Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Mormon Church Changes Apostle’s Speech In Response To Outcry

Jim Burroway

October 10th, 2010

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, it appears that the Mormon Church is trying to change history. The church’s web site changed the remarks that Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer made to the 180th Semiannual General Conference. The controversial speech he made at the conference and beamed via satellite to churches around the world, has been modified on the LDS web site:

Perhaps the most controversial paragraph in Packer’s text that he read Sunday said, “Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

Now the word “temptations” has replaced “tendencies” and the question about God’s motives has been removed entirely.

Spokesperson Scott Trotter said that “President Packer has simply clarified his intent.” Unfortunately, it is unclear how much that “clarification” is being disseminated among the millions around the world who heard his speech. Gary Watts, a former member of the LDS Church member with a lesbian daughter and gay son, isn’t buying it. “They’re trying to edit it and soften it and make it better, but it’s not going to work. [The speech has] gone viral. Everyone knows what he said.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

JT
October 10th, 2010 | LINK

Changing one’s words in the official record to change the meaning of what one said? That’s what is called “lying” (also, “unsurprising”). Which makes this sad old man a liar. I’m not about to mince words with him.

Yes, we gays are so pitiful: we have to overcome such impure inborn tendencies like love and the desire for companionship and human rights.

I wonder when he overcame his tendency to polygamy?

Regan DuCasse
October 10th, 2010 | LINK

Unringing the bell, back pedaling…pretending they didn’t say what millions heard.

Is there no depth to the cowardice, as much as the hypocrisy and victimhood anyone can have when it comes to how they discuss gay people?
No depth at all?

They use the same media, and widespread access as possible to front their message.

But will try and say they are suddenly media shy, ONLY if they have to confront their message and have it examined in a court of law or other public forum they don’t control.

We noted how the defenders of Prop. 8 refused to have the trial made public, and refused to appear in court, putting the onus of threat on gay people for not wanting to show up.

And now, have started the same tactic all over again, going after judges and other political candidates they deem gay friendly, through the anonymity of the ballot box.
They also are balking at having their campaign contributors be disclosed and NOM has scrubbed and is now denying that they outright endorsed a political candidate here in CA.

What they can accomplish in the court of public opinion, they cannot under scrutiny in a court of law.

And they will deny, deny, and deny…that’s what their target is.

Now the leadership of the Mormon (and other religious groups) church is trying to play down the forcefulness and influence of their words, after tragedy can directly be connected to it.

What absolute cowardice. The worst kind I’ve ever seen.
If you’re going to engage in the libel and other forms of maligning a group whose civil rights and capacity for freedom you’re determined to undermine, then have the balls to own it.
And make yourself accountable to everything you say.

What DO you call this kind of moral and intellectual cowardice? Is there a word for it?

BlackDog
October 10th, 2010 | LINK

Do they really think no one was listening the first time, Really?

Why do these people think that others do not notice their actions and behavior? Do they really think people don’t see it, or that it does not line up with the teachings they claim to promote?

Or do they really believe that “Do not bear false witness against your neighbor” doesn’t apply to them?

Lindoro Almaviva
October 10th, 2010 | LINK

That is taken care of easily. I am sure a recording of the sermon or speech exists. Someone needs to make that available so the sanitized text can be posted alongside with a recording and a transcript of what he actually said. They might want to rewrite history but history has this tendency of butting back because there is this little thingcalled evidence

John in the Bay Area
October 10th, 2010 | LINK

Another example of “lying for the Lord.”

Mormons do the same thing with their Book of Mormon. If you get one printed in 2010, it will say “First Edition,” as though nothing has ever changed. But if you compare that book with on from the 1940′s or 1950′s, the grammatical and spelling errors are fixed, as well as changes in the text itself.

If they can change the Book of Mormon and pretend they haven’t, changing this old bigot’s speech is really no big deal.

dave
October 11th, 2010 | LINK

As with all religion, it’s made up. The religious just create things in their minds and say it’s so. They can create something at any time and say it’s so, it’s real, it’s fact. Here’s a perfect example. Homosexuality was always a sin. Now there’s churches that even fly the gay flag. Poof, now they created it’s ok, which is fine but it still shows that the whole religious thing is a creation of the mind and not real. Don’t eat meat on Fridays, poof, now you can. No divorce, poof, now you can. There’s all kinds of weird stuff in the bible too like touching pig skin, poof, now you can. There’s also so many kinds of religions, gods. Some gods damn people to hell if you don’t worship them and are a member of their church. To some it’s a simple crutch, to others it can turn into a real sickness.

customartist
October 11th, 2010 | LINK

Elder Packer reminded me of the hunched over Pope John Paul, barely able to push the words out. These old men haven’t adequate perspective to lead in modern society.

So long as NOM can circumvent Campaign Reporting Requirements, and so long as the LDS is fined a mere $5k for its role in Prop 8 by the Calif. Fair Political Practices Commission, then these and any laws directed at the fairness of the political process are rendered effectively worthless, Religious Persecution is alive and well, and the integrity of the system has expired.

palerobber
October 11th, 2010 | LINK

this is how the Church leadership enforces orthodoxy at the highest level. quiet, neat, and tidy. Packer was likely asked to “revise and extend” his remarks by Pres. Monson himself (he being the only one senior to Packer in the hierarchy).

not that the revised remarks were any less offensive.

Lynn David
October 11th, 2010 | LINK

Out of the mouths of babes….

Either that or “kids say the darnedest things.”

Seth R.
October 12th, 2010 | LINK

First off, the change wasn’t a huge one to begin with – for instance, one of them changed the word “tendencies” to “temptations” – with the meaning that God helps us overcome temptation.

It was simply a clarification meant to reflect that the LDS Church doesn’t take a position on the whole “nature vs. nurture” question when it comes to homosexuality. It didn’t change the LDS Church’s stance on gay sex being a bad thing one bit. So if they were trying to do a cover up, I’d have to ask – cover up of what?

Did you guys even read the changes? Or are you just discussing this entirely second-hand from what you’ve read on other gay advocacy forums?

Second, this is hardly unusual. Conference talks get altered before publication all the time. Usually, they are reviewed the following day by the person who gave the speech, to allow him to make any corrections or clarifications he wants to.

Likely, this change came from Packer himself.

Finally, among Mormons themselves, this is unlikely to be noticed at all. The version they remember will wind up being the one published in print.

It’s only in the world of gay advocacy that this is even an issue. Rank and file Mormons probably don’t really care.

Timothy Kincaid
October 12th, 2010 | LINK

Seth,

Yes, “us guys” read the changes. You don’t serve your argument well by insinuating that we are ignorant of what we post about.

Until this situation, I was unaware that the Mormon leadership revised it’s speeches for posterity. That is a practice that is pretty much unknown outside of your church. The rest of the world tends to provide transcripts of what their ministers actually said, not of what should have been said.

I don’t object to the corrections… they are, after all, preferable to the original speech. However, I do not find it admirable to sanitize one’s speech to change it’s meaning and present it as though you’d never said what you said.

Rank and file Mormons probably don’t find this peculiar, and that’s fine. But we are more concerned at this time about children committing suicide than we are about whether Packer’s speech misstated Mormon theology. So quietly changing text is of no value; public apology would be the appropriate response.

Steve
October 13th, 2010 | LINK

So he is an “apostle”?
What crap.
The ability of humans to self annoint themselves as knowing more than the average Joe about God, what God thinks, and what God has planned is the height of human arrogance.
It is even more laughable and pathetic when you consider that the entire Mormon Church was founded by a man with major psychiatric issues.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.