NOM

I came across this bit today, and thought it was interesting. He starts to say it just after 1:50 (minute:second), which is where this video should start. So, doctrine because it came from an apostle: Don't record us because people will edit out bits and pieces and make me look bad (something like that; I forget the exact wording). I guess I just did that?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JhADf8fH0BQ?start=110"

There's a pretty simple solution for the church. Make its own recording of every talk given by a GA. It would not be that hard.

Edit to add: I am sure the church is not worried about someone's words being taken out of context. They are worried about a recording of some batcrap crazy statement completely in context.

This sounds amazingly like Joseph Smith's lame excuse for not re-translating the 116 pages of the BofM.

"Other people might change what I've written and make me look stupid."

Well, the only thing making you look stupid is this lousy excuse for not wanting to be held accountable for what you say in a more private setting than what you say publicly.

Another fine example for my book called, "The Mormons: having their cake and eating it too".

Spelling edited.

Yeah, they aren't worried about having their talks altered. They could legitimately be taken out of context, but I think the thing they are most afraid of is a high ranking church official will give an uncorrelated answer and cause problems for them even in context. The skeptic exmos are typically picky about not being tricked by taking things out of context, as the church did this to many of them for years and years.

Random wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm So, doctrine because it came from an apostle: Don't record us because people will edit out bits and pieces and make me look bad

Hmmm... Edit out bits and pieces eh? Anyone ever heard of Ronald Poelman?

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:22 pm Hmmm... Edit out bits and pieces eh? Anyone ever heard of Ronald Poelman?

Yes, that is a despicable story. But it's only the modern incarnation of what has been done to the Journal of Discourses since then. Modern lesson manuals quote from collections of JoD excerpts rather than directly from the JoD. They definitely have their own context and prefer to keep it that way.

I actually believe they think people would do that to them. Being so important and all they believe they are targets for nefarious plots.

That may be true to some small degree but really in the broader world who even cares what they say. You have to have some pretty strong ties to Mormonism to give a hoot.

I don’t think editing bits and pieces is needed to make them look bad. You can listen to the whole talk and get the bad without editing.

Mitt Romney learned the hard way not to let himself be recorded when he was sharing his true thoughts with other rich Mormons. Even if you despise the poor and the lower middle classes, you shouldn't let the public hear you say it. What is said at Romney $50,000 dollar a plate fundraisers in Park City should stay in Park City.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:22 pm

Random wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm So, doctrine because it came from an apostle: Don't record us because people will edit out bits and pieces and make me look bad

Hmmm... Edit out bits and pieces eh? Anyone ever heard of Ronald Poelman?

Mic drop.

Random wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm I came across this bit today, and thought it was interesting. He starts to say it just after 1:50 (minute:second), which is where this video should start. So, doctrine because it came from an apostle: Don't record us because people will edit out bits and pieces and make me look bad (something like that; I forget the exact wording). I guess I just did that?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JhADf8fH0BQ?start=110"

Sweet Jesus, Oaks is an idiot!

He says you aren't supposed to record him because, "with today's technology," what he says can be edited in his voice and made to say something that he didn't say.

Really?

Hate to break it to you, Elder Oaks, but that can be done "with today's technology" to anything you say in General Conference where your talks are recorded.

Listened to Infants on Thrones lately?

There must be a reason for this rule, but it sure isn't the reason Elder Oaks is peddling.

consiglieri wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:18 am There must be a reason for this rule, but it sure isn't the reason Elder Oaks is peddling.

I'm pretty sure the reason is that they want to send one message to the world while sending a completely different one to smaller groups of church leaders, in the same way that President Hinkley could deny uncomfortable doctrine on public television and then deny his denial when speaking to the initiated.

Elder Oaks sees this kind of thing as an aspect of his obsession with what he calls religious freedom. He wants to be able to say horrible things in public, but since he can't do that to the degree he wants, he's hoping to control access to horrible things he might say in local in-group gatherings.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:42 pm Mitt Romney learned the hard way not to let himself be recorded when he was sharing his true thoughts with other rich Mormons. Even if you despise the poor and the lower middle classes, you shouldn't let the public hear you say it. What is said at Romney $50,000 dollar a plate fundraisers in Park City should stay in Park City.

One way around the evidence of this electronic recording would have been to have his friends and family members who attended this event to bear their testimony that Mitt said no such thing.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:22 pmHmmm... Edit out bits and pieces eh? Anyone ever heard of Ronald Poelman?

That definitely comes to mind!

I think it's a mix of wanting to control every single thing they can (power) and fear. If they say stupid things, it will be all over the internet. They've seen that. "I'm scripture." "Don't criticize the leaders even if the criticism is true" (warranted). Wait. Those came from times they agreed to be recorded. Okay, I'm confused. They can shoot themselves in the feet much better than clandestine recordings (legally recorded, even) can.

But, some of the things said in meetings have been blasted all over the internet, like the Boise rescue - and, on a lesser scale, excommunication proceedings and interviews with local leaders.

Random wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm Don't record us because people will edit out bits and pieces and make me look bad (something like that; I forget the exact wording).

Except the best protection against that sort of thing is as many people recording the talk as possible, that way there's an army of people with corroborating recordings that can expose the plot of the evil adversary.

And someone that's going to splice up a GA talk into a sound board so they can troll the local DI over the phone isn't going to pump the breaks on their plans to record the talk just because the GA asked them not to.

nibbler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:33 pm Except the best protection against that sort of thing is as many people recording the talk as possible, that way there's an army of people with corroborating recordings that can expose the plot of the evil adversary.

And someone that's going to splice up a GA talk into a sound board so they can troll the local DI over the phone isn't going to pump the breaks on their plans to record the talk just because the GA asked them not to.

Excellent points.

It really is safer for them to have many original recordings. I'm thinking that they are running scared on some level.