Crystal Clear

I never knew that talks from prophets and apostles were changed and edited for later distribution.


Much has been made over comments recently given by LDS apostle Boyd Packer at the church's October general conference. I firmly disagree with his message and find it irresponsible to say homosexuals can and should change without providing any proven method in which this is done or any evidence that it is actually possible. But this message was nothing new, I've always known that god and the church hated homosexuality (See an interesting entry in Wikipedia). What I did not know before leaving mormonism was demonstrated in the days after his speech, when the church modified some of the text of his speech to "simply clarify the intent" of his talk (Salt Lake Tribune).

I could understand why changes would be made to the presented remarks, if the talk was not read correctly from the teleprompter, if words were missed or mispronounced. However, changes to the content seems highly unnecessary considering the editorial reviews the talks likely undergo, as well as the guidance of the Spirit that prophets and apostles should have in developing their material, not to mention the direct communication with god they claim. Why was the intent not clarified prior to delivering the speech?

Many changes that are made can have significant effect on the message, as was the case with Packer's recent talk. "Mormons for Marriage," a group of LDS members who are opposed the the church's stance on gay marriage dedicated a comprehensive blog post to highlight all the changes made to the talk. I would encourage the reader to refer to their post, as I will highlight only a few changes that I believe go far beyond "clarifying intent."

• Speaking of the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", Packer's statement that "It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it." was removed and replaced with "It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."

A revelation is significantly different than simple guidelines. The LDS Bible Dictionary says revelation is, "the making known of divine truth by communication with the heavens, and consists not only of revelation of the plan of salvation to the Lord’s prophets, but also a confirmation in the hearts of the believers that the revelation to the prophets is true." Other similar "Proclamations" given by the first presidency have been added to the LDS scriptures. The proclamation also appears to be more earnest than mere guidelines, using language such as "declare," "warn," and "call upon." Backtracking on Packer's assessment of the proclamation could leave questions of which council from the prophets counts as revelation and which are just guidelines.

• When speaking of homosexual attraction Packer said, "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." In the edited version, "tendencies" was replaced with "temptations."

Packer initial statement challenges the concept of genetics influencing sexual preference (of which there is scientific evidence, even supported by BYU professor). The edited version backs off, saying instead that behavioral actions cannot be inborn and can be overcome. This change meshes better with statements by other apostles, such as Dallin Oaks, but again is a significant departure from the initial script. If Packer's true intent was to talk referring to behaviors, I don't believe he would have used the language he did.

• During his remarks discrediting genetic influence on homosexuality, Packer posed the question, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" The question was removed entirely from the published version of the talk.

Was this an unplanned remark that Packer made off the cuff? In what way did removing it clarify his intent? Does removal of this question signify that heavenly father really does give his children gay feelings or temptations?


The idea of needing to change the message of one of the prophet, seers, and revelators never seemed a possibility because I never thought it would be necessary. I am well aware that the church does not claim infallibility of its members or leaders. Yet at the same time, the church goes out of their way to avoid owning up to mistakes by its leaders. Instead, these mistakes rewritten without notice where possible, claimed to be "clarification of intent," or even labeled as persecution by others. I would welcome input from readers on any occasion when the church has apologized or admitted guilt. Please add it as a comment here if you can think of one.

If leaders can present an incorrect or unclear message, how is one to know when to believe or question what they say? (see my previous post on inconsistent prophesies)