Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

So you believe that God is limiting your agency because He is purposefully keeping a lot of relevant information from you?

I don't believe that's how agency works.  I don't think that limiting information limits agency at all, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.   

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

and this somebody is? Just out of curiousity sake! They couldn't have gone to great lengths if you can watch the original on youtube, I don't recall anyone saying you shouldn't watch the original

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

Because I've asked questions and He hasn't given me the answers even though it is completely within His power to do so.  That's how I know that He is withholding information  Even if He does want me to look harder for it, that's still an aspect of His decision to withhold information so that I would look harder for it.   

But I agree that withholding information does limit our responsibility.  God plainly says that that's one reason He does withhold information sometimes.  But I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion.  

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Is not using the original the same as hiding it?   You make it sound like they dug a hole, put the original in there, covered it with cement and then planted a tree on top of it.  

Edited December 18, 2018 by bluebell

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Have you read or listened to both talks in their entirety?

 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is not using the original the same as hiding it?   You make it sound like they dug a hole, put the original in there, covered it with cement and then planted a tree on top of it.  

No hole, cement, or tree.  They deleted it from conference and replaced it without a public acknowledgement of what they did (at the time).  If the word "hiding" sounds too nefarious and you don't want to use it, that's fine.  But it's factually correct.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and this somebody is? Just out of curiousity sake! They couldn't have gone to great lengths if you can watch the original on youtube, I don't recall anyone saying you shouldn't watch the original

The Church didn't put it on youtube.  That someone managed to preserve a copy doesn't mean that the church didn't attempt to hide the original. 

[Calm]

The researcher found 11 talks since 1897 with significant changes, that yields about 7200 talks total or around .1% .

Not sure that justifies spending Church resources to track and publish.  After 1971 (online material) only 3 were listed, 2 of which were in the 80s and 1 in 2010.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that God is limiting your agency because He is purposefully keeping a lot of relevant information from you?

I don't believe that's how agency works.  I don't think that limiting information limits agency at all, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.   

IF he is keeping relevant information from me then yes, my agency is limited.

God may feel it's limited in an appropriate way, but I don't recall agency ever being taught as "perfect" agency, or complete agency. No one has complete, full, perfect access to all information or options. We make choices based on what's available to us. I'm sure God understands those limitations and is likewise very forgiving of our choices based on limitations.

However, God limiting my knowledge and access to information is far different than the church limiting my access to knowledge and information.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The researcher found 11 talks since 1897 with significant changes, that yields about 7200 talks total or around .1% .

Not sure that justifies spending Church resources to track and publish.

Maybe not, but it could inform the church about how it should proceed going forward.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe not, but it could inform the church about how it should proceed going forward.

It is rare enough these days (2 in early 80s and one in  2010), it seems like too much would change between incidents to making tracking of responses useful (just think of the huge differences in access between those years).  Instead seems like simply being aware of expectations of the time it occurs in would be most efficient and effective.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have you read or listened to both talks in their entirety?

 

No hole, cement, or tree.  They deleted it from conference and replaced it without a public acknowledgement of what they did (at the time).  If the word "hiding" sounds too nefarious and you don't want to use it, that's fine.  But it's factually correct.

The church had a recorded talk in their possession.  The giver of the talk wanted to re-record it and the church allowed him to do so.  Then the church replaced the old version with the new.  We're just going to have to disagree because i think that saying that the church 'hid' the original talk is the height of silliness. 

I haven't listened to either talk.  I don't see that my feelings about either talk would be relevant to the discussion.  Elder Poelman gave it, and decided to change it, and my personal feelings on either version don't matter.  It has his choice to make.  

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

  I believe that the recording we have of it came from someone's personal VCR recording of conference. 

Which the Church would  have known were being made by the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

Which implies no expectation that it would be hidden by the Church anywhere personal recording was possible.  If so, then not publishing the original and instead using the replacement in creating a seamless inclusion for its publication of conference likely had another reason for it; my opinion is they wanted people to focus on all the messages of conference and not only remember it for one talk that stood out as added afterwards.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IF he is keeping relevant information from me then yes, my agency is limited.

God may feel it's limited in an appropriate way, but I don't recall agency ever being taught as "perfect" agency, or complete agency. No one has complete, full, perfect access to all information or options. We make choices based on what's available to us. I'm sure God understands those limitations and is likewise very forgiving of our choices based on limitations.

However, God limiting my knowledge and access to information is far different than the church limiting my access to knowledge and information.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Which the Church would  have known were being made by the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

The church is bad, so bad, at hiding things.  I can't think of any organization that is worse at 'hiding' things than our church.  

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church didn't put it on youtube.  That someone managed to preserve a copy doesn't mean that the church didn't attempt to hide the original. 

should I wait for the Church to tell me not to watch it? it's not like the OJ Simpson trial, not riveting stuff!!!!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Suggesting that we shouldn't parse the changes between our leader's verbal and written words sounds like a position based in fear. 

You know, going to "fear" so often as an explanation for motivation bewilders me.  Makes me wonder if fear is a major part of the decision process of those who go there so it becomes an assumption that is how others make their choices.... because I just don't see how you can get it out of mine when what I am thinking of is how to make the best use of resources to help people learn most effectively the basic set of gospel principles the Church is responsible for getting out there.  Believing that those called to be educators in the Church should be aware of the needs and abilities of the Saints worldwide, how people learn in general and spiritual principles in specific does not require " fear" to be part of the process.

And since I believe that personal study should go way beyond just that directed by the Church, I anticipate and hope that many Saints will be learning much more than the basics.  But I believe that God intends that to be a more personal responsibility than what is taught across the pulpit and how it is done is unique to each seeker, not something the Church could control or should.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

should I wait for the Church to tell me not to watch it? it's not like the OJ Simpson trial, not riveting stuff!!!!

The original talk by Elder Poelman is really good.  I'd encourage you to listen to it or read it.  It's easy to find online these days (not on LDS.org but LDS.org does have the re-written version).

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

And who was the individual who "wrote the script?"    If I write a talk and make changes while giving the talk in church == is that "off script" or, perhaps,  inspiration?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

.......................... 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, ...................

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. ..............................

Unfortunately, such entities get away with it all the time, despite being subject to precise, recorded scrutiny.  P. T. Barnum is the true authority on the gullibility of the people, even in our modern world.  Oh say what is proof?  Our naivete is the measure of all things.  Reality and truth are a maelstrom assertions into which we get sucked through the whirlpool effect.  We are no wiser today than we have ever been . . .

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't listened to either talk.  I don't see that my feelings about either talk would be relevant to the discussion.  Elder Poelman gave it, and decided to change it, and my personal feelings on either version don't matter.  It has his choice to make.  

The original is an outstanding talk.  I highly recommend it.

I'd also like to know if anyone has a reference for Elder Poelman saying that it was his decision to re-write and re-record the talk.  I know that is the claim that FAIRMormon makes.  But I haven't ever seen anything to back up their claim.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The original is an outstanding talk.  I highly recommend it.

I'd also like to know if anyone has a reference for Elder Poelman saying that it was his decision to re-write and re-record the talk.  I know that is the claim that FAIRMormon makes.  But I haven't ever seen anything to back up their claim.

One of our FM members knew the family and talked to them about it, so I don't think his personal reaction can be confirmed beyond personal recollection.  

Otoh, the Sunstone article below has published comments that confirm the general outline.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours 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

I think even more important if you are looking at why there was a controversy is to research how the original talk was being used by some members to justify their choices and think why that might have bothered Elder Poelman.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think even more important if you are looking at why there was a controversy is to research how the original talk was being used by some members to justify their choices and think why that might have bothered Elder Poelman.

It would be fascinating to understand that but I have no idea how or where to research that.  Rock Waterman made the claim that the talk was re-recorded "within days" of the original.  I'm not sure of the basis for that claim.  But I assume the talk had to be re-written and re-recorded within a few weeks.  I wonder what happened in such a short period of time to make Elder Poelman believe that his talk was being used by members to justify polygamy.  This was pre-internet... not sure how this type of situation would happen so quickly.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

If the Church is required to track changes and publish notations and explanations of those changes---past, present, and future, that will take resources.

You may not be calling for church investment, but some are suggesting in this thread (second post, for example) the Church needs to do this themselves to increase awareness and accessibility to such changes as opposed to leaving it to those interested in such things studying it for themselves and sharing that info as they will (and yes, I recognize if the Church leaves it to others, many of the others will be critics and they won't present it in a positive or likely balanced way, so there is a cost to the Church there that should be taken into account of how much it gets in the way of the Church teaching part of its mission).

However, the article referenced has the researcher finding only three talks where it made a significant difference since 1970 and only one talk since 2010.  If other changes weren't significant, it seems a waste of time and money to draw attention to them and it may inflate the significance of the change, which would impair imo the effectiveness of the message.

I do think students of the scriptures can invest too much time in debating/parsing word choice in or between texts because so often it is actually a translator's choice which may or may not be inspired or word meaning has changed over the years, yet no effort is made to understand word usage in greater context and such things are not taken into account, which imo they should be if one thinks one should study out the word choice.  Bravo for students who take the time to learn the languages of the earliest copies or who study the vocabulary choices of modern prophets, but I don't see most who ponder word choice taking the time to study texts in that depth; if it is inspiration that is being sought, I think it is more about how we prepare ourselves to receive it than word choices made by speakers in the vast majority of cases, so I don't see much benefit for those to list alternate texts that have been altered because it is believed to improve the message.

Rather than have a policy in place for dealing with the every thirty years a significant change of text actually happens, makes more sense to me to just take them as they come, judge the current culture and technology and educational principles being seen as successful and make a judgment based on that.  It seems to me with the significant decrease of changes over the last 120 years (one in the last 35 years vs. most occurring in the first 50 iirc), the Church has already put in place effective measures to remove the need.  At this point, the rare occasion left probably is unique enough to require case by case treatment anyway.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the Church is required to track changes and publish notations and explanations of those changes---past, present, and future, that will take resources.

You may not be calling for church investment, but some are suggesting in this thread (second post, for example) the Church needs to do this themselves to increase awareness and accessibility to such changes as opposed to leaving it to those interested in such things studying it for themselves and sharing that info as they will (and yes, I recognize if the Church leaves it to others, many of the others will be critics and they won't present it in a positive or likely balanced way, so there is a cost to the Church there that should be taken into account of how much it gets in the way of the Church teaching part of its mission).

However, the article referenced has the researcher finding only three talks where it made a significant difference since 1970 and only one talk since 2010.  If other changes weren't significant, it seems a waste of time and money to draw attention to them and it may inflate the significance of the change, which would impair imo the effectiveness of the message.

I do think students of the scriptures can invest too much time in debating/parsing word choice in or between texts because so often it is actually a translator's choice which may or may not be inspired or word meaning has changed over the years, yet no effort is made to understand word usage in greater context and such things are not taken into account, which imo they should be if one thinks one should study out the word choice.  Bravo for students who take the time to learn the languages of the earliest copies or who study the vocabulary choices of modern prophets, but I don't see most who ponder word choice taking the time to study texts in that depth; if it is inspiration that is being sought, I think it is more about how we prepare ourselves to receive it than word choices made by speakers in the vast majority of cases, so I don't see much benefit for those to list alternate texts that have been altered because it is believed to improve the message.

Rather than have a policy in place for dealing with the every thirty years a significant change of text actually happens, makes more sense to me to just take them as they come, judge the current culture and technology and educational principles being seen as successful and make a judgment based on that.  It seems to me with the significant decrease of changes over the last 120 years (one in the last 35 years vs. most occurring in the first 50 iirc), the Church has already put in place effective measures to remove the need.  At this point, the rare occasion left probably is unique enough to require case by case treatment anyway.

Got it.  Agreed.  Thanks for the explanation!