Vort

If using the "voice of the Lord" in recording revelations signals the wording is accurate and precise, then does that mean Joseph Smith was in error when he edited his revelations?
I stated exactly what I wanted to suggest with my questions. Just what exactly are your assumptions about the nature of revelation and the transmission of revelations to the membership. I think your above statement about accuracy and precision has uncovered one of them. Please continue.
I appreciate this clarification about seeking confirmation, but I'm still not following the first part. What is it about "The Lord said, 'call Dallin H. Oaks'" that instills more confidence than "The Lord instructed me to call Dallin H. Oaks"?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things?
Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering?
I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

Pretty wild isn’t. We live in some crazy times. 

He was very clearly and explicitly referring to any teaching that would preclude the restoration of the Priesthood to all worthy men and the extension of the blessings of the temple to all worthy people. Are you referring to something else?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things?
Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering?
I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things?
Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering?
I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

From a talk that I know some people here highly appreciate
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/
 
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).
And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed” (italics added).
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot], 13:95).

Adding: If you are married, do the following with your spouse.  If you are not married, find someone of the other gender to join you in this endeavor: As part of your pursuit for understanding and testimony, and after counseling with the Lord, get the names of a couple who need their temple work done - preferably, ancestors of one of you. Make the sacrifice required to go to the temple and do everything in one day: initiatory, endowment, sealing (as a couple, and to children, if any and if possible).  I believe that if one does this with a sincere, humble, prayerful request to gain testimony and understanding of this eternal principle, and confirmation that it requires both genders - male and female, husband and wife - that this will go a long way toward getting there.

Thank you. The word "inspired" doesn't appear in this talk (hence my passing over it). Printed text:
Audio:
Seems clear to me in the video that he was not following his written talk at that point - perhaps remembering a prior version.  I'm with @Carborendum on this - there was no "we gotta correct what he said" after the fact.  Rather, the written talk as submitted was published, but not read word for word during GC.  (I've seen this elsewhere, usually with only minor changes, sometimes with ad hoc comments about a prior speaker.  I've also seen those ad hoc comments added into the text, so it appears sometimes someone does change the text to match the talk as given.)
IMO, both versions of the talk are equally correct.

The Church will never seal same-sex couples in the temple.  I understand why those who want it would wrest scriptures and everything else under the sun to argue that it will happen and why (ETA: they think) it's reasonable to believe it will.  I don't understand why anyone else thinks it could.  The principles of eternal marriage and procreation by exalted couples could not possibly be clearer or more obvious.  The notion that the Lord would let his Church go that far from truth in this dispensation is absurd.  Any prophet who tried would be stopped (probably well before he tried).  Not that there's any hint any of them would.  Same-sex couples cannot procreate.  There will be no "adoption" or "surrogacy" in the Celestial Kingdom.  The mere idea is absurd.  Scripture is clear that there will be no marriage of any sort anywhere other than the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
The Lord changes policy, procedure, and modes of presentation to fit our needs.  He does not reverse eternal principles.
If anyone doubts this, I recommend a deep spiritual dive into the eternal principles of marriage and family (procreation), while repenting, keeping covenants, fasting, praying, ministering, attending one's meetings, serving, and attending the temple - and asking the Lord every day to give one a testimony and understanding of the eternal principles (the things behind the related commandments).  What you receive you will likely have to keep to yourself, so plan for that and prove trustworthy.
Same-sex sealings is simply never going to be a thing.

OK, so I got curious.
It would have been "inspired counsel" (counsel = advice; council = group of people).
So, I sharpened my google-fu and searched (cuz the Church website search options are lacking).
In October 2011, "Counsel to Youth", we find:
...but the video says the same thing.
In "Parents in Zion" (Oct 1998), it's listed with other things as "inspired guidance".
The end.  So I removed Packer from the equation and required "family", "proclamation", and "inspired".
Elder Richard J. Maynes calls a portion of the proclamation "inspired counsel".
Elder Scott says it was "inspired of the Lord".
And, I'm tired of perusing the results.  At this point, I think it's up to @Maverick to provide a link.

There have been many times when I've heard one word or phrase in Conference, but saw the written version was off by just a bit.
I finally realized that sometimes, a speaker knows his talk well enough that he doesn't need to read it off the teleprompter.  This has been the case for me many a time.
So, he speaks it as he remembers it. He may still glance up a few times so he doesn't lose his place.  But for the most part, it just comes from whatever he remembers.
Meanwhile, the original written version is what is published on the website and in the Liahona/Ensign.  There really is no curating the similarities and differences between spoken v. written.  Both are recorded.  Both are official.  Both mean the same thing. 
So, the written word vs the spoken word may differ in detail, without a difference in meaning.
While I'm a fan and practicioner of exegesis, at some point, we must realize that the only "official meaning" of prophetic words is through the Spirit.  And as long as your interpretation is within the reasonable limits of what has been spoken, then you have a credible claim to having revelation confirm the prophets' words.
EDIT: BTW, I couldn't find the talk you referenced.  I looked at the talks from Pres. Packer for both the April and Oct sessions from 2012 to 2015.  None of them used the words you referred to.

Based on the URL, I thought that Riess was the antecedent to "who". I generally do not click on links to the SL tribune, any more than I would click on links to Pornhub, but in a moment of weakness I did, and read enough to confirm that Sister Riess is not in fact the antecedent to "who". Not yet, at least.

I wonder - what does it mean to you to be "against gay sex", and what does it mean to you to have the church "never allow" it?
Membership in the church is voluntary.  People can do whatever they want to in this church, and reap whatever consequences spring from their actions, be it positive or negative.  The church isn't our mommy, telling us what we can and can't do.  It's not about allowed or not allowed.  The church is our guide, giving us counsel on how to be and how to act, inviting us to come to beliefs which our doctrine indicates is true, urging us to gain, maintain, and strengthen our testimonies.  It's missions are to perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and care for the poor and needy.  It doesn't enforce keeping the commandments, it urges keeping the commandments. 
When you talk in terms of "against" and "never allowing", the immediate question is "or what?".  The main actions the church can take with members, who either aren't keeping the commandments, or are breaking the commandments, are primarily to urge, proclaim, teach, and love.  Some things the church figures are serious enough breaches of community norms (i.e. sins), that the ultimate power - that of removing membership - gets involved.  It's like a chess club dealing with a member who wants to play checkers.  Ok, you're still welcome in chess club, but you can expect we'll be playing chess, and inviting or even urging you to do the same.  And if you disrupt our chess games to push for checkers, we'll probably disinvite you to future meetings and tournaments.   Replace chess with bringing unto Christ, and checkers with sins, and there you go.  
Another way of thinking about it, is we're also "against" and don't "allow" cheating on a spouse.  But there are endless active LDS folks with behavior like that in their past, and that's a good thing, because being LDS and living as one is a blessing that's available to all, just as the atonement is.  We're also "against and "don't allow" p0rn or lusting after your neighbor's wife in your own head.  But there are endless active LDS folks engaged in it, and we want to keep them in the church, because we believe being in the church is a good thing.  Isn't same-sex behavior or thoughts or orientations sort of the exact same thing? 
I guess another way of asking my question, how do you know you're "against gay sex"?  What sorts of actions or beliefs spring from you when you see gay?  
 
Something that surprised the heck out of me recently, was found in a recent poll:  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/08/jana-riess-who-is-leaving-lds/
That 4% number floored me.  4 out of every 100 members of the church identifies somewhere in that acronym?  With roughly 6.8 million LDS members in America, most of whom live in the corridor, that equals roughly a quarter-million members who might identify as LGBTQ. Who are these people?  Are they happy?  At what rates do they keep the commandments or break them?  Are they active?  Do they hold callings?  Are they surly teens waiting to age out and leave the church as soon as they can?  
I wonder - has the church found a good balance on the issue?  Ok, so you like checkers.  This is the chess club, and we'll be doing chess club things.  You're welcome to come as much as you want, and participate as much as you want, and we'll love the heck out of you.  Just don't try to get us to stop playing chess, or force your checkers playing on us, and we're good.
 
 
 
 

I disagree, and would refer back to what I said earlier. 
I've already acknowledged that individual GAs may at times err; and in case I wasn't clear enough, I'll state:  they may err even from the conference pulpit.  (They probably won't, especially in our highly-correlated age.  But they can.) If you take the race-and-priesthood issue specifically and parse the material that was released in the name of the entire first presidency or the entire Q12, you really don't see anything that's been subsequently rescinded.  To the extent that individual Church presidents made statements that were later walked back (Brigham Young to the Territorial Legislature or what-have-you)--see my earlier statement about the OD-1 material and "harmless error".   [1]  In general, these same sorts of exegeses (and others, suggesting that particular passages were directed to particular cultures/times/places and are no longer appropriate to our modern circumstances) could be made about any future change in doctrine/practice, right up to my earlier hypothetical about the Church approving human trafficking.  Heck, the nature of continuing revelation and the vagaries of the existing corpus of canon mean that one could make a straight-faced argument justifying a "revelation" affirming that the Atonement was actually done in 1956 by a Chicago plumber named Earl who died by choking on a piece of cake. 
The fact that something is arguable, does not make it mainstream.
[2]  As you no doubt are keenly aware, such arguments are a red herring since both the Old and New Testaments explicitly condemn gay sex.  
[3]  As you no doubt are keenly aware, the Church has institutionally entrenched itself into a position on the perpetual sinfulness of gay sex and justifications thereof, in a way it never entrenched itself on the issue of the perpetual nature of or the detailed justifications for priesthood ban.  And as you are further no doubt keenly aware, the "theories taught with limited understanding" verbiage comes from Elder McConkie who was addressing one particular (and frankly not-very-authoritative) sub-corollary of the ban justifications which, unlike the other justifications, *did* suggest that the ban was effectively perpetual (at least until the Millennium)  But Elder McConkie himself continued to his dying day to maintain that the ban itself was divinely instituted and that in principle, the Lord takes the restored Gospel to different peoples at different times.  
[4]  I think there are limits to how accommodating the Church leadership is to the idiocies of the Church membership.  There are not-insubstantial issues with young LDS adults breaking the law of chastity and concealing it from priesthood leaders (in my work, I just last month cross-examined a lovely young lady on a family law case who admitted that she, as a BYU student, had been shacking up with (and of course, fornicating with) her boyfriend for the last three months).  I daresay the Church leadership is aware of this as a general proposition; but they haven't gone so far as to say "fine, we changed our minds, go ahead and sex it up with whoever you want."  And one of the virtues of the Church's financial situation is that (absent the danger of violence or adverse government action) it can pretty much teach whatever it wants without regard to what the masses think about it or what those teachings do to its membership rolls or annual donation receipts. 
Those of the "younger generation" who are willing to pimp out their spiritual birthrights for the sexual revolution's mess of pottage can quit doing their thinking with their genitalia--or they can go to hell until they learn (or are forced) to ignore their genitalia, quit taking their theological cues from the shriekings of the sorrowing damned, and discern what God is actually telling them.

I’m a little confused by the juxtaposition here; the post asks if I think the younger generation is really that immoral and then goes on to state that we should expect immorality to be commonplace in the younger generation today because it was commonplace in our own generation in the last century.
I absolutely stand by the proposition that participation in or support or extramarital (including, gay) sex constitutes a forfeiture of a Latter-day Saint’s spiritual birthright.  It is a redeemable forfeiture, to be sure; but a forfeiture it most certainly is.

There are some General Conference talks that are obviously inspired.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/04/our-great-potential?lang=eng
D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
Joseph Smith routinely gave us revelations in the voice of the Lord.  Ezra Taft Benson’s talk about pride is in his own voice.
The question is, do we appreciate those messages equally?
 
 

I would respectfully add separately, @Maverick, that I rather think you rather overstate the degree to which Church members have cause to feel significantly and sincerely befuddled by conflicting “church teachings”.
That individual prophets and apostles can express personal views that may be wrong is, I think, increasingly well understood in the Church; as is the idea that we aren’t bound to offer unblinking obedience to such idiosyncratic statements.  The closest analogue is the statement in the supplementary matter to OD-1 about the Lord not allowing the prophet to lead the Church astray.  And even then, the statement is qualified to suggest not absolute infallibility but that any error will ultimately be harmless.
What we are covenantally bound to follow through our sustaining votes—where we risk falling into grave error if we disobey—are statements of the united voice of the Church’s governing councils.  And once we remember that Church practices and teachings are to some degree tailored to time and place and that what was needful in 1835 or 2015 may no longer be appropriate in 2019 or 2024 (a proposition that is baked into the whole process, else there would be no need for living prophets/continuing revelation at all), I think one becomes hard-pressed to find a single instance where the entire Q12 and Q15 were objectively, undeniably, soul-jeopardizingly wrong.  
The Church has no shortage of fringe theories, but it also has a theological mainstream.  And it’s really not that difficult to tell the difference—especially with the added benefit of personal revelation based in faith and sincere repentance, and even more so as we learn to block out the voices of the shrieking profligates who are pretty obviously motivated primarily by envy or libido.  
Take the aforementioned Proclamation on the Family, for example. We can split hairs over whether it is (or should be) canon, versus scripture, versus revelation, versus inspiration, versus just good sense, versus a complete product of its culture, versus a vestige of bigotry under which the Church groans for relief.  But the simple fact is that over a hundred LDS apostles, seventeen LDS presiding high priests, every currently-serving GA-level seventy, and every section of LDS canon that discusses the matter, disapproves of gay sex.  It’s not a close call in any way.  The Lord, of course, can reveal whatever He will reveal.  But as our theology stands right now there is literally a better chance that He will instruct the Church to start buying and importing indentured servants from slave markets in Mauritania or child brides from impoverished families in Saudi Arabia, than that He will instruct the Church to begin solemnizing gay marriages.  That’s the elephant that remains in the room in spite of all the kabuki theater and concern-trolling over just how seriously we should really take the POTF.

Why did @Vort go fishing?
Just for the halibut.

I hadn't thought of it directly prior to now, but this could be yet another casualty of Satan's attack on the family.  Those who have experience in loving families naturally and deeply desire for those relationships to continue throughout eternity.  But those who have no such experience (whether it's just absent or it's replaced by negative family experiences) may think, "why in the world would I want to spend eternity with my (or a) family (since all my mortal family experience is negative)?"  For them, Satan's successes in destroying the basic family unit make the idea of "eternal families" a hurdle to overcome rather than a desired end...

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:
1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort
2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".
3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.
4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.
Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.
I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:
 

Indeed, including statements from our leaders during the last fifty or so years that unanimously affirm that this life is the time to prepare to meet God, We have been warned against the philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry...and it shall be well with us; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." Jacob goes on to call these "false and vain and foolish doctrines".
Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance. Don't say, "Oh, celestial is too hard. I'll just live a telestial/terrestrial life. That's good enough, because eventually I'll get there." The truth of the matter is that celestial living is not merely far more rewarding than terrestrial/telestial living; it is EASIER. Show some faith. Believe the prophets and the scriptures. Think celestial.

I would also accept Peggy

What do you call a woman who throws all her bills onto the fire?
Bernadette

What do you call a woman with a peg leg? Illene