We need not apolo……ahh, never mind.

Interesting things sometimes happen to General Conference addresses between their delivery and their publication. Anyone who has listened to Elder Haight knows this. Here’s another example, for your curiosity.

As delivered on October 1:

We are to “rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [will be our] reward in heaven” (Matthew 5:12). We need not apologize for the church or for our history. Take, uh, defend the history of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto Salvation for everyone that believeth. Willingly defend the History of the Church. We will face the challenges, for we cannot avoid them, and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and teach of Him as our Savior, our Redeemer, our Refuge.

As transcribed at lds.org:

We are to “rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [will be our] reward in heaven” (Matthew 5:12). Willingly defend the history of the Church, and do “not [be] ashamed of the gospel of [Jesus] Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). We will face the challenges, for we cannot avoid them, and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and teach of Him as our Savior and our Refuge, our Redeemer.

The transformation is fascinating. I am not sure which version I prefer, but I like them both in different ways.

Comments

  1. Thanks, that gives them both a great context.

  2. Eric Russell says:

    Heh. I was just at this moment listening to the talk and trying to find the discrepancy. But Steve did the work for us!

    I wonder which was the original and to what degree the difference was intentional. I mean, did he slip in that line, knowing it wasn’t in the original? Or was it changed after? In any case, it’s interesting.

  3. Steve Evans says:

    The credit goes to others for the leg work. But I think slipping into “we need” from “willingly” is easy to do in the moment. Of course, the rest of that omitted sentence ain’t that easy to slip into, but still.

  4. I understand that the text of the talks posted on lds.org is taken from advance texts (rather than from transcriptions of the talks as delivered). The talks posted today on lds.org, then, are the originals. It remains to be seen whether the Ensign version will be more faithful to the delivered version or to the written version.

  5. Amen Justin. Either way, very interesting. Important to note that final versions are the Ensign ones, not the transcripts.

  6. I agree, as I understand it these text versions are what the GAs submitted to the teleprompter people to be read by them during conference.

    Pres. Packer’s addition of the apology line makes me think he was prompted to do so, thus emphasizing its importance since he felt the need to include it. Rather than censoring or deleting it for the text version, it is probably that he felt it should be added in.

    I’ve directed this question to the product manager of lds.org on his blog and am awaiting an answer.

  7. Steve Evans says:

    Connor, your point is a little obvious: of course Pres. Packer felt that the line should be added, since he in fact said it.

  8. All I’m saying is that I think the opposite possibility isn’t true – that being that it was removed from the print version due to some censoring maneuver.

  9. I don’t remember who it was, but one of the speakers Sunday afternoon used the word “diverge” when he meant “converge,” or maybe it was the other way around. In any case, the image he was trying to convey didn’t quite work with the wrong word. I hope that gets fixed in the final written version.

  10. Mike Parker says:

    The person who gave the closing prayer at the Saturday morning session said, “We are grateful to dissemble here….”

    I thought that was priceless.

  11. I’ve noticed that the preambulatory jokes, if any, are excised by the time the talks appear in the Ensign. Probably just as well, but certainly not “as delivered.”

  12. I think it’s interesting that the one speaker who tends to diverge the most from his prepared remarks is Pres. Monson–and yet, he’s also the one speaker whose divergences make the least difference. Basically, President Monson seems to write out his own talks, then paraphrases them for 30 minutes.

    I know some in the bloggernacle were agast, I have to wonder whether it even occurred to Elder Packer that his words would be interpreted the way they were. I suspect (pretending to be a mind reader) that what he had was more along the lines of “we don’t need to apologize for believing that our Church was founded by a young man in New York who was visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, and angels,” not “we don’t have to apologize for the Moutain Meadows Massacre…those Missourians had it coming to them.”

  13. That’s how I understood it too, Greg.

  14. Eliza Roxcy says:

    This reminds me of when I received my patriarchal blessing. The Patriarch said, “I bless you that you will not use your talents…” The transcription omitted the word “not,” a change I was pleased to find when it was delivered in the mail.

  15. Well, I guess this is just another example of the benefit of not paying close attention to what the GAs say in GC.

  16. Larry Richman, LDS.org product manager, has responded to my question as follows:

    “The text posted online has been reviewed by the speakers after the conference. They sometimes contain minor edits to make them ready for publication.”

  17. “The text posted online has been reviewed by the speakers after the conference. They sometimes contain minor edits to make them ready for publication.”

    Interesting.

  18. So Elder Packer made those statemetns in conference, then himself made minor edits to make his ideas ready for publication? Would this infer he retracted the original “no need to apologize” statement?

  19. Excellent point, BTD Greg (#12). That is exactly how I interpreted it at the time he stated it: “we don’t need to apologize for believing that our Church was founded by a young man in New York who was visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, and angels,” as you put it. It wasn’t until reading the bloggernacle later on that it even occured to me that many had chosen to interpret it as “we don’t have to apologize for the Moutain Meadows Massacre…those Missourians had it coming to them.” But that is not surprising. After all, Elder Packer is not a person that some in the bloggernacle are willing to give the benefit of the doubt or a charitable reading.

  20. John, I fully agree with BTD Greg’s analysis; I find it doubtful that Pres. Packer had more controversial periods of mormon history in mind.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,693 other followers