Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

[bsjkki]

Interesting article. I don't have a problem with the church editing talks to ensure doctrinal accuracy. I think that makes sense but I do think it should be noted. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/12/17/lds-conference-sermon/

"In the LDS Church’s case, “either the speaker revised the remarks following delivery for clarity or to correct errors, or the church has altered the published versions for the same reason,” Hawkins says. “The original versions are preserved for historic purposes.”

Such changes are rarely, if ever, noted on the official account, however, an observation the spokesman declined to explain. That can be a problem for members and professional scholars." 

On lds.org the church does edit content and remove content. I think it is wise if past articles, policies or opinions are considered to now be in error, it is better for members researching talks and lessons not to use dated information. But, I think it would be nice to have the items maintained and searchable for researchers and historians. I can't remember which talk it was recently that had a ensign article was referenced and footnoted but the article is not available on lds.org. Other writings by excommunicated members with past articles in the ensign, have been removed. 

"Scouring the official Conference Reports, which began publication in 1897, Geisner discovered 11 speeches that were “either significantly edited before publication or altogether excised from the official published conference report.”

One of the talks discussed was even re-taped. I think this was a mistake...not a fun thing to discover when people are having doubts or issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIr30dtCvo I do believe the church is moving toward greater transparency.

 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting article. I don't have a problem with the church editing talks to ensure doctrinal accuracy. I think that makes sense but I do think it should be noted. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/12/17/lds-conference-sermon/

"In the LDS Church’s case, “either the speaker revised the remarks following delivery for clarity or to correct errors, or the church has altered the published versions for the same reason,” Hawkins says. “The original versions are preserved for historic purposes.”

Such changes are rarely, if ever, noted on the official account, however, an observation the spokesman declined to explain. That can be a problem for members and professional scholars." 

On lds.org the church does edit content and remove content. I think it is wise if past articles, policies or opinions are considered to now be in error, it is better for members researching talks and lessons not to use dated information. But, I think it would be nice to have the items maintained and searchable for researchers and historians. I can't remember which talk it was recently that had a ensign article was referenced and footnoted but the article is not available on lds.org. Other writings by excommunicated members with past articles in the ensign, have been removed. 

"Scouring the official Conference Reports, which began publication in 1897, Geisner discovered 11 speeches that were “either significantly edited before publication or altogether excised from the official published conference report.”

One of the talks discussed was even re-taped. I think this was a mistake...not a fun thing to discover when people are having doubts or issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIr30dtCvo I do believe the church is moving toward greater transparency.

 

Would you have a problem with this if it were a government agency editing history to align with current ideology?  

I have a problem with it because it lacks transparency and in a modern world where things are recorded and everyone has access to the recording it doesn't look good for an institution to try and edit the original messages.  I think the optics of this will increasingly look poor in a world that is so transparent.  The church needs to get with the times and instead of editing messages and trying to control every message, it should make clear that the ideas of any one church leader do not reflect the official doctrine of the church. 

Imagine a church culture where we could have discussions about our disagreements with church leaders, this would go a long way towards a more mature and healthy way of operating in the modern world. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

It's a little strange to make changes considering that the talks are pre-approved through correlation. Or am I wrong about that? It would seem that changes would/should be made prior to giving the conference address. BUT if it's necessary to make a change it would seem appropriate to add a note about the change that was made. Without the note it just seems like they're making a change they hope no one will notice. When you get into instances of re-recording the talk (Poleman) and present it  s if it was the talk actually given in conference, that seems very problematic.

Make changes if necessary but make sure they are noted so people know. Seems easy enough.

[bluebell]

I get why a note about a change would be of interest from a historical or informational perspective, but from a doctrinal perspective, I don't see why it matters.  Keeping talks doctrinally accurate is not a nefarious or secret goal, so should the church be concerned if people notice or not?  

From a doctrinal perspective, does it matter if a talk was given during conference or recorded afterwards?  (sincere question)

[Duncan]

Nobody can change what was said in 1897 or 1946 or 1973, it's noteworthy but all we can do from here in 2018 is what to do about it going forward

critics don't like what is said in conference and then when it's retracted they don't like that either.

[blueglass]

Is the proclamation to the world on the family "a guide" or "a revelation"?  Do we know why the president of the Q12 changed this?  A footnote or reference in the ensign ?  

Edited December 17, 2018 by blueglass

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I get why a note about a change would be of interest from a historical or informational perspective, but from a doctrinal perspective, I don't see why it matters.  Keeping talks doctrinally accurate is not a nefarious or secret goal, so should the church be concerned if people notice or not?  

From a doctrinal perspective, does it matter if a talk was given during conference or recorded afterwards?  (sincere question)

I see you’re close to having as many likes as you have posts, so I’m going to make it a habit to like all your posts going forward since I find your posts sincere and enlightening.  Unless, of course, you say something crazy. 🙂

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I see you’re close to having as many likes as you have posts, so I’m going to make it a habit to like all your posts going forward since I find your posts sincere and enlightening.  Unless, of course, you say something crazy. 🙂

😆

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you have a problem with this if it were a government agency editing history to align with current ideology?  

That is U.S. history, by and large.  Especially today.

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a problem with it because it lacks transparency and in a modern world where things are recorded and everyone has access to the recording it doesn't look good for an institution to try and edit the original messages.  I think the optics of this will increasingly look poor in a world that is so transparent.  The church needs to get with the times and instead of editing messages and trying to control every message, it should make clear that the ideas of any one church leader do not reflect the official doctrine of the church. 

Imagine a church culture where we could have discussions about our disagreements with church leaders, this would go a long way towards a more mature and healthy way of operating in the modern world. 

That seems correct to me, and I see this sort of very healthy discussion going on in Catholicism.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a little strange to make changes considering that the talks are pre-approved through correlation. Or am I wrong about that? It would seem that changes would/should be made prior to giving the conference address. BUT if it's necessary to make a change it would seem appropriate to add a note about the change that was made. Without the note it just seems like they're making a change they hope no one will notice. When you get into instances of re-recording the talk (Poleman) and present it  s if it was the talk actually given in conference, that seems very problematic.

Make changes if necessary but make sure they are noted so people know. Seems easy enough.

When I sang at regional conference I was able to view the talks on a screen that were showing what the teleprompters said. At one point in President Hinckley's talk he went totally off script for some time. Then at some point he picked right back up. So changes could be made beforehand, but I suspect that there are a number of incidences like I saw or where people accidentally say the wrong thing as they read/skim.

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

critics don't like what is said in conference and then when it's retracted they don't like that either.

Critics don't like when what is said is retracted like it was never uttered. Gone. Poof.

[Storm Rider]

Transparency is a farce; it is only desired for everyone else and never for "me". Individuals yap about it really are searching for anything to complain about. After all, to correct a talk for accuracy?!? Whoever would want such a thing? Really, it is just so annoying how this word has become so common. Yes, you need to be transparent, but dang it! I need my privacy, as in complete privacy. 

[hoo rider]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get why a note about a change would be of interest from a historical or informational perspective, but from a doctrinal perspective, I don't see why it matters.  Keeping talks doctrinally accurate is not a nefarious or secret goal, so should the church be concerned if people notice or not?  

From a doctrinal perspective, does it matter if a talk was given during conference or recorded afterwards?  (sincere question)

In my personal opinion, it matters for two reasons:

1) It makes me question the role of revelation, as opposed to the role of correlation.  I was taught and believe in revelation as set forth in D&C 33:8-10, and I believe these verses apply to speakers in general conference.  But when you see someone's mouth being filled (e.g. example above of President Hinckley not following the teleprompter) and then it is changed by an unknown person (we hope the speaker was consulted and approved, but we don't really know), it makes me wonder if church leaders don't really believe in the promises set forth in D&C 33:8-10.

2)  It deprives members of an opportunity to learn what is not doctrine.  Part of understanding our doctrine includes learning what is not our doctrine.  When a change is made and no explanation is given (indeed, the change isn't even noted) then we don't know if it actually was a mistake (i.e. it isn't actually doctrine), or if they just liked a different phrasing better, or why the change was made.  

 

I don't see any benefit to not having the changes in a footnote.  Furthermore, failing to mention the changes (I won't use the word hiding, but some might) leads some to think the church is trying to hide things and it does feed into the culture of the leaders are perfect and never make mistakes.  

My last thought on the issue is it would be nice to be able to trace ownership of a change (meaning we know who did it) rather than it being "the church".  One frustration often expressed online is that people were taught things by "the church", but then have a hard time pinning it down to one specific leader.  My preference would be that nothing is taught by "the church", but rather we have teachings from (and attributable to) specific leaders.  When changes are made after the fact and aren't noted, we don't really know who is making the change and whether the speaker agrees with it.

 

 

[bsjkki]

I can see it causing some confusion. For some, they only listen to conference live. They may remember the phrase Sister Presidents and liked its use. It may stand out in their mind. They then may use the term themselves. 

Then they are corrected in class or another setting. They look up the talk online to find the term gone. Did they mishear? Were they wrong to like the term. Does this mean they should not ever call a sister by the president title? 

Edited December 18, 2018 by bsjkki

[hoo rider]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Transparency is a farce; it is only desired for everyone else and never for "me". Individuals yap about it really are searching for anything to complain about. After all, to correct a talk for accuracy?!? Whoever would want such a thing? Really, it is just so annoying how this word has become so common. Yes, you need to be transparent, but dang it! I need my privacy, as in complete privacy. 

The church invites and encourages every single person in the world to listen to general conference.  There is no privacy at general conference, it is open for everyone to view (maybe not in person, but certainly via video).  I think the complaint is that the church is playing both sides of the fence:  On the one hand general conference is public and for everyone, on the other hand changes to talks given in conference are private and shouldn't be mentioned.

 

My personal life is very different.  I have never invited the world to view my personal life and I have taken measures (i.e. different passwords, pseudonyms) to ensure my privacy.   I think there is a big difference between something that has always been private and something that has always been public; it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to have different expectations about those two scenarios.  

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Critics don't like when what is said is retracted like it was never uttered. Gone. Poof.

but what can they do about it when it happened in 1910? nothing, unless they have some portal or something and can go back in time 🤨☺️ as I say all you can do is go forward

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can see it causing some confusion. For some, they only listen to conference live. They may remember the phrase Sister Presidents and liked it’s use. It may stand out in their mind. They then may use the term themselves. 

Then they are corrected in class or another setting. They look up the talk online to find the term gone. Did they mishear? We’re they wrong to like the term. Does this mean they should not ever call a sister by the president title? 

It might even make someone question their own ability to hear, understand, feel the spirit of what was said. They may believe in what is taught as they listen and repeat it only to see that it was never uttered the way they thought. They may even question their own sanity  

#gaslightingisreal

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, hoo rider said:

In my personal opinion, it matters for two reasons:

1) It makes me question the role of revelation, as opposed to the role of correlation.  I was taught and believe in revelation as set forth in D&C 33:8-10, and I believe these verses apply to speakers in general conference.  But when you see someone's mouth being filled (e.g. example above of President Hinckley not following the teleprompter) and then it is changed by an unknown person (we hope the speaker was consulted and approved, but we don't really know), it makes me wonder if church leaders don't really believe in the promises set forth in D&C 33:8-10.

2)  It deprives members of an opportunity to learn what is not doctrine.  Part of understanding our doctrine includes learning what is not our doctrine.  When a change is made and no explanation is given (indeed, the change isn't even noted) then we don't know if it actually was a mistake (i.e. it isn't actually doctrine), or if they just liked a different phrasing better, or why the change was made.  

 

I don't see any benefit to not having the changes in a footnote.  Furthermore, failing to mention the changes (I won't use the word hiding, but some might) leads some to think the church is trying to hide things and it does feed into the culture of the leaders are perfect and never make mistakes.  

My last thought on the issue is it would be nice to be able to trace ownership of a change (meaning we know who did it) rather than it being "the church".  One frustration often expressed online is that people were taught things by "the church", but then have a hard time pinning it down to one specific leader.  My preference would be that nothing is taught by "the church", but rather we have teachings from (and attributable to) specific leaders.  When changes are made after the fact and aren't noted, we don't really know who is making the change and whether the speaker agrees with it.

 

 

This is good.

If someone teaches something that is wrong, it should be corrected. If Pres. Packer speaks about how God would never make someone gay, and the 1st Pres. feel that is wrong, they should let the church know it was wrong. Why wouldn't they? Serious question. Would they change it without notice to protect the reputation of the person who spoke or do they really hope that the new version (either written or recorded) will be the one that is remembered, therefore the problem is solved?

Or maybe the 1 Pres. doesn't have a problem with what Packer said, yet because of the backlash they make a PR decision to remove it from written form. This seems very likely to me. So which is correct? Was Packer right or not? I have no idea what the church's official position is. Why? Because they changed it without comment.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, hoo rider said:

In my personal opinion, it matters for two reasons:

1) It makes me question the role of revelation, as opposed to the role of correlation.  I was taught and believe in revelation as set forth in D&C 33:8-10, and I believe these verses apply to speakers in general conference.  But when you see someone's mouth being filled (e.g. example above of President Hinckley not following the teleprompter) and then it is changed by an unknown person (we hope the speaker was consulted and approved, but we don't really know), it makes me wonder if church leaders don't really believe in the promises set forth in D&C 33:8-10.

2)  It deprives members of an opportunity to learn what is not doctrine.  Part of understanding our doctrine includes learning what is not our doctrine.  When a change is made and no explanation is given (indeed, the change isn't even noted) then we don't know if it actually was a mistake (i.e. it isn't actually doctrine), or if they just liked a different phrasing better, or why the change was made.  

 

I don't see any benefit to not having the changes in a footnote.  Furthermore, failing to mention the changes (I won't use the word hiding, but some might) leads some to think the church is trying to hide things and it does feed into the culture of the leaders are perfect and never make mistakes.  

My last thought on the issue is it would be nice to be able to trace ownership of a change (meaning we know who did it) rather than it being "the church".  One frustration often expressed online is that people were taught things by "the church", but then have a hard time pinning it down to one specific leader.  My preference would be that nothing is taught by "the church", but rather we have teachings from (and attributable to) specific leaders.  When changes are made after the fact and aren't noted, we don't really know who is making the change and whether the speaker agrees with it.

 

 

Good thoughts.

I don't personally believe that D&C 33: 8-10 means that everything spoken over the pulpit at GC is revelation, but I can definitely understand your perspective.  I do agree with your second point though.  I also think that a note could be important because a lot of people don't read the conference talks after they have watched them so they won't even be aware that anything was changed or that something that was said isn't actually doctrine.  

And I agree that tracing ownership of the change would be nice, though I don't personally believe that any change would happen without it being approved or requested by the First Presidency. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is good.

If someone teaches something that is wrong, it should be corrected. If Pres. Packer speaks about how God would never make someone gay, and the 1st Pres. feel that is wrong, they should let the church know it was wrong. Why wouldn't they? Serious question. Would they change it without notice to protect the reputation of the person who spoke or do they really hope that the new version (either written or recorded) will be the one that is remembered, therefore the problem is solved?

Or maybe the 1 Pres. doesn't have a problem with what Packer said, yet because of the backlash they make a PR decision to remove it from written form. This seems very likely to me. So which is correct? Was Packer right or not? I have no idea what the church's official position is. Why? Because they changed it without comment.

Given the quotes in the article that bsj linked to, I think the bolded is likely.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given the quotes in the article that bsj linked to, I think the bolded is likely.

IF that is their motivation does it seem ethical to you?

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is U.S. history, by and large.  Especially today.

That seems correct to me, and I see this sort of very healthy discussion going on in Catholicism.

Yes, I agree, and am concerned about this kind of thing when governments and large institutions try to wield their powers to revise and control the message.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IF that is their motivation does it seem ethical to you?

Are you asking if it's moral for the prophet to want people to remember the doctrinally correct version and forget that the incorrect version exists?  From my perspective, there is nothing immoral or nefarious about wanting that.  But I probably wouldn't even think of it in terms of ethics either way.  It's a judgement call and I don't think either option (to make a note or to not) is a matter of being ethical or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you asking if it's moral for the prophet to want people to remember the doctrinally correct version and forget that the incorrect version exists?  From my perspective, there is nothing immoral or nefarious about wanting that.  But I probably wouldn't even think of it in terms of ethics either way.  It's a judgement call and I don't think either option (to make a note or to not) is a matter of being ethical or not.

Just making sure I understand you.

You're suggesting that if the spoken word is changed in the written/official record, it doesn't matter ethically if the change is noted or not. Is that correct?

If it is correct, would you apply that same judgement to organizations/institutions that are not the church? For example, if the President of the United States gave the State of the Union address which is watched by millions of people, but then changed some key elements of the address when it was written down and archived in the Library of Congress, but didn't make note of those changes, you wouldn't have any problem with that? Or what if a news station or news paper stated something that was incorrect. Instead of noting the change or printing a retraction they simply ran another story with the correct language and pretended like the incorrect reporting never happened in the first place. Would that be ethical?

Like I've said before, I have no problem with changes being made when changes are needed, but when there are multiple versions (audio, visual, print) versions of the same message, and they differ, it seems like in todays world where all versions are accessible, it is especially needful to note the changes and even explain the correction.

I think it is unethical to make a correction and simply hope people don't remember the original statement, especially when said by someone of substantial authority. POTUS wouldn't get away with it. The CEO at my employer wouldn't get away with it. If a correction is needed, make a correction. Hoping people don't notice the change seems to be the definition of sweeping things under the rug and illustrates a lack of respect of the audience intended to receive the message. I'm sure they are right most of the time and people simply forget the discarded version, but expecting us to forget, or not care, or not question or criticize the changes is an unhealthy way for an organization to function in it's communications.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just making sure I understand you.

You're suggesting that if the spoken word is changed in the written/official record, it doesn't matter ethically if the change is noted or not. Is that correct?

If it is correct, would you apply that same judgement to organizations/institutions that are not the church? For example, if the President of the United States gave the State of the Union address which is watched by millions of people, but then changed some key elements of the address when it was written down and archived in the Library of Congress, but didn't make note of those changes, you wouldn't have any problem with that? Or what if a news station or news paper stated something that was incorrect. Instead of noting the change or printing a retraction they simply ran another story with the correct language and pretended like the incorrect reporting never happened in the first place. Would that be ethical?

Like I've said before, I have no problem with changes being made when changes are needed, but when there are multiple versions (audio, visual, print) versions of the same message, and they differ, it seems like in todays world where all versions are accessible, it is especially needful to note the changes and even explain the correction.

I think it is unethical to make a correction and simply hope people don't remember the original statement, especially when said by someone of substantial authority. POTUS wouldn't get away with it. The CEO at my employer wouldn't get away with it. If a correction is needed, make a correction. Hoping people don't notice the change seems to be the definition of sweeping things under the rug and illustrates a lack of respect of the audience intended to receive the message. I'm sure they are right most of the time and people simply forget the discarded version, but expecting us to forget, or not care, or not question or criticize the changes is an unhealthy way for an organization to function in it's communications.

Very well explained.  Thanks.