Are you not worried too?

[Wingnut]

Giving a talk by inspiration is one thing. But it is still man written. God didn't write every word that was given in the talk. How many times have you written, rewritten, read and reread a presentation and then afterwards said.."I should have said this?"

This is the best and the most expressive point in the whole thread. I remember those days well. Something tells me pam doesn't need to edit very much if she makes points this well.

Pam -- and all of us -- also has the advantage of being able to to self-edit prior to posting, which you don't have on live TV. Petty? Perhaps. But I think it's worth taking into account.

[pam]

This is the best and the most expressive point in the whole thread. I remember those days well. Something tells me pam doesn't need to edit very much if she makes points this well.

Second best point in this thread. I'm not sure why people are still stuck on semantics and their own personal opinions when the wording has been made clear and the official position has been reinforced. This horse has been beaten to the point where atomic fission is going to occur if we keep going. And we all know how bad that gets.

Oh I edit quite a bit before posting and after I have inserted foot first many times.

[pam]

I don't know about anyone else...but getting up to speak in what you know to be millions of people would have me pretty nervous too. :)

[cofchristcousin]

I have assumed that the edit is actually the script of the intended speech. In my denomination our Leader will give a talk that is webcast from a conference or other gathering, and the text is available immediately afterwards, and not transcribed.

[pam]

I hear that, on Funky's side of the pond, they celebrate Thanksgiving on July 4.

Wow I'm slow today. I just got it.

[beefche]

Just today, pam?

[Wingnut]

I have assumed that the edit is actually the script of the intended speech. In my denomination our Leader will give a talk that is webcast from a conference or other gathering, and the text is available immediately afterwards, and not transcribed.

That's been my impression, too. My thought is that the talk wasn't edited, but it's more likely that Elder Packer went off the teleprompter. Perhaps he inadvertently (or otherwise) reverted to an earlier draft of his talk.

[pam]

My sister who sang in the General Relief session of conference choir and could see the teleprompter during the talks. She stated there were times that the speakers didn't go word for word exactly as on the teleprompter.

[pam]

Just today, pam?

That was not funny.

[zippy_do46]

I don't know about anyone else...but getting up to speak in what you know to be millions of people would have me pretty nervous too. :)

:rolleyes:They would have to pick me off the floor first :) One look at all those faces and down I would go.

[Traveler]

Its amazing to see the huge interest in discussing Elder Packers talk. (Thousands of views say all there has to be said about it.)

The discussion so far has been about understanding and misunderstanding him and what we make of it.

What worries me about the whole situation is that nobody seems to care that his talk was edited afterwards.

Come on, he is the acting president of the quorum of the twelve. Surely his talk was inspired. It may even have been the word of God. We just sustained him and the others as Prophet, Seer and Revelator.

Why should there be the need to edit an inspired talk afterwards?

Had it occurred to you (as well as others) that in most cases that sacred scripture has been edited? There is good reason to believe that Isaiah was edited. How many years of scriptures were edited by Moses? Much of the Book of Mormon was edited by Mormon.

I do not mind people being concerned about anything – as long as their concern is consistent. What worries me are those that pick and choose what they worry about. Or, as Jesus said, “They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”

The Traveler

[ehkape]

Ok, I think I'm done with this forum.

I express a concern that to me is serious and most of what I get as response is either telling me I am short of faith, nitpicking or just too worried about nothing.

It doesn't worry me a bit, that people go off script during their talk. Yes, I do it all the time when I give a talk. Usually because I feel its the right thing to say and I feel the spirit prompts me to.

The thing I don't get is: Why pretend as if there were things, Elder Packer DIDN'T say, when he DID. Where is the point in watching GC if I can't trust the message anymore?

you can go off script and deliver a great talk. But if you record the talk or put it into writing AFTERWARDS and leave out whole sentences, thats just not right.

Maybe it has been done in the past, I never noticed so far. But even if its common practise, is it correct?

I live in Germany, a country with a very sad history of 2 World Wars. What if our history books were written that way? Leaving out bits and pieces here and there? I know you can't really compare the two, but maybe it helps you understand why its so important to me to be accurate.

PS: To all those who'd rather talk about pumpkin pie than what this thread is about... I'd be interested in a good all american recepie as well. Thanx

[pam]

You have to understand that this subject has been discussed ad nauseum in at least 2 other threads. It was just another thread to say the same thing that had already been said over and over. It was not against you personally.

[Just_A_Guy]

Where is the point in watching GC if I can't trust the message anymore?

If you never feel the Spirit during Conference, or don't find the sense of communal simultaneously worship edifying, or don't think the hymns add to the experience--then you're probably right; no point in actually watching the proceedings. [i'm not trying to be holier-than-thou; to be blunt, I don't get much out of watching it live either.]

. . . you can go off script and deliver a great talk. But if you record the talk or put it into writing AFTERWARDS and leave out whole sentences, thats just not right.

Maybe it has been done in the past, I never noticed so far. But even if its common practise, is it correct?

I live in Germany, a country with a very sad history of 2 World Wars. What if our history books were written that way?

I think that's the issue. Church media (Ensign, Liahona, website) is not, first and foremost, history; it's theology. Even the conference reports are geared towards spreading the Conference message. This can be done verbatim; but where a verbatim transcript actually detracts from the actual message (i.e. Pres. Uchtdorf's coughing fit, the ambiguities of Elder Packer's talk, or the odd moonbat who runs into the Tabernacle screaming insults at the Twelve)--there's going to be some editing.

Leaving out bits and pieces here and there? I know you can't really compare the two, but maybe it helps you understand why its so important to me to be accurate.

"Accurate" as to what, though? The revised version may not have been "accurate" as a record of what Elder Packer sent, but he apparently deemed it accurate as to the message he wished to convey (which the verbatim transcript would not have been).

Would you rather have the verbatim transcript still out there as the "official" version, being cited by the hard-line gay haters that Soulsearcher and GaySaint have encountered in order to justify their draconian positions? It's funny--you'd think those would be the ones complaining the loudest about these edits; but instead, it's the liberal wing of the Church who generally pride themselves on their empathy and tolerance for gay Mormons.

What does that indicate, I wonder?

[Roseslipper]

where do i look to get that pumpkin recipe??

[Gwen]

Blogs » pumpkin pie » LDS Mormon Network

i'm really not trying to continue to derail the thread. lol after all this talk i decided i had to make one this weekend. i up and decided to use a chocolate cookie crust and threw in some mini chocolate chips (which all sank to the bottom, oh well). lol was really good.

[Wingnut]

...and threw in some mini chocolate chips (which all sank to the bottom, oh well). lol was really good.

Try coating them with flour next time.

[rameumptom]

Things are edited all the time in General Conference. Why? Sometimes to ensure that the talk is understood properly. The terms Pres Packer used suddenly seemed to mean other than what he originally meant by them, and so he wisely changed terms to help others understand his actual intent in the talk. He is an apostle, but not perfect. I think it is wonderful that he is willing to review his own remarks and improve upon them, so that those reading his remarks will understand his original meaning.

[Just_A_Guy]

Things are edited all the time in General Conference. Why? Sometimes to ensure that the talk is understood properly. The terms Pres Packer used suddenly seemed to mean other than what he originally meant by them, and so he wisely changed terms to help others understand his actual intent in the talk. He is an apostle, but not perfect. I think it is wonderful that he is willing to review his own remarks and improve upon them, so that those reading his remarks will understand his original meaning.

Bah.

Real apostles never say anything that might be misunderstood.

[ADoyle90815]

Speaking of pumpkin pie, for some reason, my ex-husband hated the stuff, so in the end, there was more for me to enjoy as I don't consider it Thanksgiving unless I have some.

[Gwen]

came across this quote, liked it and thought it fit here... explains why an edit would happen, not just the obvious need in this case but in other cases as well.

"You're to teach the old doctrines, not so plain that they can just understand, but you must teach the doctrines of the Church so plainly that no one can misunderstand" President Harold B. Lee ("Loyalty," in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. [1982], 64).

[Blackmarch]

Its amazing to see the huge interest in discussing Elder Packers talk. (Thousands of views say all there has to be said about it.)

The discussion so far has been about understanding and misunderstanding him and what we make of it.

What worries me about the whole situation is that nobody seems to care that his talk was edited afterwards.

Come on, he is the acting president of the quorum of the twelve. Surely his talk was inspired. It may even have been the word of God. We just sustained him and the others as Prophet, Seer and Revelator.

Why should there be the need to edit an inspired talk afterwards?

THe last I knew is that they prepare and write up their talks before quite some time before conference starts (and if i recall right thats what's mainly used for the conference talks given in the ensign and etc) and that they try to stay to it as much as possible, but they are still human... and there may be inspiration to change something at some point to make something more understandable, or its possible that someone goofed up somewhere.

THings like this happen all the time

I think it would do well to remember christs words:

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel".