" of the given speech. And, naturally, the audio and video versions will be available at the same time as the written version, so nothing is being hidden or changed.

The whole thread is an attempt to make a mountain out of a very small molehill.

[Senator]

Well, since I don't believe that and I never said that, you have no real insight to offer. But thanks for trying.

So then, just those that express a struggle with homosexuality and a desire to change themselves, and those that would encourge someone to do so, are the hater of gays?

I may have insight, but I really have no desire to take up the gauntlet of trying to convince you of anything. So I will let you be.

[David T]

Do the changes satisfy your disagreements with the live version?

Not directed to me, but it did satisfy one of the two disagreements with the original talk.

The other disagreement with the equating voting to change a Government Law to attempting to change an Eternal Moral Law.

But it's all good. I feel a lot better about this talk than I did initially.