Does the Ensign report GC, or what GC should've been?

[_sock puppet]

Considering the Ronald E Poelman incident, and the BKP one, how loosely does the Church and the Ensign in particular use the term "report" when publishing purportedly ver batim accounts?

[_sock puppet]

Privately, I contacted Runtu. He explained the process as:

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.

Sounds very corporate in process to me.

But what about 'promptings of the Spirit'? These get edited out. Isn't it a marvelous work and a wonder?

[_Sophocles]

You might want to check out an old ZLMB thread I referenced here. Pahoran has some choice views on the topic.

In addition to the part Shades highlighted in that thread, the following is also pertinent to your question:

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.

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]

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

[_Bob Loblaw]

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

He's another example disproving the belief that Mormonism takes bad men and makes them good, and takes good men and makes them better.

[_Drifting]

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.

Of course Pahoran's defence actually results in damage from friendly fire...

Members would be well advised to not listen to Conference, instead wait for the 'real' version to come out later. This avoids the members picking up incorrect Gospel messages from the live event (seems like building a conference centre might have been a waste of money in Pahorans world view).

Pahoran is very sneaky in the way he consistently undermines Church leadership whilst appearing to be trying to support them.

[_Sethbag]

Pahoran has to self-servingly define "Conference" as the union of "what was said in Conference" and "what was printed in the Conference Report". He chooses to use a functional definition, saying that since the Conference Report serves as the original source of Conference for most Mormons, it should in fact be included in the definition of "Conference."

Moreover, Poelman did in fact stand at a podium and read the radically edited version of his talk for inclusion in video or audio Conference archives, thus by Definition that version was in fact the talk that Poelman gave. Sure, it's a BS argument that attempts to use semantics and language lawyering to cover up the fact that the church radically changed Poelman's message between its original delivery and its final archival record. Pahoran is simply doing what Pahoran is pretty good at, ie: coming up with BS semantic arguments or language lawyering to get the Church off on a technicality.

[_Frodo]

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]

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.

DCP was on it...'nuff said....

[_Bob Loblaw]

DCP was on it...'nuff said....

He was? Where/when did he say that?