Thread by @janariess

1. Here is the first example of the text being taken mostly verbatim (the blue text) from John O. Reid. There were no quotation marks given, and no introduction before the comment to indicate that it was in fact from Reid.

2. Here is the second, drawing the words and ideas from Reid, again without attribution.

3. And here is the third, the most obvious of all.

When these passages were given in the oral talk itself, there was no mention of Reid until after the first two, and no quotation marks at all when it was first published on the church's website.

Between the 2nd and 3rd example, Elder Bednar did mention Reid as "a Christian author" who "noted that the man’s refusal to wear the wedding garment exemplified blatant disrespect for both the king and his son."

But in the published version, there was no citation of the source.

Here's an example of how the talk appeared on the church's website as of yesterday afternoon. No quotation marks, no footnote.

For the church's official statement to @rns today to claim that "Mr. Reid was . . . referenced on multiple occasions in footnotes" is untenable.

Bottom line: It's not OK to pass off someone else's ideas and words as your own, and those rules aren't different just because it's happening in a sermon rather than an academic paper.

It's especially not OK when you expect your hearers to regard the words that come out of your mouth at #GeneralConference as modern scripture. Church members are told they're being instructed by an apostle of God; what does it mean when the apostle is not the one really speaking?

It would not be hard for the church to say, "Whoops, that was a mistake. We apologize to the deceased author and to his church for using his sermon without proper attribution, and we will take steps to correct the problem."

Instead the church said, "For those who would try to find fault, we would invite you to consider the spirit of his message."

It WAS a good message. One that was partly crafted by someone else.

It's not fault-finding to expect a church that prides itself on "honest dealings" to honor that man's work. And to be transparent about its own process, like admitting that footnotes were not there until after publication, when someone complained about their absence. [END]