Written transcript does not match speaker's words

[fitznerfamily]

I really enjoy listening and reading the various older conferences and other addresses from the past. I have noticed a number of instances where the written transcript shown on the web site or in the Gospel Library app is quite different from the words the speaker actually spoke. I'm not referring to a minor 'and' or 'but' here and there but whole sentence phrases being different.

I assume the written transcription is the actual talk as it was originally submitted by the speaker but sometimes off the cuff remarks are made by the speaker and the transcript does not reflect this.

Is there process for submitting corrections?

[kellymab]

That's nothing to be concerned about. Usually if there is a change between the transcript and what was actually said, it is usually the speaker who requests the changes, even in older talks given. That is why there is a gap between GC and when the talks are released. The speaker has the opportunity to change things as needed to clarify or rephrase their thoughts. Sometimes due to time they cut things out of their talk, but are able to add it back it for the written version. I can't remember who is is but one of the GA's in the 60's-70's was particularly notorious for doing this.

[mevans]

FYI, since you really enjoy studying the conference talks, don't miss the footnotes. Occasionally the speaker provides some significant commentary on a point in the footnotes. I don't know if that was the case on the older addresses, but I've seen it a few times on newer conferences.

[johnshaw]

The interesting thing about General Conference talks is they do NOT go through Correlation before being delivered, but do before being published. In the past we've seen some pretty seriously edited talks, even one that the person was asked to re-record the video before they sent out the recordings. But this isn't just something that a speaker requests, it is often noted that words/phrases don't communicate using the standardized methods or wording, etc...

[lajackson]

The interesting thing about General Conference talks is they do NOT go through Correlation before being delivered, but do before being published.

They did not used to (especially in 1984/85 at the time of the incident to which you alluded), but I think they do now. I know that at a minimum they go through peer review. Texts are also submitted early so that translation and interpreting can be prepared.

Several of the twelve have described the process of submitting their conference talks to three other members of their quorum for review and comment before they are given.

[johnshaw]

There is a reason that the digitization effort goes back only so far for Magazines, General Conference Talks, etc.. there was some streamlining that started, again, narrowing the message, or Branding the Message, ensuring the consistency of principles taught, I hope it's not something we're unfamiliar with.

[Davstu]

I read along with President Holland's most recent General Conference talk. I noticed important sentences and phrases had been deleted, resulting in the written talk being weaker and less meaningful, but "nicer"/ "softer". I also noticed a few grammatical changes that weren't helpful and nothing more than "but I like it THIS way, not the way he said it". I have no idea why someone would do that, but it was poor taste. Now I have to rewrite the talk back to the original in MY notes, lol.

[BrianEdwards]

I read along with President Holland's most recent General Conference talk. I noticed important sentences and phrases had been deleted, resulting in the written talk being weaker and less meaningful, but "nicer"/ "softer". I also noticed a few grammatical changes that weren't helpful and nothing more than "but I like it THIS way, not the way he said it". I have no idea why someone would do that, but it was poor taste. Now I have to rewrite the talk back to the original in MY notes, lol.

I wouldn't automatically assume that this was intentional, although that possibility definitely exists. I can only imagine the amount of edits and reworking that a conference talk goes through, especially for apostles who might receive inspiration quite close to the date and feel prompted to make changes. And when you factor in the translation aspect, it likely compounds the possibility of a translated version (either the written or spoken version) being different from the English version (written or spoken). So while it happens occasionally for the English version of talks, I'd imagine it's even more common for translated talks.

Just to say that there's probably a number of iterations of any conference talk that are shared with relevant people involved in managing conference. And trying to ensure that the written talk posted online for each speaker, is exactly the final version that they selected to use when speaking, might result in these types of disconnects.

I do agree that since we are strongly encouraged to use the most recent GenConf messages as a basis for our personal and Sunday gospel study, minimizing/eliminating these discrepancies is ideal. My best suggestion is to submit this to the Church using the Feedback tool, you never know if you might be the first person to identify a disconnect that could then be corrected by the Church teams.

[sbradshaw]

The printed talk isn't necessarily intended to be a word-for-word transcript, and members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have opportunities to make corrections after general conference if they feel inspired to do so. Substantial changes to an apostle's talk (beyond editorial corrections like capitalization and punctuation) cannot be made at the whim of an editor. I would assume that any such changes are made at the request of the speaker and/or one of their presiding authorities (a member of the Quorum of the Twelve or First Presidency), or at least with their approval.

It is possible that an editor accidentally used an incorrect draft of the talk, so it's still worth sending feedback if you notice a difference, but a mismatch between the audio and text isn't necessarily a mistake.