Talks

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

So who encouraged President Packer to immediately make significant changes to the written talk? Other apostles?

 

I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that anyone encouraged him to do so.

From this link:
 

Quote

 

A Church spokesman points out that it is common for conference speakers to review their speeches and make edits.

"The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker's intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent," reads a statement from the LDS Church.

 

 

 

From this it cannot be competently concluded that anything happened other than President Packer exercising the prerogative available to all the general conference speakers of editing his talk for the printed version, altering the wording to better convey his intended meaning.

Quote

The nature of the changes were such that I believe he said what he meant. They were changed along PR lines. That doesn't seem like President Packer.

Does it seem like President Packer to let some functionary in a Church department buffalo him into changing the content of his conference talk? It doesn't to me.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From this it cannot be competently concluded that anything happened other than President Packer exercising the prerogative available to all the general conference speakers of editing his talk for the printed version, altering the wording to better convey his meaning.

Not from that, no. But then, it's a PR statement . . .  

The edits did not "better convey his meaning" (his meaning was quite clear, and he doesn't have a history of expansive, meaning-clarifying edits like that). They walked back the thought that homosexual tendencies aren't inborn, and that the PotF is canonical revelation. Those are PR considerations.

Quote

Does it seem like President Packer to let some functionary in a Church department buffalo him into changing the content of his conference talk? It doesn't to me.

The Brethren cede an awful lot to the Public Affairs department that I wish they themselves would handle. So, there is that blanket authorization in that choice to cede the authority. But that doesn't mean that they review or comment on every single choice or decision made by the authorized people. 

I have other experiences, separate from this, that bother me a little. This incident is just part of such experiences. Church Office Building employees, and the vast bureaucracy, do a lot of things on their own initiative without direct management from the Brethren. Some of these include applications to the First Presidency and the Missionary department. I'm not going to share details here, but I have personally been involved with cases that ostensibly were reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency or the Missionary Department, but in fact were never seen by the First Presidency or other general authorities (in the Missionary department case, they said it was going to be "escalated to the Brethren," but it wasn't). 

It seems clear to me that President Packer was prevailed upon to authorize that his wording be changed. It is equally clear that he allowed the change to be made (i.e., he didn't dig in and refuse). I was just wondering out loud who demanded the change. I wish he had left the wording as it stood. There wasn't anything doctrinally unsound about what he said.

Edited October 24, 2016 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Not from that, no. But then, it's a PR statement . . .  

Oh, brother!
 

Quote

 

The edits did not "better convey his meaning" (his meaning was quite clear, and he doesn't have a history of expansive, meaning-clarifying edits like that).

 

 

 

As you are not able to read his mind, I don't know how you could determine what is and is not the best way to convey his intended meaning (I added the word "intended," apparently before you copied and pasted my post).

Quote

They walked back the thought that homosexual tendencies aren't inborn, ...

Maybe President Packer did not intend to convey that meaning and determined that what he did say could too easily be misinterpreted.

 

Quote

... and that the PotF is canonical revelation.

The proclamation is not a "canonical revelation." President Packer never said it was, in either version of his talk. As much as I revere the proclamation and consider it to be true and inspired of God, I find it quite clear that it is not scriptural canon. Perhaps it will be one day, but so far, that day has not come.

Quote

Those are PR considerations.

Those are considerations pertaining to accuracy and clarity of communication. That you choose to call them "PR considerations" is your own spin.

Quote

The Brethren cede an awful lot to the Public Affairs department that I wish they themselves would handle. So, there is that blanket authorization in that choice to cede the authority. But that doesn't mean that they review or comment on every single choice or decision made by the authorized people. 

I think you're drifting off the subject now. The fact is you have no solid documentation that President Packer was intimidated by Church Public Affairs into revising his conference talk for print. Those I know at Public Affairs would find that notion laughable.

Quote

I have other experiences, separate from this, that bother me a little. This incident is just part of such experiences. Church Office Building employees, and the vast bureaucracy, do a lot of things on their own initiative without direct management from the Brethren. Some of these include applications to the First Presidency and the Missionary department. I'm not going to share details here, but I have personally been involved with cases that ostensibly were reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency or the Missionary Department, but in fact were never seen by the First Presidency or other general authorities (in the Missionary department case, they said it was going to be "escalated to the Brethren," but it wasn't).

Without documentation of the above (which I would never expect you to provide) all of this must be consigned to the rumor category. 

Quote

It seems clear to me that President Packer was prevailed upon to authorize that his wording be changed. It is equally clear that he allowed the change to be made (i.e., he didn't dig in and refuse). 

What "seems clear to" you and what can be reliably substantiated are, in this case, two separate things. This remains conjecture -- and fantasy.

Quote

I was just wondering out loud who demanded the change.

Before wondering out loud who demanded the change, you ought first to establish that such a demand had occurred.

Quote

I wish he had left the wording as it stood. There wasn't anything doctrinally unsound about what he said.

This, of course is debatable.

My personal opinion is that the change in wording was wise because to call the proclamation a revelation might imply that it contains new doctrine; it doesn't. I personally believe the act of issuing the proclamation was prompted by revelation (which would make it a revelatory document) but that the proclamation itself does not contain new doctrine. That is a distinction that could be lost in the way the talk was phrased at first.

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

So who encouraged President Packer to immediately make significant changes to the written talk? Other apostles?

The nature of the changes were such that I believe he said what he meant. They were changed along PR lines. That doesn't seem like President Packer.

Looking at the org chart the only people that would seem to have the authority to ask the President of the Quorum of the Twelve to make a change would be either the First Presidency or his wife.   

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

Not from that, no. But then, it's a PR statement . . .  

The edits did not "better convey his meaning" (his meaning was quite clear, and he doesn't have a history of expansive, meaning-clarifying edits like that). They walked back the thought that homosexual tendencies aren't inborn, and that the PotF is canonical revelation. Those are PR considerations.

The Brethren cede an awful lot to the Public Affairs department that I wish they themselves would handle. So, there is that blanket authorization in that choice to cede the authority. But that doesn't mean that they review or comment on every single choice or decision made by the authorized people. 

I have other experiences, separate from this, that bother me a little. This incident is just part of such experiences. Church Office Building employees, and the vast bureaucracy, do a lot of things on their own initiative without direct management from the Brethren. Some of these include applications to the First Presidency and the Missionary department. I'm not going to share details here, but I have personally been involved with cases that ostensibly were reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency or the Missionary Department, but in fact were never seen by the First Presidency or other general authorities (in the Missionary department case, they said it was going to be "escalated to the Brethren," but it wasn't). 

It seems clear to me that President Packer was prevailed upon to authorize that his wording be changed. It is equally clear that he allowed the change to be made (i.e., he didn't dig in and refuse). I was just wondering out loud who demanded the change. I wish he had left the wording as it stood. There wasn't anything doctrinally unsound about what he said.

Did you watch the videos that were leaked a few weeks ago?  It is clear, imo, who are making the decisions and who are there to provide info and other services, but "demanding"?...not seeing it.

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you watch the videos that were leaked a few weeks ago?

No. I read about them, but I refuse to watch leaked items from any source, even if they discomfit my "enemies" (i.e., I don't like these Wikileaks leaks, even though they expose Hillary Clinton). I find leaks interesting as a news item, but I don't grab my popcorn and watch or read them in-depth.

 It is clear, imo, who are making the decisions and who are there to provide info and other services, but "demanding"?...not seeing it.

I'm not saying that the Brethren aren't "making the decisions." The buck stops with them. Much of their decision making is ceded to CoB bureaucrats, though (by choice). They trust them and don't micromanage every aspect, which is generally a good thing but can lead to departments and people "taking strength unto themselves." 

A couple of examples:

1) Church magazines. Editorial staff very clearly have a lot of autonomy in direction and approach. This is good for the editorial staff, but not so good for those who really don't like the dumbed-down, "People magazine-esque" version we've had for several years now. Do you think that the Brethren asked them to take the magazines in this direction? Or, do the Brethren let trusted people run the magazines according to their vision?

2) For years, Church PR was through a non-Mormon PR firm (Edelman). Many of the (in my opinion) cringe-worthy changes happened then along the lines of branding, damage control, marketing, focus groups, etc. Things like changing the logo (so that people would know that we are the Church of JESUS CHRIST), adding "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," etc. It really looked desperate and pleading to me. Current Public Affairs staff are very message and "how it will play" obsessed. 

3) The format, scripting, and production of the more recent Worldwide Training Broadcasts are a clear example of the Brethren following the advice of paid professionals, but with a scripted, cheesy, stilted, non-authentic feel. Things like the mock panel discussions with "regular members," or the "nights with an apostle" that are very canned, planned, and scripted. I would love to see the Brethren simply talk to us, instead of "productions" made according to PR/advertising/marketing techniques. I would like to see much, much less from spokespeople and PR staff, and more of the Brethren themselves addressing things. 

My sister was national PRSSA (Public Relations Student Society) president while at BYU, and has a private practice, so she is well-versed and trained in the field. While she isn't as turned-off as I am, she does admit that the Church's PR approaches are sometimes ham-handed. 

As I've said before, President Packer obviously said what he meant in his talk. The things that were removed were things that put the PR people into DEFCON 5 (PotF canonical revelation, and homosexual tendencies not inborn --- including "What kind of a Father would do that?"). We have people who are saying, with a straight face, that President Packer himself didn't mean any of that and quickly changed it more accurately reflect what he wanted to say. It seems obvious to me that he acquiesced to wishes and recommendations that he change these (or allow them to be changed) solely for PR reasons. That doesn't mean that he was following orders or asking how high when told to jump.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

No. I read about them, but I refuse to watch leaked items from any source, even if they discomfit my "enemies" (i.e., I don't like these Wikileaks leaks, even though they expose Hillary Clinton). I find leaks interesting as a news item, but I don't grab my popcorn and watch or read them in-depth.

 

 

I'm not saying that the Brethren aren't "making the decisions." The buck stops with them. [snip]

I share your aversion to becoming deeply immersed in viewing the leaked videos, realizing as you do that they are stolen property.

I don't see the videos as being very damaging to the Church or its leaders, however, and I do agree with Calm with respect to the videos being a snapshot of sorts of the decision-making process the Brethren might engage in by way of fact-finding or "studying it [a matter]out' in their minds, as it were. As we have been constantly taught from the scriptures, that element is an essential prelude to receiving revelation. Consulting with experts and knowledgeable individuals as one weighs a decision must certainly be viewed as part of the fact-finding or "study-it-out-in-your-mind" stage of seeking divine guidance.

I see this process as quite distinct from what you have implied in your post, which is that the Church leaders abdicate their divine role and responsibility, ceding it to bureaucrats or consultants. (And, by the way, Edelman was only ever a consultant; the Church Public Affairs Department, formerly called the Department of External Affairs, has been in place since the early 1970s at the latest. Neither Edelman nor Church Public Affairs has been given or has assumed a role or responsibility that rightly belongs to the prophets and apostles).

Moreover, I see peril in harboring a cynical attitude such as you display here, whereby one is tempted to rationalize rejecting or being contemptible of wise and divinely appointed direction that comes through apostles and prophets, reasoning incorrectly that it probably just came from bureaucrats and paid contractors anyway. Such rationalization more or less amounts to the sin of rebellion.

Take as an example the matter you bring up of emphasizing Jesus Christ in the name and logotype of the Church and as a subtitle for the Book of Mormon. That the Brethren are earnest and sincere in their direction on this matter is reflected in certain general conference messages given by Elder Ballard in recent years, wherein he cites the clear and explicit direction given by the resurrected Jesus Christ to the Nephites that His church should be called after His name. Whatever input you think paid staff or consultants might have in this, it cannot be reasonably denied that it is consistent with clear scriptural direction and that its value can be easily discerned when one views the ongoing disinformation campaign in which it is denied that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian faith.

 

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I share your aversion to becoming deeply immersed in viewing the leaked videos, realizing as you do that they are stolen property.

I think we both agree that it is unseemly. Even when the "whistleblowers" are exposing, say, Planned Parenthood or something that I don't like. Hidden camera, hidden mike, stealing of footage or documents, etc. There is too much of this "mole/spy/leak" cycle pretty much everywhere, now. Including people in the CoB who immediately leak new handbooks, policies, etc. That just makes my head spin.

I don't see the videos as being very damaging to the Church or its leaders, however, and I do agree with Calm with respect to the videos being a snapshot of sorts of the decision-making process the Brethren might engage in by way of fact-finding or "studying it [a matter]out' in their minds, as it were.

I completely agree. I don't think that the leaked videos hurt the Brethren or the Church at all.

I see this process as quite distinct from what you have implied in your post, which is that the Church leaders abdicate their divine role and responsibility, ceding it to bureaucrats or consultants.

I don't want to give the impression that I think they have ceded authority completely, just more than I would like in certain instances and circumstances. I think it's undeniable that quite a bit is now delegated out to Church employees, and I think we all understand the need for some delegation given how much there is to administer in 2016. 

(And, by the way, Edelman was only ever a consultant; the Church Public Affairs Department, formerly called the Department of External Affairs, has been in place since the early 1970s at the latest. Neither Edelman nor Church Public Affairs has been given or has assumed a role or responsibility that rightly belongs to the prophets and apostles).

Edelman was a very influential consultant, though. Through my sister's course work in PR, they studied a lot of Church/Edelman interaction, techniques, and outcomes. The attempts to get the "Mormons aren't Christian" monkey off our back are directly traceable to Edelman (and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have tried to convince people that we are Christian. The most effective way to do that is through the sphere of influence of individual members with their acquaintances. Not blowing up Jesus Christ in our logo, or emblazoning Jesus Christ on the cover of the Book of Mormon. Those look "rabbit-eared" to me, like the criticisms stung and we needed to underline the obvious). 

Neither Edelman nor Church Public Affairs has been given or has assumed a role or responsibility that rightly belongs to the prophets and apostles).

I wouldn't argue that, either, but we only ever hear from them (almost always) on important issues through spokespeople or secondarily through the Newsroom. Nobody argues that the Newsroom or gospel topics articles are drafted by the Brethren. They are written by scholars/editors/Public Affairs people and approved by the Brethren.

Using the November policy change as an example, only after the change was leaked was there a hastily-called interview with Elder Christoffersen and a later letter to priesthood leaders. Then, a clarifying letter came out after the public firestorm. Aside from that, the issue hasn't been addressed by apostles in conference or in press conferences. If Bill Reel ends up being right and this policy is removed in a new handbook next year (after President Nelson and CES publications made a point of calling it revelation), what would that look like? Whiplash.

Speaking of the manual changes, how dizzying was it that the manuals included/then excluded/then included items using the January President Nelson revelation quotes? That alone looks like an internal whipsaw struggle within publication and CES, rather than a fast-moving, rapidly-changing indecision by the Brethren.  

Moreover, I see peril in harboring a cynical attitude such as you display here, whereby one is tempted to rationalize rejecting or being contemptible of wise and divinely appointed direction that comes through apostles and prophets, reasoning incorrectly that it probably just came from bureaucrats and paid contractors anyway. Such rationalization more or less amounts to the sin of rebellion.

I have nowhere rationalized rejecting direction that comes through apostles and prophets. I'm simply giving my opinion and my druthers on the relative amount of things outsourced to Church employees compared to directly from the Brethren. I am not not following direction, but I can have an opinion on how that direction is communicated (or how directly that direction is communicated).

[Boanerges]

On 10/17/2016 at 3:43 PM, mnn727 said:

Took me a couple seconds..... Nope, those are not training sessions and few people emulate them, although many use them like a book report.

Good try but my statement stands. Most speakers at the Ward and even the Stake level are very poor at giving talks.

I actually think the General Authorities think they are modeling for us. I can't say I know that for sure, but I do my talks after their pattern.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I actually think the General Authorities think they are modeling for us. I can't say I know that for sure, but I do my talks after their pattern.

"Quote-end of quote?"

I hope we never see that emerging at the local level . . .  

[Calm]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

"Quote-end of quote?"

I hope we never see that emerging at the local level . . .  

Could that be needed because of translation issues?  A translator who wasn't paying close enough attention to tone and pauses that signal those kinds of changes in normal speech might not vary their rhythm enough so the quote would be understood and instead it might be confusing, especially if just listening and not watching (plus the translation might not be perfectly coordinated to the body language, so again needing something extra to distinguish.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Could that be needed because of translation issues?  A translator who wasn't paying close enough attention to tone and pauses that signal those kinds of changes in normal speech might not vary their rhythm enough so the quote would be understood and instead it might be confusing, especially if just listening and not watching (plus the translation might not be perfectly coordinated to the body language, so again needing something extra to distinguish.

I don't think so. Only certain GAs do it. Others don't do it at all. 

[stemelbow]

I enjoy diversity of thought, expression, personality and all that.  I think talks should be as free wheeling as possible.  I tire of hearing everyone try and sound like a GA when they speak.  But I realize that is the nature of humanity.  When something sticks and works we want to do that and be that, so I try not to worry much about it. 

[Boanerges]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think so. Only certain GAs do it. Others don't do it at all. 

I follow the ones who don't do it at all. It is less common now than it was a few years ago. I only say close quote if I believe it is unclear where the quote ends and I am inserting my own thoughts, and that's rare.