Callings Are Greater Than The Man

[Nottingham]

Elder Packer said that [re: topic title, here].

I am happy to say that I think like the late Hugh B. Brown.

(If you were older than that of a child, when he was alive, I would welcome your mature input)

Elder Hugh [brown] said that the "right to dissent" (or, actually, "the right of dissent") was something to be vigorously preserved, in the LDS religion.

Having said the above, as a basis for thinking freely, I am astounded at the unsoundness of that Elder Packer statement. It is simply something that one would expect former President [of the U.S.] Bill Clinton to have said: not a "man of God".

Clinton tried to claim "executive privilege" when it came to his bad personal morals and philandering. I hear Elder Packer saying essentially the same thing, but in different words.

(Don't get sidetracked into thinking that I am questioning Boyd K. Packer's faithfulness to his wife: focus on what is being said, here, please).

What I hear Elder Packer saying is: "Look at the 'suit': not the man in the 'suit'."

Clinton would have been 'delighted', if people had shown so much awe for his position that they then backed away from him, instead of investigating him, in any questionable action.

The real question is this: what the American people demand--as a reasonable demand--from their secular leaders is accountability. I, personally, don't see God as having a double standard. Do you?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

As much as I sometimes question Elder Packer's approach to authority, I think there's something to his teaching that one should respect the office of a Church leader, not the person himself.

It's actually a pretty humble thing for a leader to say. He's not saying he's entitled to respect because of his own merits. He's saying that a loyal member of the Church ought to respect his office, to the extent that that respect translates into respect for the Church and its organization.

It doesn't follow that because a man holds a Church office, everything he says must be accepted without question. That's not the way of the Church, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young made clear. People need to find for themselves whether any particular teaching is correct. At the same time, respect for Church leaders' offices imposes some constraints on how disagreement with a Church leader is expressed. I don't think it's wise to make fun of a Church leader, even when he does come across as ridiculous. (I have in mind a couple of examples.) At the local level, opposing a bishop or other such leader in public may not properly respect the office. There are ways of making sure that local leaders who abuse their offices are taken care of, without making a contentious public fuss over it.

It's not that people are supposed to overlook personal faults in Church leaders; if those faults are serious enough, they ought to be called to the attention of the people who decide whether the leader remains in his place. I think what Elder Packer was saying was that true principles remain true no matter whether the person who teaches them is a saint or a sinner. 2 plus 2 remains 4 even if Larry Flynt says so. Likewise, the fact that Paul Dunn said some things that weren't true doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea to follow his suggestion that people keep the commandments.

[Guest curvette]

I don't doubt that Elder Packer said something like this, but do you have a reference so I can read the context in which he said it?

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 14 2005, 01:09 PM

I don't doubt that Elder Packer said something like this, but do you have a reference so I can read the context in which he said it?

I, too, would like the exact quote. Maybe someone who is a computer whiz (who has a talent for finding archived files and talks) could pull this one out of the air, as it were.

Still, I, myself--perhaps like my friend who posted--see a distinct parallel between the actions of civic, secular leaders and those of religious leaders. There is a--can I say "strange"--paradox in one's claiming some sort of executive privilege, within "the religious realm".

I have lived long enough, too: so, I can compare "how things were with how things are (today): and, some things are really quite "frightening": the thing that has "improved", within the "secular world of governmental service" is that people nowadays don't put their country's leaders on some lofty perch, like they used to do! They don't say within themselves "Ooooh. He's President: we will trust him because of his office."

Bill Clinton, sadly, counted on people "respecting his office" and looking past Bill, himself, in deciding whether "Mr. President" could ever be guilty of....say, misfeasance or malfeasance. [These two "terms" refer to wrongdoing, in office: the first being simple mistakes, the second being a calculated wrongdoing.].

I admire people like that L. Tripp lady for doing what she did, in the 'Clinton scandal'. In her mind, I'm sure, "wrong was wrong"--regardless of "who done it"!

Those who became disgusted at Mr. Clinton's lack of good moral character, in my opinion, were right in their [unvoiced] conclusion that "when the man is dirty, the suit is dirty!

In the N.T. --or, New Testament--Christ said something about making the inside of the vessel clean!

(In that, there is no hypocrisy)

"Otherwise, (as Christ also said) there remaineth hypocrisy."

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 12:00 PM

As much as I sometimes question Elder Packer's approach to authority, I think there's something to his teaching that one should respect the office of a Church leader, not the person himself. 

It's actually a pretty humble thing for a leader to say.  He's not saying he's entitled to respect because of his own merits.  He's saying that a loyal member of the Church ought to respect his office, to the extent that that respect translates into respect for the Church and its organization. 

It doesn't follow that because a man holds a Church office, everything he says must be accepted without question.  That's not the way of the Church, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young made clear.  People need to find for themselves whether any particular teaching is correct.  At the same time, respect for Church leaders' offices imposes some constraints on how disagreement with a Church leader is expressed.  I don't think it's wise to make fun of a Church leader, even when he does come across as ridiculous.  (I have in mind a couple of examples.)  At the local level, opposing a bishop or other such leader in public may not properly respect the office.  There are ways of making sure that local leaders who abuse their offices are taken care of, without making a contentious public fuss over it.

It's not that people are supposed to overlook personal faults in Church leaders; if those faults are serious enough, they ought to be called to the attention of the people who decide whether the leader remains in his place.  I think what Elder Packer was saying was that true principles remain true no matter whether the person who teaches them is a saint or a sinner.  2 plus 2 remains 4 even if Larry Flynt says so.  Likewise, the fact that Paul Dunn said some things that weren't true doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea to follow his suggestion that people keep the commandments.

I, for one, appreciate the depth of your experience and what you had to say.

I'd like to respond to two things you said.

The thing that comes to mind when you say "truth is truth, no matter who says it" sounds--honestly-speaking--a little stilted. To return to the "secular realm", from which to draw the needed parallel, I have to say that the reason Bill Clinton was impeached (but not removed) was because of his knack at telling "whoppers": and, not the kind one gets at Burger King!

(No sarcasm: just humor, to make a point)

When the "little boy who cried wolf" returns to telling the truth, the people, sadly, cannot now believe him!

I think one's credibility must continuously be earned: in both the secular and the religious realms.

As a corollary to the above thinking, I heard from an acquaintance--recently--who lives in....um, the Pacific Northwest [to protect the innocent, this is not true], that a Regional Rep., in the Church, issued a specific and certain requirement for the menfolk, in that part of the country:

a priesthood man can now not "discharge his duties" (in callings)(in that region) unless he wears a white shirt (ie, no blue shirts) and is clean-shaven (no facial hair, whatsoever).

Now, then, I appeal to you as to how one might "raise the voice of dissent" without being taken as a "dissident" by those who are the decision makers, where complaints are concerned.

PS: Another acquaintance of mine was "seen" in a hall of The Church Office Building (or, The Church Administrative Building, I can't remember which), wearing a blue shirt. Elder Packer, passing in the hall, is reported to have made a half-turn and said, in his typical mannerism, "Put a white shirt on!"

(The friend was a visitor, only: not even an employee in that building.)

(Maybe--sooner than later--people will all look like "parochial school kids in white and black uniforms": at least on Sundays!)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Meridiani@Mar 14 2005, 02:18 PM

a priesthood man can now not "discharge his duties" (in callings)(in that region) unless he wears a white shirt (ie, no blue shirts) and is clean-shaven (no facial hair, whatsoever).

Ewwww. Does that include eyebrows and nosehair?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Merid -- Truth is truth, even if a congenital liar says so. The problem is that people may not recognize it. In the story about the boy who cried wolf, there really was a wolf, after all. I thought President Clinton was and is an unusually piggish narcissist, monumentally misguided politically, and possessed of an absolutely appalling lack of taste in the women he chose to cheat with (Jack Kennedy, where are you?), and I argued against his policies and voted against him, but I would not have boo'ed him at a public function out of respect for the office he was discharging.

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true. I pay attention because no matter how often I disagree with him, he sometimes does say things that make a lot of sense.

If a person's character detracts from his message, he's accountable in part for people's failure to pay attention to him. But a wise person is capable of looking past someone's weaknesses and evaluating the message based on its content. Why do you think the argument ad hominem is classified as a logical fallacy?

Remember that the Church is supposed to be guided by revelation. That doesn't mean that every time a black-suited, white-shirted leader opens his mouth, he's proclaiming revelation -- but it does mean that what revelations for the guidance of the Church do come, do come through those guys. (Sometimes -- though they generally don't talk about it -- they are more open to receive revelations when members have discreetly let them know about problems they ought to seek revelation about. If I ever have a chance to put a bee in an apostle's ear, the 3-hour block will get a subtle mention.)

And as for the white-shirts only "rule" -- feh.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:19 PM

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true.

Duckster! You got my attention here. Why do you wonder such a thing? Of all of the brethren to wonder about, he seems like one of the most unlikely to have doubts (to me, anyway.)

[Cal]

Is there really any debate as to what BKP's approach to religion is? He is probably the most quoted church leader on the internet. That he takes the "do what you are told" approach is no secret folks. That the church heirarchy as a whole puts its stamp of approval on talks that stress conformity and unquestioning loyalty is no big surprise either. It is in the nature of autocracies to demand followership ahead of independent thought or controversy. The church is not a democracy, it has no "bill of rights", there is no "right" to free speech, there is only conformity and commitment. Get used to it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 14 2005, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 14 2005, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:19 PM

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true.

Duckster! You got my attention here. Why do you wonder such a thing? Of all of the brethren to wonder about, he seems like one of the most unlikely to have doubts (to me, anyway.)

Elder Packer sometimes a little too concerned that people will delve into Church history too far; his message is that people should toe the line and not question. When you're confident of your message, you don't have to be afraid of scrutiny. The most authoritarian types are sometimes the least secure. I think the late Hugh B. Brown's approach to the Gospel showed far more confidence that the Church would stand up to scrutiny. Of course, he lived during the Church's golden age of the 1940s and 50s, where the Church didn't face some of the challenges it does now, so it may be that Elder Packer's seeming bunker mentality is in response to the times.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 10:22 AM

Elder Packer sometimes a little too concerned that people will delve into Church history too far; his message is that people should toe the line and not question. When you're confident of your message, you don't have to be afraid of scrutiny. The most authoritarian types are sometimes the least secure. I think the late Hugh B. Brown's approach to the Gospel showed far more confidence that the Church would stand up to scrutiny. Of course, he lived during the Church's golden age of the 1940s and 50s, where the Church didn't face some of the challenges it does now, so it may be that Elder Packer's seeming bunker mentality is in response to the times.

He's a control freak. I think that's a very basic part of his personality. I think the fact that so many historians end up publishing embarrassing material (even the truthful stuff) scares him. I don't know why. There are only so many history buffs and intellectuals in the church. The rest are just ordinary people who aren't particularly interested in history.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 15 2005, 11:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 15 2005, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 10:22 AM

Elder Packer sometimes a little too concerned that people will delve into Church history too far; his message is that people should toe the line and not question.  When you're confident of your message, you don't have to be afraid of scrutiny.  The most authoritarian types are sometimes the least secure.  I think the late Hugh B. Brown's approach to the Gospel showed far more confidence that the Church would stand up to scrutiny.  Of course, he lived during the Church's golden age of the 1940s and 50s, where the Church didn't face some of the challenges it does now, so it may be that Elder Packer's seeming bunker mentality is in response to the times.

He's a control freak. I think that's a very basic part of his personality. I think the fact that so many historians end up publishing embarrassing material (even the truthful stuff) scares him. I don't know why. There are only so many history buffs and intellectuals in the church. The rest are just ordinary people who aren't particularly interested in history.

I think the fact that so many historians end up publishing embarrassing material (even the truthful stuff) scares him. I don't know why.

Dostoeyevsky would know.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 12:19 PM

Dostoeyevsky would know.

Fyodor?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 15 2005, 01:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 15 2005, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 12:19 PM

Dostoeyevsky would know.

Fyodor?

That's the one. Are you familiar with The Brothers Karamazov?

I'm not saying Elder Packer is the Grand Inquisitor or anything close to it -- that would be grossly unfair in light of what he has actually said and written. But I think that each of us, including Church leaders, struggles to understand spiritual questions, and has to watch out for errors and pitfalls. One doctrinal pitfall is the temptation to think less of man and his capacity to thrive under Christian liberty than Christ did.

(Another beef I have with Elder Packer is his "Candle of the Lord" talk, which if you think about it is essentially an exhortation to commit fraud -- the declaration as true of something that one has no reasonable ground for believing true -- and a contradiction of the Doctrine & Covenants' counsel to seek to obtain the Lord's word before declaring it. But that's another matter.)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 01:59 PM

(Another beef I have with Elder Packer is his "Candle of the Lord" talk, which if you think about it is essentially an exhortation to commit fraud -- the declaration as true of something that one has no reasonable ground for believing true -- and a contradiction of the Doctrine & Covenants' counsel to seek to obtain the Lord's word before declaring it. But that's another matter.)

Hmmm...Interesting. I'm not sure if I've read that talk. My mom was an avid Packer fan, but I always found him to be rigid and condescending. Still, I was excited to hear him speak when I was in the MTC. It was (bar none) the most unispiring talk I 've ever heard. He spent the whole time talking about a personal problem he was having (he was receiving prank phone calls.) He was so freaked out by it that he couldn't get off the topic. Granted, even apostles have bad days, but I left feeling like this was a man who couldn't stand being out of control of a situation. He didn't seem like a very happy person at all.

[Nottingham]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 14 2005, 03:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 14 2005, 03:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Meridiani@Mar 14 2005, 02:18 PM

a priesthood man can now not "discharge his duties" (in callings)(in that region) unless he wears a white shirt (ie, no blue shirts) and is clean-shaven (no facial hair, whatsoever).

Ewwww. Does that include eyebrows and nosehair?

I submit to you that the analogy was in trying to make men look like "cue balls": smooth and hairless--all the way around.

Hmmph! Just like the Hari Krishna...except that these have a "bob of hair like a 'mohawk'".

(It's uniformity personified, though)

Maybe that is the real concern of the post by Meridiani. Or, so it may appear.

[Nottingham]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 04:19 PM

Merid -- Truth is truth, even if a congenital liar says so. The problem is that people may not recognize it. In the story about the boy who cried wolf, there really was a wolf, after all. I thought President Clinton was and is an unusually piggish narcissist, monumentally misguided politically, and possessed of an absolutely appalling lack of taste in the women he chose to cheat with (Jack Kennedy, where are you?), and I argued against his policies and voted against him, but I would not have boo'ed him at a public function out of respect for the office he was discharging.

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true. I pay attention because no matter how often I disagree with him, he sometimes does say things that make a lot of sense.

If a person's character detracts from his message, he's accountable in part for people's failure to pay attention to him. But a wise person is capable of looking past someone's weaknesses and evaluating the message based on its content. Why do you think the argument ad hominem is classified as a logical fallacy?

Remember that the Church is supposed to be guided by revelation. That doesn't mean that every time a black-suited, white-shirted leader opens his mouth, he's proclaiming revelation -- but it does mean that what revelations for the guidance of the Church do come, do come through those guys. (Sometimes -- though they generally don't talk about it -- they are more open to receive revelations when members have discreetly let them know about problems they ought to seek revelation about. If I ever have a chance to put a bee in an apostle's ear, the 3-hour block will get a subtle mention.)

And as for the white-shirts only "rule" -- feh.

May I ask you what the word --feh-- means?

(Please speak in English! Not some variation of the Deseret Alphabet that never saw the light of day, please!)

PS: I won't accuse you of being delusional; but, I do believe that you have maintained, for yourself, a false hope: you actually think that the boys downtown will "incline their ear to your mouth" and listen to you, if you had something to say? Like I said, I won't call you delusional.

PS-2: I have heard from a personal and reliable friend (in a diverse place) where the 3-hour block is being "shortened" by one hour, on a trial basis. (Guess which of the three meetings is being eliminated, there?)

So, maybe your prayers have been answered already, ahead of time?!!

[Nottingham]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 14 2005, 10:17 PM

Is there really any debate as to what BKP's approach to religion is? He is probably the most quoted church leader on the internet. That he takes the "do what you are told" approach is no secret folks. That the church heirarchy as a whole puts its stamp of approval on talks that stress conformity and unquestioning loyalty is no big surprise either. It is in the nature of autocracies to demand followership ahead of independent thought or controversy. The church is not a democracy, it has no "bill of rights", there is no "right" to free speech, there is only conformity and commitment. Get used to it.

Wow! You said a mouthful. Not only emphasis on talks that stress conformity and uniformity, but on making-over talks that, themselves, are less than uniform in their conformity.

This is strong language, I know; but I definitely have some evidence to back this up!

If someone wants to email me, or PM me, I will give a you line-by-line and word-for-word quotation by a Gen'l Authority whose message then got "censured" in such a way as to require him to re-write it (and thus change even the substance of his message), for the Church publication that it subsequently appeared in.

Man, I just don't see any of the former thinking existing, as it existed before: as pertaining to the right to think for oneself and to express one's own thoughts. If General Authorities (like the Seventies) "can't" come up with anything original (viz, to think their own original words and express their own personal perspective), then what does that say for all the rest of the people?

PS: President Hinckley did say that the Church was democratic, in an interview conducted during the Winter Olympics, in 2002. (So, was this the truth, or just plain good PR?)

[Nottingham]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 15 2005, 11:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 15 2005, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Mar 14 2005, 07:21 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:19 PM

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true.

Duckster! You got my attention here. Why do you wonder such a thing? Of all of the brethren to wonder about, he seems like one of the most unlikely to have doubts (to me, anyway.)

Elder Packer sometimes a little too concerned that people will delve into Church history too far; his message is that people should toe the line and not question. When you're confident of your message, you don't have to be afraid of scrutiny. The most authoritarian types are sometimes the least secure. I think the late Hugh B. Brown's approach to the Gospel showed far more confidence that the Church would stand up to scrutiny. Of course, he lived during the Church's golden age of the 1940s and 50s, where the Church didn't face some of the challenges it does now, so it may be that Elder Packer's seeming bunker mentality is in response to the times.

In other words, when times get tough, dig a foxhole! Sorry. I don't buy that!

Jesus Christ lived among the worst sort of "religionists" in his own day: the very kind who would be capable of putting such a dissenter as he on the chopping block!

(He did not "hunker down" as I have heard people say).

If Elder Packer has a "hunker down" mentality, that is no reflection of personal strength, to me!

In fact, just the opposite is "enjoined": I would suggest that he do just the opposite--be open and forthright and frank (but not irate) with the people, when they present their honest questions. Put on the whole armor of God, Elder Packer: not build your bulwarks and crawl in behind it!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Nottingham+Mar 18 2005, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nottingham @ Mar 18 2005, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 14 2005, 10:17 PM

Is there really any debate as to what BKP's approach to religion is? He is probably the most quoted church leader on the internet. That he takes the "do what you are told" approach is no secret folks. That the church heirarchy as a whole puts its stamp of approval on talks that stress conformity and unquestioning loyalty is no big surprise either. It is in the nature of autocracies to demand followership ahead of independent thought or controversy. The church is not a democracy, it has no "bill of rights", there is no "right" to free speech, there is only conformity and commitment. Get used to it.

Wow! You said a mouthful. Not only emphasis on talks that stress conformity and uniformity, but on making-over talks that, themselves, are less than uniform in their conformity.

This is strong language, I know; but I definitely have some evidence to back this up!

If someone wants to email me, or PM me, I will give a you line-by-line and word-for-word quotation by a Gen'l Authority whose message then got "censured" in such a way as to require him to re-write it (and thus change even the substance of his message), for the Church publication that it subsequently appeared in.

Man, I just don't see any of the former thinking existing, as it existed before: as pertaining to the right to think for oneself and to express one's own thoughts. If General Authorities (like the Seventies) "can't" come up with anything original (viz, to think their own original words and express their own personal perspective), then what does that say for all the rest of the people?

PS: President Hinckley did say that the Church was democratic, in an interview conducted during the Winter Olympics, in 2002. (So, was this the truth, or just plain good PR?)

Just plain good PR.

When was the last time anybody's vote meant anything. All you get to do is "sustain" the brethern. And if you put up your hand at the wrong time, you will get called into the Bishop's office and get raked over the coals, and probably get a lecture something like this:

"When the brethern speak, the Lord has spoken. Who are you to challenge that?"

Ok, they might not put it in such a didactic way, but the message will be there.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Nottingham+Mar 18 2005, 10:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nottingham @ Mar 18 2005, 10:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 04:19 PM

....Sometimes -- though they generally don't talk about it -- they are more open to receive revelations when members have discreetly let them know about problems they ought to seek revelation about.  If I ever have a chance to put a bee in an apostle's ear, the 3-hour block will get a subtle mention.)

PS-2: I have heard from a personal and reliable friend (in a diverse place) where the 3-hour block is being "shortened" by one hour, on a trial basis. (Guess which of the three meetings is being eliminated, there?)

So, maybe your prayers have been answered already, ahead of time?!!

<span style='color:blue'>President Hinckley on a “big announcement?”

“I'm not gonna tell ya...I know somethin' but I'm not gonna tell ya about it...you'll have to hear it on your various television stations!"

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_070183612.html

Maybe this 'big announcement' is regarding changes to the 3 hour block. Has anyone here heard what this 'big announcement' is?

M.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 18 2005, 01:00 PM

Maybe this 'big announcement' is regarding changes to the 3 hour block. Has anyone here heard what this 'big announcement' is?

M.

I don't think it could be the 3 hour block. It wasn't but a year or two ago that they announced in General Conference that they'd gone through the programs one by one, disassembled and reassembled them and couldn't find any room for improvement (or dispense with anything.)

My bet is that it's a new temple or building of some sort.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Nottingham+Mar 18 2005, 12:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nottingham @ Mar 18 2005, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 14 2005, 10:17 PM

Is there really any debate as to what BKP's approach to religion is? He is probably the most quoted church leader on the internet. That he takes the "do what you are told" approach is no secret folks. That the church heirarchy as a whole puts its stamp of approval on talks that stress conformity and unquestioning loyalty is no big surprise either. It is in the nature of autocracies to demand followership ahead of independent thought or controversy. The church is not a democracy, it has no "bill of rights", there is no "right" to free speech, there is only conformity and commitment. Get used to it.

Wow! You said a mouthful. Not only emphasis on talks that stress conformity and uniformity, but on making-over talks that, themselves, are less than uniform in their conformity.

This is strong language, I know; but I definitely have some evidence to back this up!

If someone wants to email me, or PM me, I will give a you line-by-line and word-for-word quotation by a Gen'l Authority whose message then got "censured" in such a way as to require him to re-write it (and thus change even the substance of his message), for the Church publication that it subsequently appeared in.

Man, I just don't see any of the former thinking existing, as it existed before: as pertaining to the right to think for oneself and to express one's own thoughts. If General Authorities (like the Seventies) "can't" come up with anything original (viz, to think their own original words and express their own personal perspective), then what does that say for all the rest of the people?

PS: President Hinckley did say that the Church was democratic, in an interview conducted during the Winter Olympics, in 2002. (So, was this the truth, or just plain good PR?)

You are bringing up that old thing ~ wasn't it Poleman's talk ~ the one he gave after his 19 year old committed suiside and he was a little off the beat?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Nottingham+Mar 18 2005, 12:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nottingham @ Mar 18 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 15 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by -curvette@Mar 14 2005, 07:21 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:19 PM

I pay attention to what Elder Packer has to say, even though I wonder sometimes whether he actually believes, deep down, that the Church is true.

Duckster! You got my attention here. Why do you wonder such a thing? Of all of the brethren to wonder about, he seems like one of the most unlikely to have doubts (to me, anyway.)

Elder Packer sometimes a little too concerned that people will delve into Church history too far; his message is that people should toe the line and not question. When you're confident of your message, you don't have to be afraid of scrutiny. The most authoritarian types are sometimes the least secure. I think the late Hugh B. Brown's approach to the Gospel showed far more confidence that the Church would stand up to scrutiny. Of course, he lived during the Church's golden age of the 1940s and 50s, where the Church didn't face some of the challenges it does now, so it may be that Elder Packer's seeming bunker mentality is in response to the times.

In other words, when times get tough, dig a foxhole! Sorry. I don't buy that!

Jesus Christ lived among the worst sort of "religionists" in his own day: the very kind who would be capable of putting such a dissenter as he on the chopping block!

(He did not "hunker down" as I have heard people say).

If Elder Packer has a "hunker down" mentality, that is no reflection of personal strength, to me!

In fact, just the opposite is "enjoined": I would suggest that he do just the opposite--be open and forthright and frank (but not irate) with the people, when they present their honest questions. Put on the whole armor of God, Elder Packer: not build your bulwarks and crawl in behind it!

I think what you want is a grave digging expedition on a rainy day ~

What the apostles are called to do is testify of Christ and Him crucified and ressurrected.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 18 2005, 09:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 18 2005, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Mar 18 2005, 01:00 PM

Maybe this 'big announcement' is regarding changes to the 3 hour block. Has anyone here heard what this 'big announcement' is?

M.

I don't think it could be the 3 hour block. It wasn't but a year or two ago that they announced in General Conference that they'd gone through the programs one by one, disassembled and reassembled them and couldn't find any room for improvement (or dispense with anything.)

My bet is that it's a new temple or building of some sort.

I sure would like to see the GD class dispensed with~ LOL