Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It could be.  But JS is unique, even in mormondom.  

Every prophet has been unique, some more that others. It could easily be argued that Brigham Young has had a greater impact on what the church is today than JS, especially in terms of apostolic quorum make up and pure membership numbers. John Taylor's, Wilford Woodruff's and Lorenzo Snow's struggles to maintain polygamy in the face of national governmental sponsored persecution were unique as were Joseph F. Smith efforts to distance the church from that same issue. Woodruff's  obtained statehood for Utah and Joseph F Smith dealt with the Smoot hearings. Heber Grant led the church through the depression and desperate financial times and David O McKay brought the church into the age of electronic media and struggled with the priesthood ban, Spencer Kimball overturned the ban and so on right up to President Monson's legacy, especially as it related to GLBT issues. 

 

So if it is important to see what Joseph Smith was thinking and doing during his presidency, so it is also important to understand fully what others after him went through because each one of them were responsible in some way for what shape the Church is today.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by CA Steve

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that there is no guarantee everyone will keep a good journal. I don't.

But Prince shows how a culture is being created that discourages honest/candid journaling by leaders. That particular policy discourages journaling, making it even less likely to get anything useful from journals and therefore understand the context of the individuals in history.

I just wonder what his evidence that it's actually happening? as I say we aren't entitled to people's journals, and it's funny Greg Prince talks about this considering he used Clare Middlemiss' personal journals to write about Pres. McKay. Stuff like this is out there you just have to look for it! Granted it's not easy or cheap. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is a big assumption in the above that the effort and concern put into studying the differences if they were easily made available is an effective use of a person's time if they are intent on using that time to grow in understanding of what God would have them do.

Your argument would assume that since there isn't always value in parsing the words of the prophets, it shouldn't be done. Of course, not every change will be meaningful or controversial, or even important. But just because NOT ALL will be important we shouldn't assume that NONE will be important and therefore fail to note the corrections. People can read and decide for themselves. How many times do we read and parse the scriptures? We do it constantly, looking for new insights. Suggesting that we shouldn't parse the changes between our leader's verbal and written words sounds like a position based in fear. If we are feasting upon the word as given through prophets and apostles, it should be expected that we will closely examine what they say, don't say, and change. We already do this all the time, comparing one Uchtdorf talk to another Uchtdorf talk, finding both consistencies and inconsistencies in message and tone. We either want people to be fully engaged, studying, thinking...or we don't. Fear that some people may come to less faithful conclusions shouldn't prevent the church or its leaders from providing accurate accounts of what they say and write.

If a change needs to be made, make the change, but note it. Let people see the difference. Let them study out the changes and come to conclusions about why it was done. If the church wants to help shape those conclusions they can, by putting it in the note.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Duncan said:

I just wonder what his evidence that it's actually happening? as I say we aren't entitled to people's journals, and it's funny Greg Prince talks about this considering he used Clare Middlemiss' personal journals to write about Pres. McKay. Stuff like this is out there you just have to look for it! Granted it's not easy or cheap. 

But this is the point, it's out there less and less because the church has essentially discouraged its leaders from writing honest/candid journals. The journals of McKay and Middlemiss were from a different era without the journal policy. What will future historians be able to learn about Hinkley, Monson, etc? It may be getting harder to truly learn about them outside of their public persona.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Every prophet has been unique, some more that others. It could easily be argued that Brigham Young has had a greater impact on what the church is today than JS, especially in terms of apostolic quorum make up and pure membership numbers. John Taylor's, Wilford Woodruff's and Lorenzo Snow's struggles to maintain polygamy in the face of national governmental sponsored persecution were unique as were Joseph F. Smith efforts to distance the church from that same issue. Woodruff's  obtained statehood for Utah and Joseph F Smith dealt with the Smoot hearings. Heber Grant led the church through the depression and desperate financial times and David O McKay brought the church into the age of electronic media and struggled with the priesthood ban, Spencer Kimball overturned the ban and so on right up to President Monson's legacy, especially as it related to GLBT issues. 

 

So if it is important to see what Joseph Smith was thinking and doing during his presidency, so it is also important to understand fully what others after him went through because each one of them were responsible in some way for what shape the Church is today.

 

What I meant is that JS is the head of a dispensation.  That is how he differs from all the other prophets of this dispensation (and most of the other prophets that have existed).

Quote

 

A Dispensation Head

The Apostle Paul explained that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32). There is an order, a hierarchy, even among those called as oracles and mouthpieces of the Almighty.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie observed: “You start out with the Lord Jesus, and then you have Adam and Noah. Thereafter come the dispensation heads. Then you step down, appreciably, and come to prophets and apostles, to the elders of Israel, and to wise and good and sagacious men who have the spirit of light and understanding” (“This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” in Hearken O Ye People: Discourses on the Doctrine and Covenants, Sperry Symposium 1984, Sandy, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1984, p. 4).

Joseph Smith, like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, stands as a dispensation head. The dispensation head becomes the means by which the knowledge and power of God are channeled to men and women on earth. He becomes the means by which the gospel of Jesus Christ—the plan of salvation and exaltation—is revealed anew, the means by which divine transforming powers, including saving covenants and ordinances, are extended to people during an age of time called a dispensation. The dispensation head stands as the preeminent prophetic witness of Christ; he knows firsthand because of what he has seen and heard and felt and experienced. Because of his central place in the plan, because it is by means of the power of his testimony that men and women come to know the Lord and bask in the light of the Spirit, the calling and position of the dispensation head thus becomes something to which his followers bear witness.

Elder McConkie thus pointed out: “Every prophet is a witness of Christ; every dispensation head is a revealer of Christ for his day; and every other prophet or apostle who comes is a reflection and an echo and an exponent of the dispensation head. All such come to echo to the world and to expound and unfold what God has revealed through the man who was appointed for that era to give his eternal word to the world” (“This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” pp. 4–5).

 

 

[rockpond]

21 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)

To understand the controversy with Elder Poelman's talk, you really have to read/listen to the original, compare it to the rewritten/re-recorded version and then ask yourself why the first one needed to be edited so significantly to change the message of the talk.

In President Packer's 2010 address, he spoke a couple lines that are inconsistent with the Church's position on homosexuality at the time.  So it makes sense why those lines would be changed.  With Elder Poelman, it was the entire address that was changed.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I absolutely think it could matter for church members in determining whether or not they should follow what he says.

For example, IF (hypothetical) his personal journals showed him to be a raging racist who underwent a personal spiritual transformation on the issue, and/or showed a revelatory moment, it might help people appreciate the race/priesthood change, more than if his journals showed his growing concern about how the church is being perceived in the world, or threats to its finances or challenges to BYU accreditation etc. IOW- if his personal journals showed the change was based on personal spiritual experiences it would be more accepted than if they showed the decision was more politically/PR based. Why did it take until 1978 to make the change? We don't really know, but journals could help shed light on that. What was Pres. Monson's procedure in creating the "policy"? Was he mentally stable or even coherent at the time? Was he even able to write or dictate a journal? Who was influencing him? What did that process look like? Is there evidence of revelation like Pres. Nelson says? If there is, I think it would help many people feel better about it, even if they still disagreed.

In other words, context matters...a lot.

I agree context matters, but at the end of the day, our testimony of the church and the restoration has to come through the Spirit.  Knowing those answers you ask above can definitely make it easier for some people to believe, but plenty of people believe (and have believed, and will believe) without them.  We don't need journals to know if someone is a prophet of God.   They can help, but they can also hinder.

Though finding answers can help some, it can lead others away.  Just because someone has information to help them determine whether or not they should follow what a prophet says, it doesn't mean they will always come to the correct conclusion.  People are known to struggle a lot with understanding historical documents.  Just because someone has access to the information doesn't mean they are going to understand it correctly.  What makes one person feel better is just as likely to cause another one to feel worse.  

Historical documents can be a double edged sword.  Sometimes (often!) they create more questions than they answer.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To understand the controversy with Elder Poelman's talk, you really have to read/listen to the original, compare it to the rewritten/re-recorded version and then ask yourself why the first one needed to be edited so significantly to change the message of the talk.

In President Packer's 2010 address, he spoke a couple lines that are inconsistent with the Church's position on homosexuality at the time.  So it makes sense why those lines would be changed.  With Elder Poelman, it was the entire address that was changed.

All I know about Poelman's talk is what it says about it in the linked article-

In 1984, general authority Ronald E. Poelman’s conference address came under fire when he tried to make a distinction between the Latter-day Saint “gospel” and the “church.” After some higher-ups objected to the speech, Poelman, who died in 2011, revised it and retaped it.

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

All I know about Poelman's talk is what it says about it in the linked article-

In 1984, general authority Ronald E. Poelman’s conference address came under fire when he tried to make a distinction between the Latter-day Saint “gospel” and the “church.” After some higher-ups objected to the speech, Poelman, who died in 2011, revised it and retaped it.

 

Yep.  You might enjoy reading both.  Neither is necessarily a "bad" talk.  But the apparent need of someone or some group to try to erase the original is interesting and that contrast is still relevant to some of the struggles within the church today, IMO.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree context matters, but at the end of the day, our testimony of the church and the restoration has to come through the Spirit.  Knowing those answers you ask above can definitely make it easier for some people to believe, but plenty of people believe (and have believed, and will believe) without them.  We don't need journals to know if someone is a prophet of God.   They can help, but they can also hinder.

Though finding answers can help some, it can lead others away.  Just because someone has information to help them determine whether or not they should follow what a prophet says, it doesn't mean they will always come to the correct conclusion.  People are known to struggle a lot with understanding historical documents.  Just because someone has access to the information doesn't mean they are going to understand it correctly.  What makes one person feel better is just as likely to cause another one to feel worse.  

Historical documents can be a double edged sword.  Sometimes (often!) they create more questions than they answer.

I agree that openness and transparency can be a double edged sword. It definitely is, but IMO the alternative is worse. With openness and transparency people at least are afforded agency in deciding. Some will decide in a way that pleases the church, some won't. But they have the information available so they can choose. When information is withheld people don't have full access to agency. You can't choose between 2 things if you only know about 1 of them.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This seems to be a variation of the old desire/expectation that everything in the church should be faith promoting.

I disagree.  

I don't think a chemistry or history textbook or other textbooks for high school need to note all the changes to the texts from previous editions or even older textbooks, whether changes were for adding more up to date info or correcting typos/misstatements.  That does not fulfill their purpose.  But that is also just a small part of the school experience and there may be other aspects where other approaches are more effective in order for those aspects to fulfill their purpose better.  Editing one aspect that is primarily for the purpose of teaching specific principles does not require all teaching follow that same process.  For example, even though my chem textbook pretty much skipped development and missteps, when we performed chemistry experiments meant to teach us those principles in a hands on way, we were required to document everything in detail, including any errors of calculation or application.

Teaching by example (leaders being involved in the same activities kids are) can be full of youth having a chance to see leaders make mistakes and hopefully correct them, but often not so youth can learn what happens when mistakes aren't recognized or treated seriously.

Other areas may benefit from having more info on how something developed.  I believe, for example, policy would likely be helped by keeping track of original form and changes over the years, not for personal study, but so that it is easier for leaders and others to recognize when their own behaviour continues an older practice rather than following a newer one (the tradition of having a Priesthood holder give either the opening or closing prayer in SM, for example, that has hung around for years, might have been discontinued more effectively if details of the change were published.  Otoh, I know of leaders who won't even take the time to study a highly edited, final product only Handbook....the willingness to read a text needs to be taken into account by those who are trying to teach it, they need to find the best balance to help the most, to maximize the effectiveness of whatever aspect of the Churchbthey are dealing with.

Conference and devotional talks are not all that the Church is or does.  Each aspect of the Church should be examined as how best to achieve its purpose.  Talks that end up as texts intended to be available for study need to be treated so as to be the best vehicle for teaching gospel principles/doctrine.  I don't believe that is helped in general by overcomplicating the text  by including variations that were judged ultimately unproductive .  Otoh, other aspects of church operation are benefited when treated as a process and not just the final product...such as teaching church history to inform people about its history (as opposed to using moments in history to teach gospel principles), keeping detailed info on past policies and history around them so that we can learn from the past, avoid its mistakes, etc.  I think the Church could in general improve in many areas, but I think we will run into big trouble if assuming a one size fits all applies, whether as critics assuming the Church treats everything the same or members assuming we only need one approach.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that openness and transparency can be a double edged sword. It definitely is, but IMO the alternative is worse. With openness and transparency people at least are afforded agency in deciding. Some will decide in a way that pleases the church, some won't. But they have the information available so they can choose. When information is withheld people don't have full access to agency. You can't choose between 2 things if you only know about 1 of them.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about pleasing the church.  I'm talking about pleasing God.

But I disagree that withholding any information means that we don't have agency.  God withholds a TON of information from us, all the time.  Information that a lot of people would argue would make it easier to choose correctly and make better choices.  Do you believe that that means you don't have agency?

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree context matters, but at the end of the day, our testimony of the church and the restoration has to come through the Spirit.  Knowing those answers you ask above can definitely make it easier for some people to believe, but plenty of people believe (and have believed, and will believe) without them.  We don't need journals to know if someone is a prophet of God.   They can help, but they can also hinder.

Though finding answers can help some, it can lead others away.  Just because someone has information to help them determine whether or not they should follow what a prophet says, it doesn't mean they will always come to the correct conclusion.  People are known to struggle a lot with understanding historical documents.  Just because someone has access to the information doesn't mean they are going to understand it correctly.  What makes one person feel better is just as likely to cause another one to feel worse.  

Historical documents can be a double edged sword.  Sometimes (often!) they create more questions than they answer.

I think we need to worry more about what members will do if/when they find out they have been shielded from negative information than we do about the information itself.

The Joseph Smith Papers project if full of historical information that can raise a lot of questions but it is the kind of information that we need to expose members to and it is a lot easier for that exposure to come from a church source rather than Reddit or a critical blog or website. If history is any indication, attempting to withhold information in order to protect members will not turn out well for the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  You might enjoy reading both.  Neither is necessarily a "bad" talk.  But the apparent need of someone or some group to try to erase the original is interesting and that contrast is still relevant to some of the struggles within the church today, IMO.

Yes, that example is one of the most egregious I can recall. Like you say, Talk A and Talk B were both fine. Neither was controversial IMO. What was unusual was the process of the change. Actually having him record a different talk (which essentially gave the opposite message) was strange. He stood at the same podium, the scenery looked the same ( I think he may have even been wearing the same suit and tie), but during the talk someone actually dubbed in coughing sounds to make it seem like it was being recorded as a part of conference, instead of alone in the tabernacle days later. Really weird.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  You might enjoy reading both.  Neither is necessarily a "bad" talk.  But the apparent need of someone or some group to try to erase the original is interesting and that contrast is still relevant to some of the struggles within the church today, IMO.

In this fallen world, there is nothing that will erase struggles within the church.  If it's not this it will be something else.   

But I don't think anyone was trying to erase anything.  From what I've been reading, there was nothing wrong with the original talk, but when Elder Poelman was made aware that some members were using it as proof that it was o.k. to not listen to the church leaders and practice polygamy, he voluntarily wanted to edit it and re-record it so that his meaning was clear.

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think we need to worry more about what members will do if/when they find out they have been shielded from negative information than we do about the information itself.

The Joseph Smith Papers project if full of historical information that can raise a lot of questions but it is the kind of information that we need to expose members to and it is a lot easier for that exposure to come from a church source rather than Reddit or a critical blog or website. If history is any indication, attempting to withhold information in order to protect members will not turn out well for the church.

I agree that information should not be withheld to protect members. I was just commenting on the implication that more information equals more accurate conclusions.  

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about pleasing the church.  I'm talking about pleasing God.

But I disagree that withholding any information means that we don't have agency.  God withholds a TON of information from us, all the time.  Information that a lot of people would argue would make it easier to choose correctly and make better choices.  Do you believe that that means you don't have agency?

How do you know God is withholding information from you? Maybe He just wants you to look for it harder? Plus limiting what we know is not so much a question of limiting our free agency as it is a question of limiting our responsibility.  If we have a choice between 'A' , 'B' or 'C' we can be held responsible for which one we choose, if only A  or B are available we are not responsible for not choosing C

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But this is the point, it's out there less and less because the church has essentially discouraged its leaders from writing honest/candid journals. The journals of McKay and Middlemiss were from a different era without the journal policy. What will future historians be able to learn about Hinkley, Monson, etc? It may be getting harder to truly learn about them outside of their public persona.

that's what i'm saying, we can't change the past but all we can do is move forward and hope that Sheri Dew writes a Vol 2. about Pres. Hinckley's life!!!!!!!!!!! There is a President Monson autobiography, but it's not cheap and rare to find but maybe one day someone else will write another bio on him?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 But the apparent need of someone or some group to try to erase the original is interesting and that contrast is still relevant to some of the struggles within the church today, IMO.

 But that isn't the purpose of the talk in the first place or the Church continuing to publish Elder Poelman's talk.  Unless it fulfills another purpose of the Church, I don't see it as appropriate to require the Church to invest resources into making that info easily available, especially if that then distracts from its actual missions and then requires more resources to help members refocus.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about pleasing the church.  I'm talking about pleasing God.

But I disagree that withholding any information means that we don't have agency.  God withholds a TON of information from us, all the time.  Information that a lot of people would argue would make it easier to choose correctly and make better choices.  Do you believe that that means you don't have agency?

It means agency is limited. Every choice we make is limited by the information we have.  If I am only aware of option A, B, & C, I don't have agency to choose Options XR. That doesn't mean that there is some nefarious reason for preventing me from choosing XR, it just isn't an option so I don't have the agency to choose it. Agency isn't all or nothing. There are degrees of agency based on our personal knowledge. I may have significant agency in one area because I have been highly educated in that area, whereas I may have less agency in another area where I'm less educated. Sure, I still get to make the choice between option A,B or C but there are clear limitations. Sometimes those limitations may be self-imposed or maybe they are imposed on us by others. Especially if they are imposed by others, we should be willing and able to ask why the limitations exist and then challenge the limit once we become aware of it.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In this fallen world, there is nothing that will erase struggles within the church.  If it's not this it will be something else.   

But I don't think anyone was trying to erase anything.  From what I've been reading, there was nothing wrong with the original talk, but when Elder Poelman was made aware that some members were using it as proof that it was o.k. to not listen to the church leaders and practice polygamy, he voluntarily wanted to edit it and re-record it so that his meaning was clear.

 

I don't know about the issue with members and polygamy.  But the change made to the talk didn't clarify Elder Poelman's meaning, it changed it entirely.  Maybe he wanted to change it, maybe he didn't.  I don't know.

But it is a fact that someone (whether that was Poelman himself or other church leaders) wanted to erase the original talk.  They re-recorded it, dubbed the new version into the existing recordings of conference, and only published the re-written version.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 But that isn't the purpose of the talk in the first place or the Church continuing to publish Elder Poelman's talk.  Unless it fulfills another purpose of the Church, I don't see it as appropriate to require the Church to invest resources into making that info easily available, especially if that then distracts from its actual missions and then requires more resources to help members refocus.

I'm not sure if I understand this response, @Calm

I'm not saying that the Church should invest resources into making the original available.  While I think that they never should have invested resources into removing/replacing it, I think that now it is interesting to compare the two addresses and consider why someone felt that they original needed to not be a part of our doctrinal history.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know about the issue with members and polygamy.  But the change made to the talk didn't clarify Elder Poelman's meaning, it changed it entirely.  Maybe he wanted to change it, maybe he didn't.  I don't know.

But it is a fact that someone (whether that was Poelman himself or other church leaders) wanted to erase the original talk.  They re-recorded it, dubbed the new version into the existing recordings of conference, and only published the re-written version.

as we all know this isn't new information about Elder Poelman's talk but the fact that we even know about it shows something on the part of the Church, if we didn't then we would never what "really" happened". To know that it was re-recorded you have to have talk A and talk B and the fact that talk A exists show that the Church wasn't hiding it

[rockpond]

Just now, Duncan said:

as we all know this isn't new information about Elder Poelman's talk but the fact that we even know about it shows something on the part of the Church, if we didn't then we would never what "really" happened". To know that it was re-recorded you have to have talk A and talk B and the fact that talk A exists show that the Church wasn't hiding it

That's an incorrect conclusion.  That someone kept a copy and it later was made public (via the internet) doesn't mean that the institution wasn't hiding it.  The talk was given in general conference.  I believe that the recording we have of it came from someone's personal VCR recording of conference.  The Church did not ever publish the talk and went to great lengths to create a new video version of the talk recorded in a manner that would lead people to believe they were watching the original.  I am not aware of any admission at the time that Poelman's address was re-written and re-recorded.  They (referring to some level of leadership within the Church) hid the original.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know about the issue with members and polygamy.  But the change made to the talk didn't clarify Elder Poelman's meaning, it changed it entirely.  Maybe he wanted to change it, maybe he didn't.  I don't know.

But it is a fact that someone (whether that was Poelman himself or other church leaders) wanted to erase the original talk.  They re-recorded it, dubbed the new version into the existing recordings of conference, and only published the re-written version.

Yes, they did do all of that.  

They decided that re-recording the updated version without any background noise would make it obviously different than the talks that proceeded and followed it, so the decision was made (right or wrong) to try to make it blend in as much as possible so that the message would stand out and not the delivery.  

I know people love a good conspiracy theory but I really don't get what the big deal is.  Elder Poelman decided to edit his talk (Fair Mormon states that according to those who witnessed this whole thing go down, it was all Elder Poelman).  Elder Poelman re-recorded it so that his preferred version would be the one available for home use.  The facts are incredibly boring.