4,500 protesters encircle Temple Square

Tons of photos and video here.

CNN: Friday’s intriguing people: Eric Ethington

AP report w/ photos at the link: Utah Gay Activists Protest Mormon Church Remarks

Pride in Utah: 4500 Protest Against Boyd K Packer And LGBT Suicides

Mormon Expression: Episode 87: The October 7th 2010 LDS Protest

John Larsen and Jim take to the streets to interview participants at the Pride in Utah protest at temple square on October 7th 2010.

Salt Lake Tribune: Thousands ring Temple Square to protest LDS apostles words

Salt Lake Tribune: Mormon apostle’s words about gays spark protest

Salty Gossip: Over 4,000 Attend Protest! Succcesssssssssssssss!! (w/ private video)

Deseret News: 2,000-3,000 protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices in Salt Lake City

KSL: 600 gay rights activists protest LDS Church leader’s remarks (I’ll leave ridicule of that 600 figure to this guy).

“I was listening to General Conference with my family, who is all LDS, when it was happening; and I heard that speech and I wasn’t angry. I wasn’t mad, I was sad,” protester Tiffany Rock-Ward said.

FOX13: Thousands of gay activists held a silent protest Thursday evening outside the headquarters of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City

QSaltLake: Thousands Surround LDS Temple Square in Protest of Packer Speech

LGBTQNation: Thousands protest outside Mormon church over LDS leaders anti-gay remarks

ABC4: Protesters circle Temple Square to condemn anti-gay remarks by LDS Church leader

Write On!™ Public Relations: Utah LGBT Activists Hold Silent Demonstration

KUTV (Utah): LDS Church Leader Changes Some Words In Controversial Speech

In terms of the internal LDS debate/dialogue, this change strikes me as perhaps more important than the others: Guide is the new Revelation

On Top Magazine: Mormon Church Says Boyd Packer ‘Simply Clarified His Intent’

LGBTQNation (Eric Ethington): Mormon church edits transcript of Packers anti-gay hate speech

Salt Lake Tribune: Petition against Packers speech draws 100,000 signatures

Salt Lake Tribune: Packer talk jibes with LDS stance after tweak

Deseret News: Mormon church clarifies intent of President Boyd K. Packer’s talk

Chino Blanco

--- We are men of action, lies do not become us. ---

You may also like...

54 Responses

  1. Hellmut says:

    Thanks, Chino. I have been waiting anxiously for word about the protest.

  2. Holly says:

    I was there. It was great. But I will say that it was not entirely silent. I and about a dozen other people who were directly in front of the west gates began singing hymns. Let me just tell you that there is something really transformative and moving and difficult and wonderful and heartbreaking about singing

    As I have loved you
    Love one another
    this new commandment
    love one another
    by this shall men know
    ye are my disciples
    if you have love
    one to another

    outside the temple to people who claim to love you but actually want to deny love to so many of the people there.

  3. Bruce says:

    I like the Church and I like that it is sticking to its beliefs. Gays like Bums and the church does not agree with it…. so they stick to their belief and teach that it is wrong. Nothing wrong about preaching what you believe. DO NOT expect the Church to change its views because you guys are committing sodomy.

  4. Hellmut says:

    Thanks, Holly. I wish, I could have been there.

    The PR machine and the brethren seem to believe that they can deny people’s nature but that’s alright because then they add that they love folks.

    President David O. McKay paraphrased Macchiavelli: “It is more important to be respected than to be loved.”

    If you don’t respect our children and neighbors, don’t tell us that you love them. If you loved them then you would listen to BYU biology professors who explained to you that the research demonstrates that sexual orientation is an inborn trait.

    If you loved them then you would listen to the American Psychological Association, which declared that reparative therapy is abusive.

    It is not a sign of love to abandon your children just because they are gay. It is not a sign of love if you refuse to shelter your children from priests who bully them.

    If you love someone, you make every effort to understand them. If that requires you to abandon prejudice and superstition, that’s what a loving person will do.

  5. chanson says:

    I wish I could have been there too. Sounds amazing!

  6. Carla says:

    @ Bruce #3 – yeah it’s not like they ever gave in to public opinion before … oh wait, there was that thing about black people … and the thing about polygamy … and the whole “revenge oath” in the temple … yeah way to stick to your guns guys.

  7. Chino Blanco says:

    Boyd K. Packer: “We cannot change. We will not change …”

    Except when it comes to the words that Boyd actually said: Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Footnote added to that Times & Seasons post:

    1 As noted in the comments below, the official transcript was published on lds.org following this posting. The transcript strikes the rhetorical question. This post is based upon the audio version of the original address.

    Not to mention that “tendencies” has been changed to “temptations” …

    Good grief. LDS.org can’t even be bothered to transcribe Boyd’s words accurately, and yet the Bloggernacle is still parse, parse, parsing away … Memo to ‘nacclers: The gig is up. Now that LDS.org has displayed blatant disregard for truth and accuracy, it becomes sad and pathetic to carry on as if those two principles somehow mattered when they obviously don’t to the folks in charge.

  8. Chino Blanco says:

    That said, I think I prefer DKL’s response to the LDS editing:

    Departing the Text: Changes to Elder Packers Conference Talk

    The truth is simply that the talk was edited because as delivered it was unacceptable … Elder Packer found it acceptable as delivered, because he delivered it. Adverse reaction led to a reconsideration. Whether Packer edited it or someone else edited the talk, the changes clearly accommodate the emergent need for the talk to be more moderate in tone.

  9. chanson says:

    Chino — Wow! I agree this is sad for Mormons, especially those debating this on the Internet. The church has sent them on a fool’s errand. Their one excuse to justify the talk was that they stick to their guns about what’s right and don’t bow to social pressure. Meanwhile, the second that public outcry makes it clear that it wasn’t OK to say that God would never make anyone gay, the LDS church decides to pretend like he didn’t really say it…

  10. Chino Blanco says:

    Well, ‘Good Luck’ pretending he didn’t. To date, 70,000 people have watched BKP say it over at Main Street Plaza’s YouTube channel.

  11. Thanks for the link to my site Chino as I think the fact that KSL is reporting that ONLY “a little more than 600 people gathered in protest” is incredibly deceitful, when the whole world, including them, know it’s a damn lie! They want their avid Mormon viewers & readership to think this whole thing was a big joke, no big deal & that hardly anyone even showed up. They’re scared & they should be!

    It’s also amazing that they’ve already started backtracking & posting an edited & false transcript to the talk which everyone can easily see & verify. I’m going to put that YouTube video on both my Facebook & website as soon as I’m done writing this.

    I wonder if their phone lines were burning up tonight as they called their professional PR firm(is it still the Jewish one that Hinckley hired in New York) in tears, wondering what to do & how to repair the damage?

    The Mormon Hierarchy have told so many lies since 1820, that they don’t even know when to stop, like now, when it’s so obvious & millions of people will soon know or already know that they are blatantly lying about what Boyd K. Packer actually said & are once again sanitizing their history(VERY RECENT history in this case), by posting a bogus transcript..it really boggles the mind that they can be THAT DUMB & believe that we’re THAT DUMB!

    Then again, maybe it doesn’t!

    Like I said over on Facebook: “So much for their new ‘I’m normal & a Mormon’ BS ad campaign” that just got flushed down the toilet. Nothing like a talk from the Grandmaster of bigotry, Boyd K. Packer, to flip everything upside down & ruin their public deceit campaign.

    A more proper campaign slogan would be: “I’m a bigot & I’m a Mormon!”

    Thanks for the great post & all of the links..you really did your homework. I’ll be posting about this on my regular Mormon Truth blog too & recording a new podcast very soon!

  12. Chino Blanco says:

    I agree with much that you’ve written, but you lost me at “is it still the Jewish one … ”

    Reminds me of an anecdote from my time in New York. One of my former missionary companions had recently moved to the city to work on Wall Street and over lunch he recounted how he’d gotten called out at the office for telling a client not to “Jew” him on a deal. To his credit, he told the story in a self-deprecating “I-need-to-stop-being-such-a-California-Mormon-WASP-ASAP” kind of way, but still, it got the eye roll it deserved. And coming from a guy who went on to obtain a Harvard MBA, the response was doubly deserved, because he should’ve known better. But talk about clueless.

    Shorter me: this is me rolling my eyes and asking you to be aware of your audience here at MSP. We don’t go in for that kind of thing.

  13. wry says:

    Bruce is obviously a ‘nacle troll, on holiday from the rat-infested ‘nacle blogs.

  14. wry says:

    The DAMU trolls might have predicted this post-delivery editing, but so did the ‘nacle faithful.

  15. Sorry to throw you a curveball there Chino & I’m gonna try to remain as civil as I can in my response to you as I find your comment very insulting & I don’t appreciate being called a racist or even someone insinuating such a thing, especially another Ex-Mormon, as I was simply stating THE TRUTH, A FACT, that you’re obviosly completely ignorant of!

    I WAS NOT making some side racist remarks about Jews(I think you may want to re-read my comment s-l-o-w-l-y or maybe read it again after getting some much need sleep & after learning the facts!

    I mean come on now man, seriously..as a guy who has been fighting the racism of Mormonism for 5 years now, VERY VOCALLY on my blogs & in my podcasts & now on Twitter & Facebook & you thought I was trashing Jews when I’ve been out there defending them & pointing out ad nauseum all of the horrific racist doctrines of Mormonism?

    What made you automatically jump to this absurd conclusion? Do you really think that lowly of me or is it just because you didn’t know what I was talking about..hell, how would that have even been slightly funny if I had meant it as a joke? Really?!!

    So I’m ardently defending homosexuals, gay marriage & their civil rights as a straight guy & talking about what bigots Boyd K. Packer & the Mormon Hierarchy are & then I suddenly decide to mock Jews out of the blue for no apparent reason? You realize this is absurd & makes no common sense, right Chino?

    I guess I should’ve known better than to come over here & leave a comment when you referred to me as “this guy”..LOL!

    But just in case you’re interested in THE FACTS & TRUTH & get past your error of assuming I’d made an off color & racist joke about Jews, which everyone can clearly see I DID NOT; it came from the segment on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace on April 7, 1996, where he interviewed Gordon B. Hinckley, Steve Young, J. Willard Marriott, Orrin Hatch, etc. Have you never watched it or heard it? I wrongly assumed that everyone knew about this.

    I think this is where you go DOH!!

    I have a copy of that whole Mike Wallace segment on the church & a clip of the exact segment I’m talking about..I’ll have to post them. I also believe they’re still somewhere on Youtube, even though they’ve been deleted countless times now, including from my accounts over the years.

    Here’s a transcript of that particular segment I’m talking about:

    Mike Wallace [voiceover; aerial footage of farmland, then of Mike Wallace and Gordon B. Hinckley walking around Temple Square; then Orrin Hatch]: Another curiosity. The church owns more than 3000 acres in northwest Missouri where Mormons believe that Jesus will return for his second coming. Gordon Hinckley prefers not to talk about Jesus returning to Missouri, or about sacred undergarments. He says that those points miss the point. He wants to portray Mormons as mainstream, not extreme. And for that Hinckley has hired a Jewish-owned public relations firm. Mormons hiring Jews to help spread the word? Makes sense to Senator Orrin Hatch. But then he wears a mezuzah on a chain around his neck. A mezuzah is often put at the entrance to a Jewish home as a reminder of their faith.

    [Orrin Hatch interview]

    Orrin Hatch: It’s typical of Mormon people to love all people, but especially Jewish people. I wear a mezuzah just to remind me, just to make sure that there is never another holocaust anywhere. You see, the Mormon church is the only church in the history of this country that had an extermination order out against it, by Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri. We went through untold persecutions.


    Sometimes I just have to wonder what the hell is going on in people’s heads, especially in the Ex-Mormon community. Instead of simply asking THE PERSON what the person meant if you don’t understand it or are ignorant of something..they automatically jump to the worst conclusion possible..maybe it’s our MORmON training eh?

    In this case, it was you that “should’ve know better” & I agree..”talk about clueless” is right on the mark..glad you brought it up!

    Hope that helps clear up any MASSIVE confusion we might have had so you can stop “rolling your eyes” now PLEASE & warning me about being “aware” of the “audience” here at MSP because I ALSO, CLEARLY “don’t go in for that kind of thing”, which you’d already know if you’d read anything I’ve written or listened to anything I’ve said over the last 5 years..disappointing to say the least Chino

  16. chanson says:

    Samuel, Chino was not calling you clueless. He was merely relating an anecdote to illustrate why sensitivity is important. If you didn’t mean to make a negative comment about Jews, then good. We’re willing to take your word on it without a ten-paragraph explanation.

  17. Chino Blanco says:

    Dude, that’s why we have an open comment policy here at MSP (for the most part).

    You’re more than welcome to set me straight when I get it wrong.

    And you did. Now I know. If you’re not an anti-Semite, it’s all good and let’s call it my mistake and water under the bridge. I absolutely did not mean to cast undeserved aspersions in your direction. I just happen to have a lot of Jewish friends who read this blog who might wonder about what you meant by your comment. In other words, I appreciate you coming back to clarify and wish you all the best.

  18. I’ll write as much & as long as I want! Are you the self-assigned “paragraph patrol counter”?! Nice to meet you..LOL! Is there also a “paragraph limitation” here that I’m not aware of? Do you “not go for that type of thing here”, meaning looooong comments with lots of paragraphs in them? I guess I’d better brush up on all the rules so that I don’t offend anyone else..what a joke!

    But hey “Chanson”, I have a GREAT IDEA for you..If you don’t like my “ten-paragraph explanation”, then please spare yourself the agony & pain & complaining & DON’T READ IT! Pretty simple for you?

    There I said it all in THREE short paragraphs just for you..are you jumping up & down with joy yet? What kind of place is this anyway? I’ll wait for Chino’s apology & then thankfully exit for good, which should come as a great relief to everyone, as I only came here in the first place because Chino linked to MY website, which I guess was a big mistake eh Chino?!

  19. No worries Chino, thanks for the apology, but you might want to be more careful in the future before automatically assuming someone is making a racist remark, especially when you don’t even understand what they’re talking about. That’s a pretty serious accusation to just be flinging around willy nilly, like I feel you did. I appreciate you wanting to defend your Jewish friends, just as I would..but let’s make sure you understand what is being said first, okay?

    “If youre not an anti-Semite”..are you still doubting Chino? IF?! There should be no “IF” about it since I supplied the 100% incontrovertible proof as to what I was referring to, which you should have read by now & you admitted you had no clue about. It’s a no-brainer If you re-read my comment again with the new knowledge that you have & with that new EDUCATED perspective; it should help you greatly understand EXACTLY & CLEARLY what I was saying.

    I have Jewish friends too by the way & black friends & Hispanic friends, etc, etc..so it wouldn’t make much sense now would it for me to suddenly be a public racist out of the blue.

    As far as your “open comment policy”..well I appreciate it but you might want to mention that to Chanson who seems to think there’s some type of “paragraph limitation” & I think their cut off might be around 10..not 100% sure, but it appears that way. I also think they’ve appointed themselves the official “paragraph patrol counter”..just wanted you to be aware of that situation!

    I’m glad that the length of my comment didn’t offend you as it apparently did Chanson..THANKS!

  20. Chino Blanco says:

    Sam, I blog here because I appreciate the ways in which Chanson and Hellmut and ProfXM keep me in check. I probably share your anger, but to the extent that you apparently lack my appreciation for what MSP is trying to achieve in terms of civil discourse, I have no qualms calling you out for pushing that envelope.

    For what it’s worth, Sam, frankly speaking, from one long-persevering blogger to another, I expected you to appreciate the implicit respect I was sending your way by linking to you; and also expected you to not turn your venom on my co-bloggers in such regrettable fashion. If such expectations weren’t apparent to you previously, they should be now: the link to your site will stay up, but otherwise, we’re done here.

  21. And I simply came here to THANK YOU for linking to me if you didn’t notice(you must have clearly missed that) & also thanking you for a GREAT POST..I believe I said: “Thanks for the great post & all of the links..you really did your homework. Ill be posting about this on my regular Mormon Truth blog too & recording a new podcast very soon!”

    Does that ring a bell at all? I of course appreciate you linking to me, as I clearly stated that right out of the box because I did appreciate the “implicit respect” you were “sending my way”..but frankly speaking right back at you; please understand that this “implicit respect” was a tad overshadowed by your baseless accusation or insinuation that I/”this guy” was a racist/anti-Semite.

    Surely you can understand that Chino & how would you respond & feel if I publicly & strongly accused you of the same thing? You wouldn’t defend yourself or be angry & you wouldn’t find it completely unjustified if it wasn’t what you said & my accusation was 100% false? I somehow doubt that!

    Let’s get real here man & really speak frankly & honestly..I came here with ZERO bad intentions & you know that & I left a comment thanking YOU & strongly in support of the homosexual community & against the MORmON Hierarchy & your response to me was to call me a racist. You started the drama, you made the baseless accusation because you simply didn’t know what the hell I was talking about..it’s just that simple!

    I just simply came here & made a damn comment THANKING YOU & then comments defending myself..that’s my sin here in all of this?! Im now the bad guy who doesnt respect LMS or civil discourse? All I can really do is LOL as this whole thing is IDIOTIC! If you don’t want to piss someone off & want “CIVIL DISCOURSE”..DON’T ACCUSE THEM OF BEING RACIST unless you have absolute PROOF!

    How could anyone & why would anyone automatically assume that my statement “I wonder if their phone lines were burning up tonight as they called their professional PR firm(is it still the Jewish one that Hinckley hired in New York) in tears, wondering what to do & how to repair the damage?” take that to be a racist comment?

    It’s absurd & you know it Chino & then your apology to me was half-baked & you know that too, as you had to throw in the whole “IF” qualifier & didn’t clarify that when you had the chance, rather you doubled down!

    So don’t act as if I’m the problem here for responding strongly to you, when you’re the one clearly picking the fight & hurling a very offensive accusation my way & then apparently pissed off that I was pissed off..doesn’t make much sense, does it Chino?!

    You very hypocritically talk about “civil discourse” & “pushing the envelope” when it was YOU that ACCUSED ME of being a racist! Who violated your rules here Chino..oh yeah, it was me for responding strongly to your offensive & 100% baseless accusation!

    So much for the “open comment policy” unless it is you commenting! I guess “for the most part” is the key to that statement & qualifier there, right? I’d just be more careful in who you accuse of being a racist in the future & make sure that you have some, ANY evidence supporting your accusation!

    I agree, we’re thankfully done here Chino & you need to learn to follow your own rules that you supposedly believe in & demand of others, since you respect LMS so much!

    You stated your case & I stated mine..everyone can decide for themselves what happened here based on the facts & common sense & for me it’s over & done & I wish you the best!

    To the “paragraph patrol counter”, I apologize as I think I just went over again in yet another response to Chino Blanco..but hey, feel free to whitewash my comments from your site if they are too itense & uncomforable for you..I’ll understand!

    Everyone take a deep breath now, I’m leaving, you’re all safe & everything can go back to normal..as you were..LOL!

  22. chanson says:

    Samuel, it did not offend me. My humblest apologies for suggesting that you wrote more than necessary.

  23. Chino Blanco says:

    Nobody’s gonna “whitewash” your comments and if I’m the one “picking the fight” it’s only because I wanted a simple explanation for one (apparently innocent) line in your initial comment. Carry on. Or not. I’m actually surprised to see your latest comment here because I thought I’d already banned your IP. Oh well.

  24. simplysarah says:

    @Chino, re comments #7-10, I think that conversation might deserve to be a post of its own. Thanks for sharing.

  25. chanson says:

    simplysarah — There are a couple of conversations about it on some of the Bloggernacle blogs (as Chino linked). They’re quite interesting — have a look. 😀

  26. Chino Blanco says:

    @simplysarah Agreed, but I’m comfortable assuming a holding pattern at this point. This can’t be fun for our friends in the Bloggernacle. Once again, the institution they’ve spent so many countless hours alternately criticizing/defending has sold them down the river. And for what?

    If this was any other church, HQ would be ecstatic to have so many multitudinous faithful/aka ‘Bloggernacle’ voices discussing the whys and wherefores of church doctrine and goings-on. But that’s not this church. COB is not amused. It’s not enough to be ‘anxiously engaged’ … what this church is looking for is something akin to what Geoff J. is bringing. Which is not enough for the rest of us. At least not for those of us with half a brain or a sliver of social consciousness. And those qualities cut right through any TBM/Bloggernacle/DAMU boundaries.

  27. Measure says:

    I have the following to say about Samuel the Utahnite. I believe that he uses sockpuppeting frequently to support his own views. Take a look at this thread at reddit… I posted a link to it on Samuel’s blog…


    Basically, I commented on his blog, and he moderates comments, and never approved my post. He then came to /r/exmormon under a false name, and indicated he had found out about the reddit through my post on Sam’s blog… which since it wasn’t approved, nobody but Sam himself ever could have seen.

    If he wants to use a pseudonym, that’s fine by me, but it appears Sam’s first instinct is to use dishonesty, which should provide context to all when reading his postings.

  28. chanson says:

    Yeah, what Chino said. It’s obvious enough that this is a huge fiasco. We don’t need to kick our ‘naccle friends while they’re down.

  29. LWM says:

    Wow, it sounds like you guys have taken this way too far. A guy posts something that may be taken out of context, it is then taken out of context and an opinion is voiced, guy lashes out and explains context, critic apologizes and retracts his remark.

    That should have been it, I think. Back to topic.
    I mean, this IS a post about tolerance, right? We can tolerate a little misunderstanding.

  30. Chino Blanco says:

    Not sure what you’re getting at, LWM, but speaking only for myself, I’m tired of sideshows here at MSP. We post content. Our readers hopefully enjoy our content and feel free to engage in comments regarding the content on offer.

    For those interested in promoting cliquishness, I’d kindly ask that y’all take it elsewhere.

  31. Lisa says:

    I SO wish I could’ve been there.

    As for the editing, I find it pathetic. Like, really really pathetic.

    And they struck out the question “Why would Heavenly Father do this to his children?”

    For real? Because that was among the things Packer said that took my active friend aback. She’ll notice the absence of it when she reads the talks. That oughta be good for her.

  32. Chino Blanco says:

    Further to my #30: Go figure that LWM’s blog sports an “Outer Blogness” badge in its sidebar.

    In other words, obviously a friendly voice. So this is me backing off. Did I blow it, LWM? Does “Samuel the Utahnite” deserve a second chance?

  33. wry says:

    @Chino / no. 23

    I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not, but if you’re not — WTF? We don’t ban people here do we?? Please tell me we don’t.

  34. Chino Blanco says:

    I’m gonna need to get a ruling on this one, but my own sense is that Wry just wrote her ticket out of here. Am I wrong?

  35. Chino Blanco says:

    I kid, I kid … kind of.

    Wry: I banned WhineyLoserman’s IP today. I also put “Samuel the Utahnite” in timeout. I’ve just undone both those actions. Let’s see what happens and discuss if the need arises.

  36. Alan says:

    Don’t get all John Dehlin on us now. =D

  37. kuri says:

    I think WhineyLoserman is just a troll, so I’d say ban away. But Samuel is merely prolix, so I’d say leave him be and hopefully he’ll start talking about something besides how people are reacting to him.

  38. Holly says:

    I agree with Kuri #37–keep the aptly named loserman banned. And StheU should also lose the bold. Its main purpose is to help you see without paying close attention where his comments end and you can start reading again.

  39. wry says:

    I think we should talk about this, I don’t want to ban anyone except for truly relentless, vicious trolls (ie, been here more than one day), including bitchywhinyman. Seriously. I am not into the banning thing. at. all. We can ignore the trolls and respond substantively to those we disagree with, and not ban people.

    Can we at least vote on it? (Is there an admin forum here?)

  40. Chino Blanco says:

    Alan – For what it’s worth, that’s the exact concern that crossed my mind as I tapped out my note to Wry … it’s been a strange day.

    Kuri – thanks. I agree with your assessment. That said, both WL-man and STU-ite are now free to comment at will and we’ll see what happens.

  41. Chino Blanco says:

    Wry: This is us talking. If you ever again catch me enforcing comment policy on one of my own threads, pls feel free to call me out if you think I’ve gone astray. I’ve already (re)instituted your preferred policy. Let’s see how it goes, K?

  42. wry says:

    Kthx! Whew. I didn’t want a showdown or anything, but I get totally twitchy around authority of any kind. 😀

  43. Chino Blanco says:

    And Holly notes a stylistic idiosyncrasy that really needed to be called out, but it’d be great if readers could just pipe up and complain about that sort of thing.

  44. chanson says:

    Did you see this new one from ABC4? (Hat tip life after Mormonism.)

    ABC 4 has requested a statement from the Church on the text changesmade to Packer’s sermon. A statement is expected sometime Fridayafternoon.

    Think they’ll get a response?

  45. Measure says:

    ABC 4 got a response, for what it’s worth:

    >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 speakers intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent. As we have said repeatedly, the Churchs position on marriage and family is clear and consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of Godschildren.

  46. chanson says:


    What the…? Well I guess it’s a “statement” but it’s certainly not an explanation. It’s just repeating their generic disclaimer that they reserve the right to make substantive changes to talks without having to explain them to anyone. As the folks on the Bloggernacle have pointed out (see above-linked threads), the change wasn’t just a “clarification” — it changed the meaning.

    The follow-up statement gives no explanation whatsoever of what was wrong with the original statements, and no explanation for why this new speech expresses Packer’s “intent” better.

    If ABC4 just accepted this statement with a ‘Kthx, I am even more disappointed than usual with the news media.

  47. chanson says:

    Regarding the sideline-dicussion of banning, here’s my two cents:

    I prefer to avoid banning people, but I don’t think we need to have a policy of absolutely never banning anyone. With most people who are obviously trolling just for the fun of it, they usually go away on their own if they realize they’re not getting a response. However, not always. After multiple opportunities and warnings, there comes a point where it’s no longer a question of giving someone their say, and further nonsensical comments are merely cluttering up the thread.

    As far as Samuel is concerned, however, I think he means well, but is perhaps a little overly sensitive…? (I hope bite my head off for saying that. 😉 )

  48. Chino Blanco says:

    Re banning: I think we all agree that an open forum is preferred. Pretty much the only time I’d ask that banning be allowed is when a commenter decides to unload on the blog b/c s/he’s having a bad day and it’s obviously all MSP’s fault. Sometimes people just need to put the bottle down and step away from the keyboard, and I don’t see any virtue in delaying that decision by volunteering to be their punching bag.

  49. chanson says:

    Makes sense.

  50. profxm says:

    I agree that an unrelenting troll can be banned. Otherwise, I say no bans. And, as far as Samuel goes, I have generally had positive interactions with him in the past. I think Chino misunderstood his comment about Jews (I got his reference so didn’t interpret it as anti-semitic) and he over reacted a bit in his response, but I, personally, welcome him at MSP any time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.