Callings Are Greater Than The Man

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 15 2005, 05:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 15 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--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 uninspiring 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.

It sounds like he most-definitely wasn't a happy camper at all!

(He ought to get out of that CAB more often: you know, "mingle with the people";

he may be taking that legal administrator bit a little too seriously!)

But, if he likes to "push pencils" (viz, what administrators do best), then who am I to complain.

[Meridiani]

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.

As for me, myself, and I: we don't own a shovel, so, I, for one, am not interested in trying to dig up a grave, only to have it keep flooding and filling up with mud. (Hopeless cause).

However, if the church's legal administrators would do less administrating (sic); formalizing; legalizing; condescenderizing (sic); sanatizing; and, pontificatering (sic)(maybe)--the people would not have to wear hip boots and wade through all that fluff 'n' stuff! What can you say? It's what they like to do!

(MY personal "remedy" for that: take a legal notepad, with you, to long-winded talks and fireside chats, etc.--even those talks about telephone pranks--and write down what is being said: every jot and tittle. Who knows? There might be a humorous anecdote to be found--in there, somewhere--for posterity's sake, perhaps. It must be noted, however--and in light of a recent memorandum from uptown--that one must now get permission from a General Authority Church speaker if one intends to share their notes with someone else! Do I detect a restricting of the flow of information, here?)

And, finally, I think I "hear a German song coming on":

"I love to go a wandering, along the mountain track

And, when I go, I love to sing: a knapsack on my back--

Faldereee, falderaaaah, falderole, falderaah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Faldereee, falderaaaah,

A knapsack on my back."

(This is not sarcasm--not even in the slightest!)

[Meridiani]

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?

in my estimation, maybe old is old and new is new. unless things change, though, old examples are just as good as new ones: they both would reflect the status quo, in my opinion.

(unless you got something of substance to say, please refrain from taking pot-shots at people's input: it's not constructive and it both discredits others and discourages further discussion).

[Meridiani]

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

Originally posted by -Nottingham@Mar 18 2005, 10:49 AM

<!--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.

Nice photo, T'Pol

[Meridiani]

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.

Sadly, you are not making an overstatement. I have seen it happen on a number of occasions, over the years

(where "putting up one's hand at the wrong time" achieved the results you specify!)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Meridiani@Mar 21 2005, 06:24 AM

Nice photo, T'Pol

Thanks! Are you an Enterprise fan Meridiani? This particular picture is from the episode Doctor's Orders. This is actually hallucination T'Pol. She is really a figment of Phlox's imagination. One of Enterprise's humourous episodes - I think so anyway.

M.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Notting -- "Feh" = expression of dismissiveness and disgust. In other words, my attitude towards white-shirt obsessives.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 21 2005, 12:58 PM

Notting -- "Feh" = expression of dismissiveness and disgust. In other words, my attitude towards white-shirt obsessives.

So, PD, what color of shirt DO you wear to work? :)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 21 2005, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 21 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 21 2005, 12:58 PM

Notting -- "Feh" = expression of dismissiveness and disgust.  In other words, my attitude towards white-shirt obsessives.

So, PD, what color of shirt DO you wear to work? :)

Business casual, thank all that's holy. I favor Brooks Brothers blues and greens.

Although when I have to wear a suit to court, I usually do wear a white shirt, if only because matching triple combinations of suit + shirt + tie is beyond me. (Everything goes with a white shirt, so I only have to keep two colors coordinated. My wife informs me that I sometimes still mess up.) The one exception is my black suit, with which I like to wear a light blue shirt with metallic blue tie or a crimson one, which looks very cool, I think.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 21 2005, 09:56 PM

a crimson one, which looks very cool, I think.

You define the word "cool" Duck!