An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

I agree.  I think it was wise to not put at least one of his comments in writing ("Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"). 

As far as I know, there was only one statement about why President Packer made the changes (by "spokesman Scott Trotter"): 

Quote

 

Senior Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer has modified his General Conference speech for the LDS Church's online publication to more closely reflect the faith's view that the cause of same-sex attraction is unknown and that the only sin is acting on those desires.

Packer's speech about gay marriage, same-sex attraction, pornography and addiction ignited a firestorm of critiques, conversations and protests, particularly the suggestion that gays could "overcome" their attractions with enough faith.

Perhaps the most controversial paragraph in Packer's text that he read Sunday said, "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father."

Now the word "temptations" has replaced "tendencies" and the question about God's motives has been removed entirely.

Packer, next in line for the LDS Church presidency, changed his wording as part of a routine practice after every General Conference, according to spokesman Scott Trotter, when speakers are given the opportunity to make "any edits necessary."

"President Packer has simply clarified his intent," Trotter said Friday in a statement.

While minor edits may be common, such substantive changes are rare.

 

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=cmsid

 

So, anything else is really just speculation.  We have no idea why Pres. Packer decided to make the changes between what he actually stated and what he wanted put in print (or if he discussed it with anyone or was advised by someone to make the changes) other than knowing he decided to clarify "his intent" and "to more closely reflect the faith's view....".

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I think it was wise to not put at least one of his comments in writing ("Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"). 

As far as I know, there was only one statement about why President Packer made the changes (by "spokesman Scott Trotter"): 

So, anything else is really just speculation.  We have no idea why Pres. Packer decided to make the changes between what he actually stated and what he wanted put in print (or if he discussed it with anyone or was advised by someone to make the changes) other than knowing he decided to clarify "his intent" and "to more closely reflect the faith's view....".

 

My opinion...since Pres. Packer felt the written version was the clearer and closer version, that is the one that should be used to speak about his teachings.  Using his verbal talk version to support the idea the FamProc is revelation would appear to go against how he preferred to refer to it.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Calm

[kiwi57]

15 hours 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.

Unlike what some have said about at least one of the posters, I'm not trying to argue that he hasn't supplied references; clearly he has. The point is that his references don't support his argument.

15 hours ago, 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'm sure they were. But as I clearly demonstrated - and which nobody has even tried to address - the particular change upon which Sunstoned has tried to build his argument, is to a passage that (1) was clearly extemporaneous, and (2) being grammatically confused, would have had to be changed anyway.

15 hours ago, ALarson said:

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?

Interesting question.

[kiwi57]

On 2/2/2018 at 6:36 PM, 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.  

Do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?

Edited February 3, 2018 by kiwi57

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sure they were. But as I clearly demonstrated - and which nobody has even tried to address - the particular change upon which Sunstoned has tried to build his argument, is to a passage that (1) was clearly extemporaneous, and (2) being grammatically confused, would have had to be changed anyway.

How so?  I don't find his original statement to be at all confusing (grammatically or otherwise):

Quote

The First Presidency and 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 scriptural definition as a revelation, a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow."

It's obvious an entire section of the sentence was removed regarding the proclamation qualifying as a revelation.  

We simply do not know why it was Pres. Packer made the change and decided to remove that part.  You are speculating just as much as others who state he was "told" to remove it or that he removed it because he spoke in error.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

My opinion...since Pres. Packer felt the written version was the clearer and closer version, that is the one that should be used to speak about his teachings.  Using his verbal talk version to support the idea the FamProc is revelation would appear to go against how he preferred to refer to it.

I agree.

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?

You do this all the time...  those horrible ex mormons...at it again.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

How so?  I don't find his original statement to be at all confusing (grammatically or otherwise):

It's obvious an entire section of the sentence was removed regarding the proclamation qualifying as a revelation.  

We simply do not know why it was Pres. Packer made the change and decided to remove that part.  You are speculating just as much as others who state he was "told" to remove it or that he removed it because he spoke in error.

 

This is not true. 

Church Public Affairs indicated at the time that it was President Packer’s choice to alter the text for print, exercising a privilege that all the conference speakers have. So those who choose to believe that’s what happened have documentation on their side. Those who choose to believe the contrary must at the same time hold the position that the clarifying statement from Public Affairs was a deliberate lie. Such individuals bear the burden of proof to show that it is. 

Ergo, the cynical supposition that President Packer “was told” what to do is not of equal weight with the good faith acceptance of the Public Affairs clarification. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not true. 

Which part of what I stated "is not true"?

I was stating that saying the change had to be made because of grammatical confusion is speculating just as those who claim President Packer was told to change it or spoke erroneously.

That's the truth.  

As I stated earlier:

Quote

As far as I know, there was only one statement about why President Packer made the changes (by "spokesman Scott Trotter"): 

So, anything else is really just speculation.  We have no idea why Pres. Packer decided to make the changes between what he actually stated and what he wanted put in print (or if he discussed it with anyone or was advised by someone to make the changes) other than knowing he decided to clarify "his intent" and "to more closely reflect the faith's view....".

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70135-an-open-letter-to-the-first-presidency-of-the-lds-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209792916

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Which part of what I stated "is not true"?

 

The part where you said those who choose to believe the Church’s explanation are speculating as much as those who think the Church was lying. The two beliefs are not on equal footing. The one is documented; the other is not. The one position has credibility that the other does not.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The part where you said those who choose to believe the Church’s explanation are speculating as much as those who think the Church was lying.

Where did I state that?

I was responding to kiwi's claim that the sentence would have "had to be changed anyway" for grammatical reasons (that is a speculation):

Quote

being grammatically confused, would have had to be changed anyway.

Where was that a part of the "Church's explanation"?   Did they state this was the reason President Packer made the changes?   If not, then kiwi is speculating just as those who make other claims....that was my point.

(Maybe read through the entire discussion, Scott.  We actually agree here.  We should accept the explanation given and not speculate either way.)

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

This bolded section is not grammatically correct and given that you don't usually find such errors in the printed version of talks, I don't think it is unwarranted to suggest that part would have been edited no matter if changes had been made to the first part of the sentence before "and" or not.  But there is no grammatical error in the first half where revelation is referred to that requires editing.

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

This is an accurate transcription as you can see at :59 here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

What is interesting to me is the SLTrib's quote of the original talk is different, it states " scriptural definition", which means someone made an error in transcription or perhaps SLTrib had access to the original written talk that would have been given to interpreters and maybe press people who were going to write about...I vaguely remember hearing this was the procedure.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=cmsid

"qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation"

Edited February 3, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This bolded section is not grammatically correct and given that you don't usually find such errors in the printed version of talks, I don't think it is unwarranted to suggest that part would have been edited no matter if changes had been made to the first part of the sentence before "and" or not.  But there is no grammatical error in the first half where revelation is referred to that requires editing.

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

This is an accurate transcription as you can see at :59 here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

What is interesting to me is the SLTrib's quote of the original talk is different, it states " scriptural definition", which means someone made an error in transcription or perhaps SLTrib had access to the original written talk that would have been given to interpreters and maybe press people who were going to write about...I vaguely remember hearing this was the procedure.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=cmsid

"qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation"

True, the statement could have been left it at....

Quote

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

....rather than deleting the part about it being a revelation "according to scriptural definition", and the sentence would have been grammatically correct.

But instead, it was edited to read:  

Quote

"It is a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow."

As far as I know, President Packer never explained why he chose to do that (along with the other edits from the same talk).  There was one reason given by church spokesman, Scott Trotter ("President Packer has simply clarified his intent,").  Any other reasons people come up with are speculations or guesses.  

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You do this all the time...  those horrible ex mormons...at it again.

I am unable to recall a single instance where I have told someone that I understood why they had an emotional need to take a particular position. Chances are, if I did that "all the time," I'd be able to remember doing so at least once.

In any event, please discuss the topic, not the person.

Edited February 4, 2018 by kiwi57

[Bobbieaware]

22 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You do this all the time...  those horrible ex mormons...at it again.

The arrogance and disrespect was shown when after I was able to prove that in his last General Conference address President Oaks testified that the Proclamation was inspired of God and the end-product of a carefully carried-out “revelatory process,” Sunstoned couldn’t resist getting personal by throwing personal insults instead of just saying he didn’t believe President Oaks and leaving it at that. Sunstoned couldn’t resist going ad hominem when he basically accused me of being a naive and gullible fool for believing President Oaks was telling the truth. But Sunstoned doesn’t have to worry much about getting thread banned because it’s usually only the defenders of the Church who get discipline for going personal..I guess the critics of the Church are viewed as the ‘underdogs,’ so they get extra slack. 

If In the future. If I ever feel like accusing you of being a naive and gullible fool that you’ll take it in a good natured way and not report me to the moderators. 😉

Edited February 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Duplicate

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The arrogance and disrespect was shown when after I was able to prove that in his last General Conference address President Oaks testified that the Proclamation was inspired of God and the end-product of a carefully carried-out “revelatory process,” Sunstoned couldn’t resist getting personal by throwing personal insults instead of just saying he didn’t believe President Oaks and leaving it at that. Sunstoned couldn’t resist going ad hominem when he basically accused me of being a naive and gullible fool for believing President Oaks was telling the truth. But Sunstoned doesn’t have to worry much about getting thread banned because it’s usually only the defenders of the Church who get discipline for going personal..I guess the critics of the Church are viewed as the ‘underdogs,’ so they get extra slack. 

If In the future. If I ever feel like accusing you of being a naive and gullible fool that you’ll take it in a good natured way and not report me to the moderators. 😉

Virtual up vote.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 But Sunstoned doesn’t have to worry much about getting thread banned because it’s usually only the defenders of the Church who get discipline for going personal..I guess the critics of the Church are viewed as the ‘underdogs,’ so they get extra slack. 

Gaps in your memory apparently, are you forgetting posters like Johnnycake?

Have you reported the offense?

Edited February 4, 2018 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Gaps in your memory apparently, are you forgetting posters like Johnnycake?

Have you reported the offense?

To be honest, I do seem to remember some hostile critics “dropping off” from the board a while ago. As to my comment about thread bannings, I also have to admit I don’t know enough about what’s been going on behind the scenes recently to know if there’s any validity to my suspicion about the Church defenders being held to a higher standard of board participation conduct than the critics.

For all I know, if the moderators do treat critics with more leniency it may be because they view the Church defenders as already being well within the fold of the Church they don’t want to  alienate those whom they view as being halfway out of the fold. In other words, they may very well be much wiser than what it appears with only a limited amount of information. And if TBM members of the Church profess to be true followers of Christ, why shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard of conduct than those who are out or only halfway in the Church.

As far as the reporting of perceived posting offenses is concerned, I don’t believe I’ve reported on anyone even single time in the last five years. And there certainly was no reason to report Sunstoned because, as far as I’m concerned, he “threw the game” and lost the debate when he couldn’t resist going ad hominem. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[kiwi57]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

To be honest, I do seem to remember some hostile critics “dropping off” from the board a while ago. As to my comment about thread bannings, I also have to admit I don’t know enough about what’s been going on behind the scenes recently to know if there’s any validity to my suspicion about the Church defenders being held to a higher standard of board participation conduct than the critics.

For all I know, if the moderators do treat critics with more leniency it may be because they view the Church defenders as already being well within the fold of the Church they don’t want to  alienate those whom they view as being halfway out of the fold. In other words, they may very well be much wiser than what it appears with only a limited amount of information. And if TBM members of the Church profess to be true followers of Christ, why shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard of conduct to those who are out or only halfway in the Church.

As far as the reporting of perceived posting offenses is concerned, I don’t believe I’ve reported on anyone even single time in the last five years. And there certainly was no reason to report Sunstoned because, as far as I’m concerned, he “threw the game” and lost the debate when he couldn’t resist going ad hominem. 

Here's the thing: as a sports referee, if a team captain asks me to explain a ruling, I will always tell him (or her) what it was about. I don't just assume that they must know what the player did wrong. When mods take action and don't bother citing the naughty words or the rule that was broken, it lends credence to the suspicion that they are using moderation as a form of content censorship.

I was recently thread banned from a thread, and I didn't bother asking why, because I knew I was taking a risk when I dared to disagree with a certain high profile poster. In the "unwritten order of things" in this forum, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are some who can be as unkind, unfair and even outright spiteful as they like, and it's anyone who challenges them who will be booted for being "nasty."

[Bobbieaware]

31 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Here's the thing: as a sports referee, if a team captain asks me to explain a ruling, I will always tell him (or her) what it was about. I don't just assume that they must know what the player did wrong. When mods take action and don't bother citing the naughty words or the rule that was broken, it lends credence to the suspicion that they are using moderation as a form of content censorship.

I was recently thread banned from a thread, and I didn't bother asking why, because I knew I was taking a risk when I dared to disagree with a certain high profile poster. In the "unwritten order of things" in this forum, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are some who can be as unkind, unfair and even outright spiteful as they like, and it's anyone who challenges them who will be booted for being "nasty."

Because I want to be fair and don’t want to acquire the reputation of being one who jumps to conclusions, I’m trying to keep an open mind when it comes to what’s motivating the thread bannings on this board. But I must admit that if my life depended on guessing right between two possibilities, one possibility being that the moderators tend to be biased in favor of the progressives and the other that they tend to be biased in favor of the TBM Church defenders, my guess would be that they tend to be more sympathetic toward the progressives. But I don’t know for sure. At any rate, I believe the more we Church defenders can compose posts that are purely informational and utterly devoid of emotion the better the chance we’ll have of not getting thread banned or outright expelled.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Because I want to be fair and don’t want to acquire the reputation of being one who jumps to conclusions, I’m trying to keep an open mind when it comes to what’s motivating the thread bannings on this board. But I must admit that if my life depended on guessing right between two possibilities, one possibility being that the moderators tend to be biased in favor of the progressives and the other that they tend to be biased in favor of the TBM Church defenders, my guess would be that they tend to be more sympathetic toward the progressives. But I don’t know for sure. At any rate, I believe the more we Church defenders can compose posts that are purely informational and utterly devoid of emotion the better the chance we’ll have of not getting thread banned or outright expelled.

 

It doesn't seem that difficult to treat other posters with dignity and respect.  We all slip occasionally.  But that doesn't mean we should point fingers at others with the excuse that we are not as bad as so and so.  

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by california boy

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

It doesn't seem that difficult to treat other posters with dignity and respect.  We all slip occasionally.  But that doesn't mean we should point fingers at others with the excuse that we are not as bad as so and so.  

 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

To be honest, I do seem to remember some hostile critics “dropping off” from the board a while ago. As to my comment about thread bannings, I also have to admit I don’t know enough about what’s been going on behind the scenes recently to know if there’s any validity to my suspicion about the Church defenders being held to a higher standard of board participation conduct than the critics.

For all I know, if the moderators do treat critics with more leniency it may be because they view the Church defenders as already being well within the fold of the Church they don’t want to  alienate those whom they view as being halfway out of the fold. In other words, they may very well be much wiser than what it appears with only a limited amount of information. And if TBM members of the Church profess to be true followers of Christ, why shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard of conduct than those who are out or only halfway in the Church.

As far as the reporting of perceived posting offenses is concerned, I don’t believe I’ve reported on anyone even single time in the last five years. And there certainly was no reason to report Sunstoned because, as far as I’m concerned, he “threw the game” and lost the debate when he couldn’t resist going ad hominem. 

Then why are you accusing moderators of something you are not sure is even valid?

If posters don't report someone and then complain about that person not being disciplined, I just don't get it.  It is like some posters who complain about the Church hiding information when they never learned about it because they never went looking for anything.

Offense when expectations that the right stuff will happen while refusing to contribute by doing one's part are unmet is just wrong, imo.

We are all getting this service for free. Very few posters have the time to read all the threads and those who make good moderators are likely those who don't care to go over the same stuff again and again because they are able to keep some emotional distance to most topics, so I suspect by this time after a decade or more of moderating, they don't read much.  I stopped being a moderator on another board because reading threads for fun became impossible.  So no one should assume moderators who do this tasteless, boring, tiresome work for free for years are reading any of the posts they find horrible if it doesn't get reported.

Moderators ask that people contribute to a positive atmosphere with self-control AND reporting others rather than pushing buttons in the threads...which includes in my opinion complaining about how poorly treated by moderators are those who share one's opinions or oneself.  Pushing victimhood by the Church, moderators, or other posters just doesn't make one look credible and the humor if there ever was any is now completely dried up, imo...what it comes across as is more childish.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Calm

[kiwi57]

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

True, the statement could have been left it at....

....rather than deleting the part about it being a revelation "according to scriptural definition", and the sentence would have been grammatically correct.

But instead, it was edited to read:  

As far as I know, President Packer never explained why he chose to do that (along with the other edits from the same talk).  There was one reason given by church spokesman, Scott Trotter ("President Packer has simply clarified his intent,").  Any other reasons people come up with are speculations or guesses.  

 

As far as I know, such edits happen to several if not many talks every conference, and nobody ever explains why. Most of the time, such edits don't get eagerly pounced upon and milked to support some assumption about someone being "corrected."

The published version is the one we use.  I agree that the reasons that have been proffered - from all sides - are purely speculative.

And for that reason, the changes to President Packer's talk don't have any probative value.

And the Proclamation is still a revelatory document that spells out normative LDS doctrine.