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.