An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/31/2018 at 3:16 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with USU78. The board these days is far different from what it was. If it’s not ad nauseum commentary on yet another permutation of the gay rights debate, it’s endless, Dehlin-inspired navel gazing about one’s own “faith journey.”

The environment of a board can change if it gets overrun by those disposed to one bent or another. The worst case scenario is that insightful contributors get bored and, one by one, quietly file off. Until there’s not much left to be appealing. 

A few of us who are old timers saw it happen with ZLMB. The discontented folk migrated to what was then the FAIR board, which became this board after FAIR divested. ZLMB, if it still exists at all, has long been merely a shell. 

I’ve been heartened recently when USU and Kiwi have returned. If they leave again, I’m not sure what incentive there will be for me. 

My sentiments too.....old-timer from ZLMB and FAIR days. The change has been discouraging. Robust and informative doctrinal, scriptural, and historical discussions of older times that included highly reputable LDS and non-LDS participants (almost all having been driven away) now simply have become constant bickering between ourselves that often morphs into just another trope on the fallibility of our leaders, scriptures, doctrines, and practices, and the social failures of the Church. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

My sentiments too. Robust and informative doctrinal, scriptural, and historical discussions of older times that included highly reputable LDS and non-LDS participants (almost all having been driven away) now simply have become constant bickering between ourselves that often morphs into just another trope on the fallibility of our leaders, scriptures, doctrines, and practices, and the social failures of the Church. 

Yeah. You said it better than I did.

 

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The history and facts leads me to a difference conclusion.  Boyd Packer also claimed it was a revelation, but he got corrected and his conference talk was redacted.

You assume.

I mentioned this earlier, but you seem to have missed it. Here it is again:

There are often differences between spoken and published versions of Conference talks. Speakers sometimes extemporise, unintentionally skip (or repeat) lines, or otherwise vary from their prepared remarks. There's no "evidence" that President Packer's talk wasn't just another instance of the same thing. You've laden all sorts of breathless speculation upon those rather trivial differences in order to make it hold up the weight of the conclusions you want to hang from it; but it won't.

Your assumption that "he got corrected" is exactly that: an assumption. Nobody since stood up and said anything to the contrary of what President Packer said. My assumption is that the published version of his remarks is what he handed over to be published; furthermore, I think that what was published was the text he actually had in front of him on the day. He chose to make a minor departure from his prepared remarks, as speakers often do.

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You don't correct an apostle in such a public way unless the topic was important enough and the error was great enough to justify it.   Many in this discussion might not want to hear it, but this one event is strong evidence that it was not considered a revelation.  If it was, the church would have let Packer's talk stand. 

It's not "strong evidence" of anything at all. There was no "error." Others have said the same.

[rongo]

50 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

There are often differences between spoken and published versions of Conference talks. Speakers sometimes extemporize, unintentionally skip (or repeat) lines, or otherwise vary from their prepared remarks. There's no "evidence" that President Packer's talk wasn't just another instance of the same thing. You've laden all sorts of breathless speculation upon those rather trivial differences in order to make it hold up the weight of the conclusions you want to hang from it; but it won't.

Your assumption that "he got corrected" is exactly that: an assumption. Nobody since stood up and said anything to the contrary of what President Packer said. My assumption is that the published version of his remarks is what he handed over to be published; furthermore, I think that what was published was the text he actually had in front of him on the day. He chose to make a minor departure from his prepared remarks, as speakers often do.

This doesn't square with how it seemed to me, though, kiwi. This particular instance wasn't a small error of extemporaneous speech, editing, misreading, etc. His statement that the PotF was revelation was removed, as well as his statement "What kind of a father would do that to his children?" It was the speed of the change that I found remarkable. I know that many knee-jerk defenders of the Church (which I almost always am as well) insist either a) that Packer himself immediately insisted on the changes, or b) that he was prevailed upon by fellow brethren (very quickly) to make the changes. But there is just as little evidence for this (other than wishful thinking) than there is that Packer followed guidance from PR handlers. 

It really seems to me that the Brethren often defer to bureaucrats' advice. That is their choice, and whatever they choose becomes by action or inaction "what they have to say on it," but I wish that we got the authentic them. Not these staged, cringey and scripted things like "Face to Face" or the press conference. I wish President Packer had left his comments in (or insisted that they be left in). I think this is actually what he thought (that the PotF was revelation, and that Heavenly Father doesn't burden children with SSA). 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

This doesn't square with how it seemed to me, though, kiwi. This particular instance wasn't a small error of extemporaneous speech, editing, misreading, etc. His statement that the PotF was revelation was removed, as well as his statement "What kind of a father would do that to his children?" It was the speed of the change that I found remarkable. I know that many knee-jerk defenders of the Church (which I almost always am as well) insist either a) that Packer himself immediately insisted on the changes, or b) that he was prevailed upon by fellow brethren (very quickly) to make the changes. 

The speed of the "change" can be easily explained by the published talk being the original one and the revelation and Father comment being extemporaneous and simply not added in.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

The speed of the "change" can be easily explained by the published talk being the original one and the revelation and Father comment being extemporaneous and simply not added in.

This is honestly how I see it, too.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You assume.

I mentioned this earlier, but you seem to have missed it. Here it is again:

There are often differences between spoken and published versions of Conference talks. Speakers sometimes extemporise, unintentionally skip (or repeat) lines, or otherwise vary from their prepared remarks. There's no "evidence" that President Packer's talk wasn't just another instance of the same thing. You've laden all sorts of breathless speculation upon those rather trivial differences in order to make it hold up the weight of the conclusions you want to hang from it; but it won't.

Your assumption that "he got corrected" is exactly that: an assumption. Nobody since stood up and said anything to the contrary of what President Packer said. My assumption is that the published version of his remarks is what he handed over to be published; furthermore, I think that what was published was the text he actually had in front of him on the day. He chose to make a minor departure from his prepared remarks, as speakers often do.

It's not "strong evidence" of anything at all. There was no "error." Others have said the same.

There are no assumptions here.  The portion of his talk where he stated that the proclamation was a revelation was redacted. It was a very specific edit.  You can turn a blind eye to the evidence and spin all you want if that is was you need to do to  maintain your belief.  And that is fine.  But the funny thing about reality is that it is still there even if you don't believe in it.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There are no assumptions here.  The portion of his talk where he stated that the proclamation was a revelation was redacted. It was a very specific edit.  You can turn a blind eye to the evidence and spin all you want if that is was you need to do to  maintain your belief.  And that is fine.  But the funny thing about reality is that it is still there even if you don't believe in it.

So you can point to the original text if the talk prior to the "redaction?" If not, you have no proof that the statement was ever written in the talk. 

ETA: Let's make that a formal CFR. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by kllindley

[sunstoned]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So you can point to the original text if the talk prior to the "redaction?" If not, you have no proof that the statement was ever written in the talk. 

ETA: Let's make that a formal CFR. 

Happy to oblige. Here ya go. 

The original talk along with the redacted changes.

Quote

 

The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith “that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.”1 When the keys were restored, they provided priesthood authority to be present in every home through the grandfathers, the fathers, and the sons.

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

It states in part: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

 

The full talk with correlation committee changes can be found here:  http://mormonsformarriage.com/p299/

The Salt Lake Trib noted the changes: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

Additional references discussing the correction to Packer's conference talk: 

https://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-family-proclamation-scripture/

http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2010/10/proclamation-on-family-is-demoted-from.html

[sunstoned]

On 1/31/2018 at 10:02 PM, Bobbieaware said:

In his last General Conference address, President Oaks reconfirmed to me what I already knew, that the Family Proclamation is “inspired” and the product of a “line upon line revelatory process.” He went on to say the inspired words of divine truth in the Proclamation will continue to guide the Church in perpetuity. I know President Oaks spoke the truth because before his address I knew the Proclamation contained the mind and will of the Lord. I believe President Oaks. Sorry.

It is okay.  I am not challenging your testimony.  I understand why you continue to punt to faith when facts, logic and reason present a reality that you just can't accept.  This is quite common in religious communities where there is a reluctance to actually test their claims.  

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Happy to oblige. Here ya go. 

The original talk along with the redacted changes.

The full talk with correlation committee changes can be found here:  http://mormonsformarriage.com/p299/

The Salt Lake Trib noted the changes: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

Additional references discussing the correction to Packer's conference talk: 

https://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-family-proclamation-scripture/

http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2010/10/proclamation-on-family-is-demoted-from.html

Sorry. None of that shows what President Packer anyway had originally written himself. Your first link even proves that as can it credits the woman who listened to the talk and transcribed it. And the official statement even denies "correlation committee changes." You're still going off of pure speculation. Just because a few other people get speculating doesn't make it reality. 

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It is okay.  I am not challenging your testimony.  I understand why you continue to punt to faith when facts, logic and reason present a reality that you just can't accept.  This is quite common in religious communities where there is a reluctance to actually test their claims.  

How noble of you. 

[Calm]

Quote

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.

This does read to me as changes made afterwards rather than remaining the same text.

Everything else done does not show the original text though...what Elder Packer wrote prior to delivering the talk, what was on the TelePrompTer. (Anyone know why autocorrect put in those capitals, is that a brand or something?)

Clarification could have been to retain the original language, but I think they would have phrased it differently...just guessing based on how I would choose to say things.

There may have been two versions or three.  All we know for sure was the audio version and the Ensign are different.  The text he originally wrote could be identical to either one or the most likely option imo based on the wording above, he altered it while speaking, and then altered it again rather than restoring it.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

Just now, Calm said:

This does read as changes made afterwards rather than remaining the same text.

Possibly. I read the part about "clarifying differences between what was written and what was delivered" as leaving open the possibility that the delivery was different from the prepared talk. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Possibly. I read the part about "clarifying differences between what was written and what was delivered" as leaving open the possibility that the delivery was different from the prepared talk. 

I actually would not be surprised if there were three versions.  The spokesperson's comment just strikes me that way.

Whatever happened, there is no indication that Elder Packer choose with or without input from anyone else to change the talk from the audio to the written.  Any conclusion as to involvement of others (whether he received counsel to change it, he asked someone's opinion and then altered it due to that input, or he came up with the change all on his own when giving final approval for the published written text that Monday because he was simply restoring to the original text or altering it on his own for a second time) is pure speculation, imo.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Calm

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Happy to oblige. Here ya go. 

The original talk along with the redacted changes.

The full talk with correlation committee changes can be found here:  http://mormonsformarriage.com/p299/

The Salt Lake Trib noted the changes: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

Additional references discussing the correction to Packer's conference talk: 

https://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-family-proclamation-scripture/

http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2010/10/proclamation-on-family-is-demoted-from.html

Look, it doesn't matter how many people are eager to agree with your take on things. The reference that was asked for was supposed to show the following:

1. That the spoken version was a verbatim delivery of President Packer's original written version.
2. That the published version was different from the original written version.
3. That the changes were made by, or at the behest of, some "they" other than President Packer himself.

There is no evidentiary support for any of those assertions. As it is, your references are mere argumentum ad populum.

Incidentally, I'm a "Mormon for marriage." Authentic conjugal marriage, that is.

And I'd like to draw your attention to the following sentence:

"It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it."

That is somewhat garbled. The antecedent of the first "it" is the Proclamation, which makes it the subject of the sentence. The verb clause "would do well" has no subject other than that "it," so the sentence as spoken appears to say that the Proclamation is being advised to do something; which of course makes no sense. President Packer knew how to write coherent sentences. This looks like a mid-stream attempt to extemporise. No matter what, it was going to be edited before publication; most likely back to the original written version.

And I daresay that, no matter what form the edits took, someone would want to give them more significance than they had.

 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

Sorry. None of that shows what President Packer anyway had originally written himself. Your first link even proves that as can it credits the woman who listened to the talk and transcribed it. And the official statement even denies "correlation committee changes." You're still going off of pure speculation. Just because a few other people get speculating doesn't make it reality. 

 

Did you read the talk with the redaction?  Did you read the Salt Lake Trib review?  The fact that his talk was changed after it was given and his statement that the proclamation was a revelation was taken out is not dispute.  I'll let you do your own follow up investigation on that.  Just Google "packer talk redacted" and you will have plenty of returns to go through.   The fact that his talk was changed was even discussed on this board in 2012.   I would reference it but I can't seem to get the link to the thread to work properly.

 

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It is okay.  I am not challenging your testimony.  I understand why you continue to punt to faith when facts, logic and reason present a reality that you just can't accept.  This is quite common in religious communities where there is a reluctance to actually test their claims.  

So I guess President Oaks’ testimony holds no weigh, is a lie, and should just be discarded out of hand?

I believe President Oaks’ testimony that the Proclamation is the result of an “inspired” “line upon line” “revelatory process” (President Oaks words) because I know by the Spirit, independent of the testimony of President Oaks, that every word and principle taught in the Proclamation is inspired and true. You don’t believe Elder Oaks. To each his own, and to each his own eternal consequences for whom and what he chooses to believe. This won’t the first time in world history that someone who is strongly influenced by the popular culture of the day confidently rejects the words of a living prophet and it most certainly won’t be the last.

 

[rongo]

I don't think some of you are being fair to sunstoned with the CFR. You are demanding that s/he provide Packer's original text (not what appeared in the Ensign or what he said into the microphone). How is s/he supposed to do that? All that we have to go on is what appeared in the Ensign (or, more quickly, the text that appeared on lds.org) and what he said. The whole point is that he said two striking things, neither of which were a slip of the tongue. I think everyone agrees that the fact that he said "What kind of a father would do that to one of his children?" represents a thought he had at the microphone ---- he wasn't body-snatched and remote-controlled. It was his thought, and a thought that surprises exactly nobody.

And the second thing? "It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation," by its very wording, is deliberate and not an off-the-cuff verbal error. The fact that he said this indicates that the thought he wanted to convey was that the PotF is, "according to the definition" a revelation. I think it's remarkable that this was quickly excised. 

Some of the justifications being offered are also remarkable. Maybe he had two or three versions, he said one, but elected to go with one of the alternates in the written version? He misspoke, and hastened to correct it? 

What I think people are overlooking is the fact that in this case, what was said is thrown overboard in favor of an ostensible pre-written and pre-submitted talk. Under other circumstances, these same people would rejoice and emphasize other things that might be said "off the script" and added to the pre-submitted text as "revelation in the moment." As it is, the people justifying the changes have no objection to what Packer said that was removed, they are simply defending the changes out of hand because they were made. Personally, I think what actually ends up being said is the conference talk itself (because it is what people hear being said), and should be published as the text of the talk. In other words, the pre-submitted talks are helpful for publishing and translating, but the printer and translators should adjust slightly to render what was actually said. It's as if they want to insist, in this instance, that God cannot have added "in the moment" to a pre-submitted talk (although they would be comfortable with this happening in other instances where they don't feel the need to defend changes being made).

Whether one is faithful or skeptical, this particular instance is a rare and fascinating occurrence. It doesn't happen that often with a change of this magnitude. 

[ALarson]

 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think some of you are being fair to sunstoned with the CFR. You are demanding that s/he provide Packer's original text (not what appeared in the Ensign or what he said into the microphone). How is s/he supposed to do that? All that we have to go on is what appeared in the Ensign (or, more quickly, the text that appeared on lds.org) and what he said. The whole point is that he said two striking things, neither of which were a slip of the tongue. I think everyone agrees that the fact that he said "What kind of a father would do that to one of his children?" represents a thought he had at the microphone ---- he wasn't body-snatched and remote-controlled. It was his thought, and a thought that surprises exactly nobody.

And the second thing? "It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation," by its very wording, is deliberate and not an off-the-cuff verbal error. The fact that he said this indicates that the thought he wanted to convey was that the PotF is, "according to the definition" a revelation. I think it's remarkable that this was quickly excised.

I agree.  Especially since at least one of the posters giving him a bad time has dodged or refused to answer CFRs in the past.  sunstoned has supplied pretty close to what was asked for and has supplied the sources available.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Some of the justifications being offered are also remarkable. Maybe he had two or three versions, he said one, but elected to go with one of the alternates in the written version? He misspoke, and hastened to correct it? 

What I think people are overlooking is the fact that in this case, what was said is thrown overboard in favor of an ostensible pre-written and pre-submitted talk. Under other circumstances, these same people would rejoice and emphasize other things that might be said "off the script" and added to the pre-submitted text as "revelation in the moment." As it is, the people justifying the changes have no objection to what Packer said that was removed, they are simply defending the changes out of hand because they were made. Personally, I think what actually ends up being said is the conference talk itself (because it is what people hear being said), and should be published as the text of the talk. In other words, the pre-submitted talks are helpful for publishing and translating, but the printer and translators should adjust slightly to render what was actually said. It's as if they want to insist, in this instance, that God cannot have added "in the moment" to a pre-submitted talk (although they would be comfortable with this happening in other instances where they don't feel the need to defend changes being made).

Whether one is faithful or skeptical, this particular instance is a rare and fascinating occurrence. It doesn't happen that often with a change of this magnitude. 

Well stated.  I'm not sure why some are trying so hard to claim he didn't mean what he said or that he spoke in error.  He made two very specific statements and it was clear they were his own thoughts.  

I wonder how often this happens and then those words are added the printed version of the talk on lds.org and in the Ensign for members to read?  I'll bet that's pretty normal for additions to be made (if an apostle adds to his talk when he gives it), but of course, I don't know this.  Are they submitted before or after conference?

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

Just now, ALarson said:

Well stated.  I'm not sure why some are trying so hard to claim he didn't mean what he said or that he spoke in error.  He made two very specific statements and it was clear they were his own thoughts.  

I wonder how often this happens and that becomes the printed version of the talk on lds.org and in the Ensign?  I'll bet that's pretty normal for additions to be made (if an apostle adds to his talk when he gives it), but of course, I don't know this.  Are they submitted before or after conference?

I don't think changes of this magnitude are very common. Changes would be minor/slight, for the most part. And, given that it is obvious that many GAs simply read it off of the teleprompter, I think it's also likely that there are many talks with zero differences between the spoken and written talk. These aren't the most interesting to listen to, though (although they can be very good when read afterwards). . . 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I agree.  Especially since at least one of the posters giving him a bad time has dodged or refused to answer CFRs in the past.  sunstoned has supplied pretty close to what was asked for and has supplied the sources available.

Well stated.  I'm not sure why some are trying so hard to claim he didn't mean what he said or that he spoke in error.  He made two very specific statements and it was clear they were his own thoughts.  

I wonder how often this happens and then those words are added the printed version of the talk on lds.org and in the Ensign for members to read?  I'll bet that's pretty normal for additions to be made (if an apostle adds to his talk when he gives it), but of course, I don't know this.  Are they submitted before or after conference?

1) Are you aware of any outstanding CFRs on my part?  I don't want to be one of "those people."

2) Just to be clear,  I'm not saying he spoke in error or didn't mean what he said.  I'm challenging the narrative that he wrote a talk, gave it, and then was forced by unspecified powers to change his rogue opinions.  The facts as we know them are that he composed a talk.  He then spoke in general conference.  On Monday, when each speaker is given the opportunity to make changes to the text prior to publishing, President Packer chose to clarify.  Anything beyond that is pure speculation.  

3) Quite a lot.  I heard a talk on the BYU-I station from then-Elder Monson in 1971.   When I looked it up online I could hardly recognize it.  Trying to follow along with the text while listening to the audio was a mess.  This happened a lot.  I remember in the Spring of 2004-maybe Fall of 2003, hearing President Monson talk in Priesthood Session about a soldier who was mocked for praying.  Then some other soldiers took the bully into the showers where he "slipped on a bar of soap."  Try to search for that story in the Ensign?  Nope.  But listen to the recording?  It's still there. 

4) My understanding is that talks are submitted both before (for interpretation and teleprompting) and then edited after conference prior to public release.  I know that the Finnish members who did live interpretation had the talks 1-2 weeks ahead of time to translate.  Of course they still had to be prepared for when the speaker went "off script."  

 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

 

2) Just to be clear,  I'm not saying he spoke in error or didn't mean what he said.  I'm challenging the narrative that he wrote a talk, gave it, and then was forced by unspecified powers to change his rogue opinions.  The facts as we know them are that he composed a talk.  He then spoke in general conference.  On Monday, when each speaker is given the opportunity to make changes to the text prior to publishing, President Packer chose to clarify.  Anything beyond that is pure speculation.  

 

 

As part of the post-conference process, all general conference talks go through correlation.  There may have been a few suggestions made by the correlation committee that President Packer chose to incorporate into the printed version of his talk.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

1) Are you aware of any outstanding CFRs on my part?

No, kllindley....from my experience here with you on this board, you always respond with being civil, fair and with integrity.  

 

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

2) Just to be clear,  I'm not saying he spoke in error or didn't mean what he said.  I'm challenging the narrative that he wrote a talk, gave it, and then was forced by unspecified powers to change his rogue opinions.  The facts as we know them are that he composed a talk.  He then spoke in general conference.  On Monday, when each speaker is given the opportunity to make changes to the text prior to publishing, President Packer chose to clarify.  Anything beyond that is pure speculation.  

3) Quite a lot.  I heard a talk on the BYU-I station from then-Elder Monson in 1971.   When I looked it up online I could hardly recognize it.  Trying to follow along with the text while listening to the audio was a mess.  This happened a lot.  I remember in the Spring of 2004-maybe Fall of 2003, hearing President Monson talk in Priesthood Session about a soldier who was mocked for praying.  Then some other soldiers took the bully into the showers where he "slipped on a bar of soap."  Try to search for that story in the Ensign?  Nope.  But listen to the recording?  It's still there. 

4) My understanding is that talks are submitted both before (for interpretation and teleprompting) and then edited after conference prior to public release.  I know that the Finnish members who did live interpretation had the talks 1-2 weeks ahead of time to translate.  Of course they still had to be prepared for when the speaker went "off script."  

Thanks for the additional information, kllindley (and for answering my question).

I honestly just don't think this is a big deal either way.  Pres. Packer expressed his own thoughts (2 very distinct and specific thoughts, IMO).  Those never made it into the printed version (for whatever reason as all of them given are speculation from what I've seen).  I do think for accuracy, his actual words should have been included....but they weren't.  

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, kllindley....from my experience here with you on this board, you always respond with being civil, fair and with integrity.  

 

Thanks for the additional information, kllindley (and for answering my question).

I honestly just don't think this is a big deal either way.  Pres. Packer expressed his own thoughts (2 very distinct and specific thoughts, IMO).  Those never made it into the printed version (for whatever reason as all of them given are speculation from what I've seen).  I do think for accuracy, his actual words should have been included....but they weren't.  

I think if a footnote was given "audio version", it might have been useful to those this matters to, but what if he felt later that part was not as inspired or not as helpful and wanted to change it for that reason....how to include it without it being used then as a doctrinal reference?

The talks are not presentations before an academic conference or the press.  They are given for the purpose of teaching; including material that one believes is less conducive to learningand would be confusing as to how one should use it, if at all.  It seems counterproductive to me.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Calm