DiscussMormonism.com

Runtu wrote:1. Talks are submitted to Correlation.
2. Correlation reviews and approves, or suggests changes, which then are resubmitted and approved, and so.
3. The approved talk is put into the close-captioning system as well as submitted to the Translation department. (We editors usually did a proofread of the CC version.)
4. The talk is given.
5. After conference, the church magazines staff and Curriculum editors (me and my colleagues) source-checked and edited the talks. If there were any problems, we had one week to contact the GA (through their secretary) for clarifications or corrections.
6. The corrected/edited versions of the talk were published in the Ensign/Liahona.
7. The conference report was made by an editor (at that time my boss, the assistant managing editor), who sat with a printed copy of the CC/translation version and listened to the conference on audio, adding or correcting to make sure the conference report was verbatim accurate.
8. The conference report would be changed only if there were a problem, such as the recent Packer controversy or the older Poelman episode.

Analytics wrote:For the record, Ill cast my minority vote that the purpose of publishing conference talks is to create an accurate record of what was actually said.

Pahoran wrote:You're entitled to that opinion. However, keep in mind that the majority of Church members--even of active Church members--do not attend conference in person. They see the video or read the Ensign, and this is the first acquaintance any of them have with what is said there. Thus, for most of us, the video and the Ensign are not simply a record of Conference--they are Conference.

This is changing now, of course, with the extension of the Church's satellite network. But nonetheless, given that most people still do not hear Conference talks in real time, Conference is less a two-day event than a month-and-a-half process. Thus, for most members, the version of the talk on the video and in the Ensign is nothing less than the talk that Elder Poelman gave. And this is not "deception" or "doctoring" but the simple truth--he did in fact give it.

sock puppet wrote:Pahoran's 'truth' is anything but simple. Twisted, spun and contorted? yes. Simple? no.

Sophocles wrote:

Pahoran wrote:You're entitled to that opinion. However, keep in mind that the majority of Church members--even of active Church members--do not attend conference in person. They see the video or read the Ensign, and this is the first acquaintance any of them have with what is said there. Thus, for most of us, the video and the Ensign are not simply a record of Conference--they are Conference.

This is changing now, of course, with the extension of the Church's satellite network. But nonetheless, given that most people still do not hear Conference talks in real time, Conference is less a two-day event than a month-and-a-half process. Thus, for most members, the version of the talk on the video and in the Ensign is nothing less than the talk that Elder Poelman gave. And this is not "deception" or "doctoring" but the simple truth--he did in fact give it.

Frodo wrote:The members of the correlation committee seem to have very high level of authority. I do not remember ever sustaining a person to that committee. Is it a calling? Maybe it is a secret combination.

Drifting wrote:DCP was on it...'nuff said....