It’s pretty much guaranteed that this scripture will show up in my Facebook feed every time general conference rolls around.
What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (Doctrine & Covenants 1:38)
It’s actually a well-known scripture among members outside of the realm of conference as well. Seminary attendees will recognize it as a “scripture chase” scripture. And I remember referencing it often as a missionary. It’s woven throughout the curriculum of the church.
So when it is conference time, it’s not surprising to hear the invitation to “Come, listen to a prophet’s voice… and hear the word of God” (Hymn #21). Our local leaders counsel us to pay special attention to the word of God spoken by our modern-day prophets and apostles (“whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same”).
So what happens if the “word of God” is changed a little (or a lot!)? Is it okay? When the print version of Elder Christofferson’s talk from this past conference (October 2013) appeared online, I noticed a change:
Original: “Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation.”
Revised Version: “Some view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation.”
In regard to this specific edit, The Salt Lake Tribune reported the following:
Slight editing of conference sermons is not uncommon, LDS Church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Wednesday. “The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent.”
Church editors had suggested to the apostle that “referencing ‘some feminist thinkers’ would inevitably be read by many as ‘all feminist thinkers,’ ” Todd explained in a statement. “Elder Christofferson agreed and has simply clarified his intent.”
Are we okay with editors clarifying or suggesting changes to the word of God? When I first heard Elder Christofferson’s talk, I was really disenchanted with his use of the word “feminist” because, well, I am a feminist. But when I publicly voiced my concern, I was quickly referred back to verse 38, specifically, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”
What? When I don’t feel comfortable with something that is said over the pulpit, I am almost instantly labeled as an apostate kicking against the pricks, but when a group of editors suggest a change, nobody seems to care. In fact most members would probably be okay with this group of editors/advisors suggesting any improvement in the Church. But what about when a group of lay members suggests something to our leaders? How are they treated? Not too long ago a group of members was asking that women be invited to pray in conference. The majority of the Mormon world freaked out: “You can’t suggest things!”; “How dare you say that women are not treated equally just because they can’t pray in conference!”; “I’m a woman and I don’t want to pray in conference!”; etc.
The problem with taking that phrase of verse 38, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” so literally is that we tend to place our human leaders, who, by the way, do make mistakes, on the same plane as God. Are they gods? Are they perfect? Of course not. They make mistakes (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join With Us,” October 2013 General Conference). They have their biases and their worldviews just like everybody else.
So maybe in the future we should ease off on “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” a little, and while we’re at it, let’s ease off on labeling feminists as apostates. Let’s be kind! Let’s remember Elder Christofferson’s own words: “it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.” (April 2012 General Conference)
If you’re still not sure whether all of this is really a big deal or not, following are some other examples of conference changes.
Boyd K. Packer speaking once again on gay marriage and same-sex attraction:
“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel,” October 2010 General Conference)
While various edits were made throughout his talk, in the above paragraph the word “temptations” was changed to “tendencies” and the question “Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” was removed entirely.
Now let’s talk about Elder Poelman’s famous (infamous?) conference talk given in October 1984. He gave, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and inspired talks entitled “The Gospel and the Church.” However, the “Church” was of a different opinion and not only was his talk edited, but Poelman had to re-record his talk to an empty tabernacle. (Don’t worry the cough tracks were added for authenticity!) Things got much more complicated for the Church with the invention of the VCR – members noticed when things were changed! DANG VCRS!! Here is the talk side by side so you can see the differences. Again, I completely loved his unedited talk; it is one of the reasons I remain a Mormon.
(Differences between the two talks are highlighted in red. Deletions from the original talk are set off by strikethrough Font, while additions in the Ensign version are Underlined.)
Conference Version | Version Published in the Ensign and on Video Tape |
Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine. | Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine, |
However, there is a distinction between them which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood. | and there is an essential relationship between them that is significant and very important. |
Of equal importance is understanding the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church. Failure to distinguish between the two and to comprehend their proper relationship may lead to confusion and misplaced priorities with unrealistic and therefore failed expectations. This in turn may result in diminished benefits and blessings and, in extreme instances, even disaffections. | Understanding the proper relationship between the gospel and the Church will prevent confusion, misplaced priorities, and failed expectations and will lead to the realization of gospel goals through happy, fulfilling participation in the Church. Such understanding will avoid possible disaffection and will result in great personal blessings. |
As I attempt to describe and comment upon some distinguishing characteristics of the gospel and of the Church, at the same time noting their essential relationships, it is my prayer that a perspective may be developed which will enhance the influence of both the gospel and the Church in our lives. | As I attempt to describe and comment upon the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church it is my prayer that a perspective may be developed which will enhance the influence of both the gospel and the Church in our lives. |
The gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine and perfect plan. It is composed of eternal, unchanging principles and laws which are universally applicable to every individual regardless of time, place, or circumstance. | The gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine and perfect plan. It is composed of eternal, unchanging principles, laws, and ordinances which are universally applicable to every individual regardless of time, place, or circumstance. |
The principles and laws of the gospel never change. | Gospel principles never change. |
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a divine institution administered by the priesthood of God. | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on Earth administered by the priesthood of God. |
The Church has authority to teach correctly the principles and doctrines of the gospel and to administer its essential ordinances. | The Church has the authority to teach correctly the principles and doctrines of the gospel and to administer its essential ordinances. |
The gospel is the substance of the divine plan for personal, individual salvation and exaltation. The Church is the delivery system that provides the means and resources to implement this plan in each individual’s life. | The gospel is the divine plan for personal, individual salvation and exaltation. The Church is divinely commissioned to provide the means and resources that implement this plan in each individual’s life. |
Procedures programs and policies are developed within the Church to help us realize gospel blessings according to our individual capacity and circumstances. Under divine direction, these policies, programs, and procedures do change from time to time as necessary to fulfill gospel purposes. | Procedures programs and policies are developed within the Church to help us realize gospel blessings according to our individual capacity and circumstances. Under divine direction, these policies, programs, and procedures may be changed from time to time as necessary to fulfill gospel purposes. |
Underlying every aspect of Church administration and activity are the revealed eternal principles as contained in the scriptures. . | Underlying every aspect of Church administration and activity are the revealed eternal principles as contained in the scriptures. |
As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered. | As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we can more effectively utilize the Church to make our lives more gospel centered. |
Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal gospel principles. Under such circumstances those who do not conform to these cultural standards may mistakenly be regarded as unorthodox or even unworthy. In fact, the eternal principles of the gospel and the divinely inspired Church do accommodate a broad spectrum of individual uniqueness and cultural diversity. | The eternal principles of the gospel implemented through the divinely inspired Church apply to a wide variety of individuals in diverse cultures. |
The conformity we require should be according to God’s standards. | Therefore, as we live the gospel and participate in the Church, the conformity we require of ourselves and of others should be according to God’s standards. |
The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual. | The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles, eternal law, and direction given by those authorized in the Church. |
It is important therefore to know the difference between eternal gospel principles which are unchanging, universally applicable and cultural norms which may vary with time and circumstance. | |
The source of this perspective is found in the scriptures and may appear to be presented in a rather unorganized and untidy format. | A necessary perspective is gained by studying and pondering the scriptures. |
The Lord could have presented the gospel to us in a manual, systematically organized by subject, perhaps using examples and illustrations. | |
However the eternal principles and divine laws of God are revealed to us through accounts of individual lives in a variety of circumstances and conditions. | |
Reading the scriptures, we learn the gospel as it is taught by various messengers at different times and places. | Reading the scriptures, we learn the gospel as it is taught by various prophets in a variety of circumstances, times, and places. |
We see the consequences as it is accepted or rejected, as its principles are applied or not to varying degrees and by many different people. | We see the consequences as the gospel is accepted or rejected by individuals and as its principles are applied or not. |
In the scriptures we discover that varying institutional forms, procedures and regulations and ceremonies are utilized, all divinely designed to implement eternal principles. The practices and procedures change; the principles do not. | In the scriptures we discover that varying institutional forms, procedures and regulations and ceremonies were utilized, all divinely designed to implement eternal principles. The practices and procedures change; the principles do not. |
Through scripture study we may learn eternal principles and how to distinguish them from and relate them to institutional resources. | |
As we liken the scriptures unto ourselves we can better utilize the institutional resources of the modern restored Church to learn, live and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. | As we liken the scriptures unto ourselves we can better utilize the institutional resources of the modern restored Church to learn, live and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. |
A favorite scriptural source for is the Old Testament Book of Leviticus. | A favorite scriptural source for is the Old Testament Book of Leviticus. |
It is basically a handbook for Hebrew priests and contains many rules, regulations, rituals and ceremonies which seem strange and inapplicable to us. | It is basically a handbook for Hebrew priests and contains many rules, regulations, rituals and ceremonies which seem strange and inapplicable to us. |
It also contains eternal principles of the gospel which are familiar and very much applicable to everyone. | It also contains eternal principles of the gospel which are familiar and very much applicable to everyone. |
It is interesting and enlightening to read the 19th chapter of Leviticus, noting both the principles and the rules and practices. | It is interesting and enlightening to read the 19th chapter of Leviticus, noting both the principles and the rules and practices. |
In the first two verses we read, “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel…..” (Leviticus 19: 1-2) | In the first two verses we read, “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel…..” (Leviticus 19: 1-2) |
Here is the principle of revelation. | Here is the principle of revelation. |
God speaks to his children through prophets. | God speaks to his children through prophets. |
He does so today. | He does so today. |
Continuing, the Lord says to Moses, “….say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2) | Continuing, the Lord says to Moses, “….say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2) |
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Here is an eternal gospel principle. | Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Here is an eternal gospel principle. |
There follow other eternal principles, some form the Ten Commandments. | There follow other eternal principles, some form the Ten Commandments. |
Also included are rules and programs intended to implement these principles among the ancient Hebrews in their particular circumstances. | Also included are rules and programs intended to implement these principles among the ancient Hebrews in their particular circumstances. |
For example, the divinely directed responsibility to care for the poor is taught. A program is presented, vis. providing food for the poor by leaving the gleanings of the crops and not reaping the corners of the fields. (Leviticus 19:9-10) Current programs to care for the poor are much different. The divine law is the same. Yet another principle underlies both programs, ancient and modern, i.e. those being assisted are given opportunity to participate in helping themselves to the extent of their capacity. | For example, the divinely directed responsibility to care for the poor is taught. A program is presented, vis. providing food for the poor by leaving the gleanings of the crops and not reaping the corners of the fields. (Leviticus 19:9-10) Current programs to care for the poor are much different. The divine law is the same. Yet another principle underlies both programs, ancient and modern, i.e. those being assisted are given opportunity to participate in helping themselves to the extent of their capacity. |
In verse 13 the principle of honesty is taught accompanied by a rule requiring employers to pay employees for their work at the end of each day. | In verse 13 the principle of honesty is taught accompanied by a rule requiring employers to pay employees for their work at the end of each day. |
Generally, today that rule is not necessary. | Generally, today that rule is not necessary. |
The eternal principle of honesty is implemented by other rules and practices. | The eternal principle of honesty is implemented by other rules and practices. |
Verse 27 contains a rule about personal grooming, it is clearly not applicable to us. | Verse 27 contains a rule about personal grooming, it is clearly not applicable to us. |
However, we also have standards of dress and grooming. | However, we also have standards of dress and grooming. |
Neither is an eternal principle; both are intended to help us implement and share gospel principles. | Neither is an eternal principle; both are intended to help us implement and share gospel principles. |
The principle of forgiveness is set forth in the same chapter of Leviticus, verse 18, concluding with the second great commandment, “….thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.” with the added divine imprimatur, “…I am the Lord.” | The principle of forgiveness is set forth in the same chapter of Leviticus, verse 18, concluding with the second great commandment, “….thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.” with the added divine imprimatur, “…I am the Lord.” |
Every church member has not only the opportunity, right, and privilege to receive a personal witness regarding gospel principles and Church practices, but has the need and obligation to obtain such assurance by exercising his free agency, thereby fulfilling one purpose of his mortal probation. | Every church member has the opportunity, right, and privilege to receive a personal witness regarding gospel principles and Church practices. |
Without such assurance, one may feel confused and perhaps even burdened by what may appear to be simply institutional requirements of the Church. | Without such a witness, one may feel confused and perhaps even burdened by what may appear to be simply institutional requirements of the Church. |
Indeed, it is not enough that we obey the commandments and counsel of Church leaders. | We should obey the commandments and counsel of Church leaders; |
In response to study, prayer and by the influence of the Holy Spirit we may seek and obtain an individual, personal witness that the principle or counsel is correct and divinely inspired. | but also through study, through prayer, and by the influence of the Holy Spirit, we should seek and obtain an individual, personal witness that the principle or counsel is correct and divinely inspired. |
Then we can give enlightened, enthusiastic obedience, utilizing the Church through which to give allegiance, time, talent and other resources without reluctance or resentment. | Then we can give enlightened, enthusiastic obedience, utilizing the Church through which to give allegiance, time, talent and other resources without reluctance or resentment. |
Happy, fulfilling participation in the Church results when we relate institutional goals, programs and policies to gospel principles and to personal eternal goals. | Happy, fulfilling participation in the Church results when we relate Church goals, programs and policies to gospel principles and to personal eternal goals. |
When we understand the difference between the gospel and the Church and the appropriate function of each in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons. | When we see the harmony between the gospel and the Church in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons. |
Institutional discipline is replaced by self discipline. | |
Supervision is replaced by righteous initiative and a sense of divine accountability. | We will exercise self discipline and righteous initiative guided by Church leaders and a sense of divine accountability. |
The Church aids us in our effort to use our free agency creatively, not to invent our own values and principles, but to discover and adopt the eternal truths of the gospel. | The Church aids us in our effort to use our free agency creatively, not to invent our own values and principles, and interpretations but to learn and live the eternal truths of the gospel. |
Gospel living is a process of continuous individual renewal and improvement until the person is prepared and qualified to enter comfortably and with confidence into the presence of God. | Gospel living is a process of continuous individual renewal and improvement until the person is prepared and qualified to enter comfortably and with confidence into the presence of God. |
My brothers and sisters, by inclination, training and experience, most of my life I have sought understanding by the accumulation of facts and the application of reason. | My brothers and sisters, by inclination, training and experience, most of my life I have sought understanding by the accumulation of facts and the application of reason. |
I continue to do so. | I continue to do so. |
However, that which I know most surely and which has most significantly and positively affected my life I do not know by facts and reason alone, but rather by the comforting, confirming witness of the Holy Spirit. | However, that which I know most surely and which has most significantly and positively affected my life I do not know by facts and reason alone, but rather by the comforting, confirming witness of the Holy Spirit. |
By that same Spirit I testify that God is our Father, the Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh and that he is the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind and each of us. | By that same Spirit I testify that God is our Father, the Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh and that he is the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind and each of us. |
Through his atoning sacrifice, redemption and exaltation are offered as a free gift to all who will accept by faith, repentance and sacred covenants. | Through his atoning sacrifice, redemption and exaltation are offered as a free gift to all who will accept by faith, repentance and sacred covenants. |
May each of us continue to learn and apply the eternal principles of the gospel, utilizing fully and appropriately the resources of the divine restore Church. | May each of us continue to learn and apply the eternal principles of the gospel, utilizing fully and appropriately the resources of the divine restore Church. |
In the words of the Nephite leader Pahoran, “… may we rejoice in the great privilege of our church and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.” (Alma 61:14) In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. | In the words of the Nephite leader Pahoran, “… may we rejoice in the great privilege of our church and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.” (Alma 61:14) In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. |
I will talk more about this subject in an upcoming post called “The Conference Conundrum: What is Doctrine?”
Love it! When Elder Packer gave that “Cleansing the Inner Vessel” talk, it was well before I began falling down this rabbit hole of doubts and questions, inequality, and all the other issues that are discussed here. But I distinctly remember that EVEN THEN, the moment those two sentences came out of his mouth “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”, something inside me bristled. But wait a minute, I’m supposed to feel the Spirit during all talks, right? My immediate thought in rebuttal to that horrible statement was “Really? Why would God do or allow ANY of the things that humans have to live with? Why are children born with congenital defects? Why are they born with Down Syndrome, Autism, Muscular Dystrophy? Missing limbs? Chemical and hormonal imbalances that make them prone to a life of depression, schizophrenia, you name it.”. It only makes sense too, then, that people are born wired for different sexual preferences. That’s just nature, and WE are not the ones that made it that way.
I keep searching in vain for the place in the April conference report where we sustain the editors as prophets, seers and revelators. Can anyone else help me find it? Surely there must be something that privileges the editors’ concerns over mine or over those that might be expressed by common consent.
haha! Or the PR department!
love this comment
It’s all part of revisionist history and has been done since day one of this “Church of Christ”.
Jean, methinks I totally agree with you.
Well said, Paul!
I loved Elder Ronald Poelman’s 1984 conference talk entitled “the Gospel and the Church” but the revised version that showed up in the Ensign was pretty lame. So which version is God’s word — the live version or the revised printed version?
Let’s go with the live version. SOO much better
The word of God will not pass away, whether from God directly, or through a man. If a man speaks something that isn’t the word of God, of course it can change. Also, minor clarifications doesn’t qualify as “change” to me. Language is an imperfect mode of communication, and refining one’s language to try to more accurately portray one’s message doesn’t impact whether or not the message is from God.
Did you not read the Poelman talk? That was more than clarification.
Another very important edit in the Packer talk was the downgrading of the Family Proclamation from a “revelation” to a “guide.”
Good point Bryce! I discuss this in the follow up post of what is doctrine and where does the Family Proclamation fit in.
The Joseph Smith Papers show that many or all of the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants went through various editing and other changes by Joseph and by others (including editors). The changes or edits are noted in the drafts and manuscripts along with the probably identifies of those who made them.
Grant Underwood gave a wonderful address (Relishing the Revisions: Joseph Smith and the Revelatory Process) about this https://devotional.byuh.edu/node/327 I like Underwood’s reference to the process as yielding (from the title of a book) “the Word of God, in the words of men.” Those who believe that what inspired people say is the “very word of God” that is inerrant and not subject to clarification or revision are setting up a false God.
Joseph (and inspired speakers today) did not and do not, in Grant Underwood’s words, operate as a mere fax machine of God’s very words, but as imperfect human vessels doing his, her or their best to flesh out feelings and inspiration and promptings in imperfect human language. And we as listeners are privileged to prompting of the Spirit to understand what is inspired and how any such inspiration should be interpreted and applied for ourselves.
I agree with the post except for this part you mentioned.
Original: ”Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation.”
Your response was …and while we’re at it, let’s ease off on labeling feminists as apostates.
I don’t think he said that. At least that’s how I interpret it. He is saying that some feminist thinkers view homemaking with contempt. That is actually a fact. Many feminists view it as subservient, less important, and settling for 2nd best.
A high profile example of that was Obama stooge Hillary Roosen who said “Ann Romney hasn’t worked a day in her life.” She and other feminists feel that way because they choose to stay home and raise a family. So Elder Christofferson’s point was true and correct, even if he felt he needed to change it.
As to the rest of it, I agree. The Brethren are not perfect and they shouldn’t be held to that standard. President Uchdorf and Elder Holland have both reminded us of that in recent talks. We as members need to see that and understand that. Too many of us don’t.
For me though, while I will always think for myself, I will always take the advice and council that the Brethren give us.
The comment to ease off labeling feminists as apostates is directed more towards the general membership of the Church.
There are lots of different views in feminism, Mormon Feminist, rarely have this view of Hillary Roosen. I would say Mormon Feminist are all about choices.
Perhaps you’re right. But Elder Christofferson’s point is that SOME feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt. He doesn’t say Mormon feminists or non Mormon feminists but rather feminists. And to that point, it is indeed true (as we see with Hillary Rosen).
Look, I know we have a lot of feminist readers who read and write on this blog, and who feel passionate about equality. My point isn’t if I (or Elder Christofferson) agree with them, but rather that some in that camp (in and out of the church) look down on stay at home moms. That’s just a fact.
I don’t think he is being disparaging to all feminists, but rather to that close minded point of view from some.
I think that is why the editors knew it needed to be changed.
Also I think one should know his audience. He is speaking to Mormons and therefore Mormon Feminist. I run with a lot of Mormon feminist and I don’t know one that looks down in staying home with the kids.
Paul, he never mentioned “Mormon” feminists but just feminists in general. The discussion we’re having is exactly why he felt it appropriate to delete the word altogether. Because some would make more of that word than what needed to be made, and it would distract from the rest of his message.
It’s ironic because that is what’s happened here. I disagreed with your comment, which was rather insignificant to a much larger and more important point you are trying to make. I agreed with the rest of your point except what we are discussing, just as you probably agreed with much of his talk, except for the word he removed.
Fair?
I disagree. I believe he was speaking to Women of the Church. I believe the word feminist was intentionally being used pejoratively,working towards establishing it as a dirty word within the church.
That’s what I find unusual – with the reasoning for the change given, why didn’t they just revise it to simply add words (i.e. “Some (but not all) feminist thinkers…”).
That would be more inline with the state reasoning. Instead, removing the reference to Feminists entirely shows that there was more at stake instead of a simple misreading of ‘some’ as ‘all’. I think the original is disparaging of feminists as well, but that this is a lot harder to come out and highlight or admit to.
(Jason, before I post, let me make sure we all understand I’m not straw-manning your post. My response isn’t directly related to your comment. It’s tangentially related, but off of the point you’re making.)
I’ve heard some defend the “some feminist thinkers” comment as follows: There are many who believe that way, including feminists; therefore, it is a correct statement. True, but one could take it further and include any subgroup that may share the thought, which could include Republicans, Bishops, left-handed folks, and New York Yankees fans. So it would also be technically accurate if he’d said: “Some Republican thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt” or “some Bishop thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt” or “some left-handed folks thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt”, and all would be as technically accurate as “some feminist thinkers”.
It’s easy to see the fallibility of the position when played out to an extreme, so my sense is that he chose the term carefully, knowing his audience, and targeting MoFems. His history includes similar statements, so it’s not uncharted territory for him.
Okay, let me just say this. Many, perhaps most feminists (except the LDS variety) find that homemaking “isn’t working” as Hillary Rosen said of Ann Romney. Most feel that it is beneath them to work in the home and raise kids because they view it as antiquated and subservient to their husband. Using google can direct you to dozens of examples of this philosophy. My guess is there are even some LDS women who share this view as well, though not many. So his quote, suggesting that some feminist share that view is spot on. Many in fact do.
The point is this. Elder Christofferson knew that some would misunderstand who his quote was directed at and would take it out of context or over politicize it so he removed it.
And yet we criticize him for doing that exact thing. So he was wrong for saying it, but was also wrong for retracting it. I guess you don’t get a do over if you’re an Apostle.
And to your other point, I agree that we should think for ourselves, and understand that the speakers (the Brethren) are indeed imperfect men. But too many people simply discredit the church as a whole because of this revision or that revision. They throw the entire thing out because this comment or doctrine doesn’t match that comment or doctrine. I don’t fall into that camp at all, not even a little.
Elder Uchdorf’s talk said it best for me when he said some of the things we have heard, seen, or practiced are not in keeping with our values, doctrine, or beliefs (paraphrased). So when I hear something or see something I don’t agree with, I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I simply chalk it up to a difference of opinion I have. That’s just me though.
If this is the case, what happens if you ever come across or hear something that seems completely wrong to you, even if the Brethren state it in conference or other places, while acting as seers and revelators? Would you study it out, think about it, and be open to the possibility that they were wrong in their statement, or does thinking for yourself mean you will change your own thoughts on it and go with it? I see this as somewhat of an incompatible statement because taking their advice and counsel always means that you will always do so, whether it seems right to you or not, and to me, that means not thinking for yourself.
Fair point, I shouldn’t use the word always. Because the truth is that there is an issue or two that I disagree with. Like I think we have too many meetings in the church. I think couples should be allowed to choose to marry civilly first, then be sealed immediately after if they choose. My differences are small ones.
I think for myself, and come to my own conclusions. But I still see much value in what I hear from the Brethren. I agree with most of it, and most of it has helped me in areas I need help in.
But you make a fair point.
Jason,
Thank you for your kindness in your response. I am glad to hear that you take things and apply what you find most important into your own life, while not necessarily agreeing with everything that is said or practiced. I have just found that it is important to make sure that you say what you really mean, especially on the internet. I’ve learned this the hard way through many mistakes of my own, believe me. Thank you again for your response.
I think when we stop thinking for ourselves and simply swallow whole what we are taught or fed, then we truly become a cult that others label us with. We shouldn’t be zombies, and we shouldn’t shun or silence those who may disagree with this or that.
It all comes back to belief. This is what I believe.
Loved this “When I don’t feel comfortable with something that is said over the pulpit, I am almost instantly labeled as an apostate kicking against the pricks, but when a group of editors suggest a change, nobody seems to care. In fact most members would probably be okay with this group of editors/advisors suggesting any improvement in the Church. But what about when a group of lay members suggests something to our leaders? How are they treated?”
So true which is sad…. why is that we aren’t able to share our perspectives/suggestions to a talk but the PR Dept and editors can. The changes to Poelman’s talk were not just minor edits they changed the entire tone and message.
Paul,
There is quite a history of editing conference talks. Have you read Joe Geisner’s study of Conference Changes that was published in Sunstone in December 2011? It was called “Very Careless in His Utterances: Editing, Correcting, and Censoring Conference Addresses”
I had never seen the original Poelman talk before. It is beautiful and I am now mourning its loss.
It is the best conference talk ever given in my book.
I’m a little off target, but where can I see/know the Poelman talk was changed. Is there a video of the original? How do we know the follow up video was faked? I’m not meaning to be rude. I’ve read about this before so there is truth to it. I’ve read transcripts and much prefer the first “inspired” version.” Just want some verification on the video. Also – my daughter were half-listening to conf. in my husband’s office when BKP uttered his infamous words. We both looked at each other and said “did you just hear him say that?” about the PoF and about gays. Wow – that started a conversation that continued even after the ENSIGN changes came out.
Sherry to youtube we go! I’ll have to do some research on that. But I’m betting it is on youtube.
I googled ronald poelman edited talk. Here’s what i found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_E._Poelman
http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/02/best-conference-talk-you-never-read_13.html
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/elder-poelmans-most-famous-speech/
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/01/18/104-poelman-conference-talk/
Sherry,
Here is the original on you tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hWmp4ZCcM8
Here is the talk on lds.org:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-gospel-and-the-church?lang=eng
Perfection Paul, perfection.
I think we are misinterpreting D&C 1:38.
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”
To me, it looks like there are two big and distinct ideas in this verse:
1: The Lord takes responsibility for His words. They are His, and no one else’s. He does not make excuses and try to pawn them off on others. What He has spoken, He has spoken.
2: The Lord talks about the eternal nature of His words. They shall all be fulfilled, and He allows for others to participate. Whether his words are fulfilled by His own voice or by the voice of His servants, it doesn’t matter. The point is that the words are and will be fulfilled.
In other words, this verse does not say that whatever a servant speaks, it is the same as God speaking. It says that if a servant causes God’s words to be fulfilled, then that counts as if God had fulfilled the words Himself.
I would say 99% of the members don’t see it that way and there lies the issue. I do like how you see it though!
Oooh, I like this interpretation a lot.
I didn’t like the “feminist thinkers” comment when I heard Elder Christofferson give his talk. The reason is he mentioned feminists’ “worst,” which is a tiny minority, and probably represents zero Mormon feminists.
In doing so, it was clear to me he was setting up a straw man argument, painting all feminists (Mormons included) with this broad brush, and specifically with the goal in mind of tarring the members of Ordain Women.
On reflection, I don’t like the way he muscled “thinkers” into his now deleted phrase, either, as it implies that those who “think” are somehow inferior to the faithful who simply believe what they are told.
I am glad he agreed to delete the offending phrase, but am not sure it makes that much of a difference.
The Church tipped its hand here, showing to the world that a shadow government exists within the LDS Church that is above the apostles, the titular source of doctrine and revelation.
We know it as the Church Correlation Committee, and this incident has fulfilled David O. McKay’s prediction that should the CCC become fully implemented per Elder Harold B. Lee’s vision, it would become the Mormon equivalent of the Catholic Magesterium.
This change was implemented appropriately by an anonymous “editor.”
Again with the feminist issue. Look, his comment was “some feminist thinkers view…”, not “some LDS feminists view…”. To suggest he was speaking of LDS feminists and specifically LDS “please ordain women” feminists is jumping to conclusions. You call it a straw man argument, I call it jumping to conclusions based on evidence that isn’t there.
The truth is that many, perhaps most feminists in the world today, look down on stay at home moms. I provided examples of this in a prior discussion. It is simply a fact. So to pillage him for a broad, not specific comment that he later redacted anyway is really petty.
I have no comment on the rest of your post.
It would be jumping to a conclusion, even though he is speaking to an lds audience.
Yes Paul, it would be jumping to conclusions to assume it was addressed to LDS feminists because it was given at Conference. Many, many, many, many talks given at Conference refer to the thoughts, attitudes, opinions, and feelings of “the world” and not “the members”. His comments stated that feminists “not specifically LDS or nonLDS but rather feminists in general” hold that view.
What I still can’t understand is that you (many of you) find fault with him in two ways.
1st. He was wrong to direct criticism at “feminists” which as Paul said in his original post “and while we’re at it, let’s ease off on labeling feminists as apostates.”
2nd. He withdrew the word feminist so as not to create angst or animosity among LDS feminists or those who might misinterpret the point he was making, yet by rephrasing his point, he is being criticized for changing “the word of God”.
How can he win?