Editing conference talks--a history in the SL Tribune

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

It had to have been rerecorded very quickly to have been sent out as part of the published set of conference videos the Church was offering through Church Distribution at that time, which the Church pushes hard to get out quickly in my understanding as a church librarian.  If it hadn't been done almost immediately, I think it likely that copies without the change would have already been shipped.  Plus the Ensign would have had to had the text pretty quickly.  (Speculation though, there may have been a long delay and published copies with the original destroyed rather than being shipped, but I don't remember that being reported)

As for how Elder Poelman would be made aware, there were various enclaves of apostate groups and plenty of active families related to them who could easily report to local leaders or relatives among the General Authorities.  The Mormon Grapevine was very effective in certain places even without the Internet and social media.  After all, we had telephones and postal service had moved past the horse delivered stage a few years previously.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/elder-poelmans-most-famous-speech/

Peggy Fletcher states it was a few days in this.

Quote

Apparently Church leadership’s main concern centered on how Mormon fundamentalists would interpret the talk. For years, General Authorities had been countering fundamentalist claims that there were in fact two true churches: one church that was a part of the world and another that followed a higher spiritual law. Stack wrote “that Apostles who regularly deal with Mormon apostate groups ‘pointed out’ to Elder Poelman that his remarks might be misinterpreted.” Poelman’s brother, Stuart, is quoted in the Tribune saying that Ronald Poelman “was concerned his remarks would be used by Mormon apostate groups.” 

Some of the changes support this concern:

A portion of the original speech reads, “Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine. However, there is a distinction between them which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood. Of equal importance is understanding: the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church. Failure to distinguish between the two and to comprehend their proper relationship may lead to confusion and misplaced priorities with unrealistic and therefore failed expectations.”

That portion was revised to read: “Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine, and there is an essential relationship between them that is significant and very important. Understanding the proper relationship between the gospel and the Church will prevent confusion, misplaced priorities, and failed expectations and will lead to the realization of gospel goals through happy, fulfilling participation in the Church.”

Another section reads: “As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.”

The section was revised to read: “As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we can more effectively utilize the Church to make our lives increasingly gospel centered.” 

The treatment of free agency also seems to have been a concern. Of the three times the word was used in the original talk, two were removed and the third modified. Poelman stated in the original talk that people should not use their free agency to invent their own values and principles. However, the edited version read, “The Church aids us in our effort to use our free agency creatively, not to invent our own values, principles, and interpretations.”

After the revised talk had been published, “the church public communications office” released a statement saying Poelman had decided that his talk “might possibly be misinterpreted” and “any editorial changes were his own.”[1] In the Salt Lake Tribune article, Stuart Poelman “said he understood the changes were his brother’s idea and not due to pressure of other church officials.” Poelman did not speak in General Conference again until April 1989, four years after he revised his speech.[2]

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

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.

I'll check it out, thanks!

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/elder-poelmans-most-famous-speech/

Peggy Fletcher states it was a few days in this.

I see the article says "After the revised talk had been published, “the church public communications office” released a statement saying Poelman had decided that his talk “might possibly be misinterpreted” and “any editorial changes were his own.”[1] In the Salt Lake Tribune article, Stuart Poelman “said he understood the changes were his brother’s idea and not due to pressure of other church officials.” 

Do we know when the church released the statement about the changes?

[Calm]

The reference is Nov 17, 1984, Deseret News, B-5 I couldn't search for it.  Maybe Scott Lloyd can?  Or someone else subscribed?

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The reference is Nov 17, 1984, Deseret News, B-5 I couldn't search for it.  Maybe Scott Lloyd can?  Or someone else subscribed?

So at the very least they told published a statement about the change no later than 6 weeks after the original talk was aired.

[bsjkki]

@CalmThank you for providing more history, context and facts surrounding the Elder Poelman conference talk.

[rockpond]

I’m curious why Elder Poelman’s brother is quoted and not Elder Poelman. 

[mrmarklin]

AFAIK editing conference speeches has been done for quite some time. 

 

Look at it as like a witness revising a deposition for clarity, error corrections, and misstatements. 

In the real world this is no big deal. It shouldn’t be a big deal in the Church either. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious why Elder Poelman’s brother is quoted and not Elder Poelman. 

I suspect the Church directed everyone to work through a spokesperson, while his brother was under no restriction.  Maybe Stuart was visiting his brother when he encountered the reporter hanging around hoping to get a comment from Elder Poelman.

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Yep, it "hides" things in its official monthly publications which are disseminated by the millions world wide, not to mention plastering them on its Web site ... where it is sure that no one will ever see them.  

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

AFAIK editing conference speeches has been done for quite some time. 

Look at it as like a witness revising a deposition for clarity, error corrections, and misstatements. 

In the real world this is no big deal. It shouldn’t be a big deal in the Church either. 

Depends on what one's motives for making it a big deal are, I suppose.

"Ken, how dare you suggest that the 'big deal makers' motives are anything but honest, pure, and benign!"

I know, I know!     I'm just funny that way, I guess!  

[sjdawg]

On 12/17/2018 at 4:32 PM, Duncan said:

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.

I don't think anyone has an issue with a retraction.  I think it is just quietly changing history without acknowledging what or why something was changed that is problematic.  I actually think it would look very good on the Mormon Church if they occasionally admitted a mistake was made and noted that the content on LDS.org was changed to align with correct doctrine.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious why Elder Poelman’s brother is quoted and not Elder Poelman. 

I wondered about that too.  I'm guessing that for whatever reason Elder Poelman didn't want to make a statement, and that's why they sought out his brother.  Or I suppose that Elder Poelman might have used his brother as his spokesman.  We'll probably never know.

[Thinking]

It's not that the LDS Church has corrected mistakes. It's how it has corrected them. It seems that the goal is to correct a mistake and hope that nobody notices. If people do notice, the brethren are content to have the apologists explain why the mistake wasn't really a mistake, but really just a misunderstanding. The correction is really just a clarification.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's not that the LDS Church has corrected mistakes. It's how it has corrected them. It seems that the goal is to correct a mistake and hope that nobody notices. If people do notice, the brethren are content to have the apologists explain why the mistake wasn't really a mistake, but really just a misunderstanding. The correction is really just a clarification.

Yep.  Correcting the mistakes is great.

It's the implications of those corrections that intrigues me.

President Packer didn't really clarify his 2010 remarks, he removed them.  Does that mean he doesn't actually believe what he said or do we have an apostle that believes things that are out of harmony with the position of the Church?

Elder Poelman's re-written and re-recorded talk wasn't a clarification of the original, it changed the meaning.  Does that mean that what he originally taught in conference was wrong?  Or was it right but we just can't have it published because people might use it to justify polygamy.

I think there are all sorts of interesting discussions to be had with some of these changes.

[Jeanne]

One would think that an apostle or any leader would make sure that what he says is correct and if not, he should be the one to correct any misunderstanding.  To me it is a different kind of white wash...will they ever get it right the first time???  I seem to take a first version..the conference talk itself and that it explains what he believes, what the church believes and with a standard of something they call divine.  Why change that??

[Thinking]

Is there a difference between Situation A and Situation B?

Situation A

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription of the talk has a typo. After the discovery of the typo, the typo is corrected with no mention of the original typo.

Situation B

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription is accurate, but a decision is made to change what should have been spoken in GC. The talk is re-recorded, and the published transcript reflects the corrected text with no mention of the original text.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is there a difference between Situation A and Situation B?

Situation A

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription of the talk has a typo. After the discovery of the typo, the typo is corrected with no mention of the original typo.

Situation B

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription is accurate, but a decision is made to change what should have been spoken in GC. The talk is re-recorded, and the published transcript reflects the corrected text with no mention of the original text.

Clearly a difference.

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is there a difference between Situation A and Situation B?

Situation A

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription of the talk has a typo. After the discovery of the typo, the typo is corrected with no mention of the original typo.

Situation B

GA gives a talk in GC. The transcription is accurate, but a decision is made to change what should have been spoken in GC. The talk is re-recorded, and the published transcript reflects the corrected text with no mention of the original text.

IMHO there is no substantive difference between these two scenarios and correcting a deposition. 

 

The deal is that many may have heard the original in person, or even recorded it on TV. 

 

But it the end result is what counts. Original depositions are not kept. Only the corrected ones. 

People are making a big deal from nothing. 

[Kenngo1969]

This entire thread is nothing but an exercise in making a man an offender for a word.    I hope ya'all are comfortable being judged by the same standard you're using to judge someone else.  

Edited December 20, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Look at it as like a witness revising a deposition for clarity, error corrections, and misstatements. 

In the real world this is no big deal. It shouldn’t be a big deal in the Church either. 

I disagree. Revising a deposition is like preparing the conference talk. Rough drafts and revisions lead to the finished product. Delivering the talk in GC is like being on the witness stand and giving testimony.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This entire thread is nothing but an exercise in making a man an offender for a word.

Words.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This entire thread is nothing but an exercise in making a man an offender for a word.    I hope ya'all are comfortable being judged by the same standard you're using to judge someone else.  

 

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Words.

Whatever.  

And, as I said, as long as those sitting in judgment of Elder Poelman are comfortable having that exact standard applied to themselves and to what they do.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

I disagree. Revising a deposition is like preparing the conference talk. Rough drafts and revisions lead to the finished product. Delivering the talk in GC is like being on the witness stand and giving testimony.

Right.  Because it's not as though any deponent ever prepares to give a deposition, and it's not as though even the best-prepared deponent ever encounters circumstances under which clarifications to his testimony might be in order.