DiscussMormonism.com

I don't think that BKP was shown as a "bumbling idiot" during the documentary.

They didn't really give him much airtime...I'll agree with that.

President Packer is extremely educated. There is no getting around that. He also knows his stuff when it comes to teaching and teaching principles. His book, "Teaching, No Greater Call" is an excellent resource.

I guess I didn't "jump to BKP's defense" because I really didn't see a need to defend him. I didn't think he was portrayed in a bad light.

Could he have had more airtime? Perhaps.

I thought that the "Mormons" PBS documentary was fairly well-balanced, though.

mentalgymnast wrote:

harmony wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Well, it looks like this thread has run its course if PP is in here taking potshots. I find it interesting that no one came to Elder Packer's defense. <g>

What exactly did BKP need defended against?

Earlier in the thread I made the point that Packer was made to look like somewhat of a bumbling old man in the short video clip that was shown. I then juxtaposed that with the transcript of his interview which was posted by the church...not PBS. My attempt was to show that Elder Packer has a great deal more depth and breadth to his intellectual acuteness than was portrayed. No one else seemed to support that observation, and I see that as lacking vigor in coming to his defense. OTOH, if Packer had been given more airtime and had come across looking halfway intelligent, my guess is that there would be those that would be having a heyday with picking apart what he said, etc.

Well, he is an old man. It's hard to get around that. And if he appeared as bumbling, then I submit that at some point in the interview, he bumbled. It's not like the camera crew could invent something from nothing. Had he come across as consistently strong and vital, that's how he would be portrayed in his clip, no matter what editing took place.

And yes, we tend to pick apart what LDS leaders say here. For the most part, it's an attempt to cut through the fluff to get to what they're actually saying (which may not be what it appears at first glance). Are you saying using critical thinking skills on what our leaders say is a bad thing?

I'm showing where it wasn't. I haven't had anyone really take issue with my point.

Regards,
MG

From what people here have said, it was more unbiased than was expected. It's not like this was a church-produced show for BYU TV, MG. The outside world tends to come at us with their biases intact, the same as we go at them. It's kinda hard to get around the us vs them, when we're so deteremined to keep it alive, ya know.

mentalgymnast wrote:I gained access to the information from the same sources you did. I do not hold the church accountable for not publishing this information or dumping it on the internet back in the nineties. I can readily see why they didn't do so.

I know. I already addressed that. We're past that, mentalgymnast.

I have been under NO restrictions/condemnations/encouragments, or to "run away screaming" from "anything even slightly resembling an anti-mormon source." Neither have those that I associate with within my family and community. I have been totally free with my explorations without being brainwashed. Am I alone?

Yes, you are alone. The message from SLC central is that anti-Mormons are liars, deceivers, lost the spirit, are not to be trusted under any circumstance, etc. Case in point: See Sethbag's thread about the demonization in the latest issue of the New Era.

If you still don't believe me, take a look at the MAD board.

The information itself doesn't cause anguish and pain; the fact that there is an active campaign of suppression is what (eventually) causes it.

I believe that you have been misled into thinking that this is so.

You disagree with me that there's an active campaign to blacken the reputation of anyone who has left the church or writes books and/or articles critical of it?

If it's NOT the information itself that's caused your anguish and pain, then I think you would be obliged to go back and rethink why it is that the perceived weaknesses of an organization and full disclosure from the same, would inhibit application/practice of what you may have at one time believed doctrinally, I.e., baptism, repentance, gift of the HG, temple ordinances, atonement of Christ, etc.

It inhibits the application/practice of such things as baptism, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost, temple ordinances, atonement of Christ, etc. because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy messengers. If they can't even be trusted to avoid needlessly demonizing people, how can they possibly be trusted to be the custodians of God's authority?

The fact that there has been activity along the way through organized means within the church such as the Strengthening the Church Committee, disciplinary councils, etc., does not have anything directly to do with the actual truth claims of the church as far as I can see.

They demonize any critic of Mormonism, not just those who were Mormons sometime in the past. Even so, they still demonize former members even when the material they present is true, do they not?

harmony wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:

harmony wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Well, it looks like this thread has run its course if PP is in here taking potshots. I find it interesting that no one came to Elder Packer's defense. <g>

What exactly did BKP need defended against?

Earlier in the thread I made the point that Packer was made to look like somewhat of a bumbling old man in the short video clip that was shown. I then juxtaposed that with the transcript of his interview which was posted by the church...not PBS. My attempt was to show that Elder Packer has a great deal more depth and breadth to his intellectual acuteness than was portrayed. No one else seemed to support that observation, and I see that as lacking vigor in coming to his defense. OTOH, if Packer had been given more airtime and had come across looking halfway intelligent, my guess is that there would be those that would be having a heyday with picking apart what he said, etc.

Well, he is an old man. It's hard to get around that. And if he appeared as bumbling, then I submit that at some point in the interview, he bumbled.

I think that if he had been given a bit more airtime he would have come across as more skillful in his presentation. He wasn't portrayed as a "bumbling idiot" as liz said, it was more in the line of coming across as an unskilled orator and having a fuzzy memory. But yes, harmony, he is an old man! I suppose that an old man is going to come across as an old man. <g> The producers placed Packer's few sentences in the Chapter (#19) on "Dissenters and Exiles" starting around five minutes into the chapter. I agree with liz, he could have been given more airtime considering he is one of the leading authorities of the church and he had some thoughtful and articulate things to say.

Simply, and to the point, I found it interesting that it was the church website that finally put up the two interviews with Oaks and Packer when PBS hadn't done so. Here's an instance where the church practiced full disclosure. Good for them.

Regards,
MG

The church always practices full disclosure (and then some) with things that make it look good.

Dr. Shades wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:I gained access to the information from the same sources you did. I do not hold the church accountable for not publishing this information or dumping it on the internet back in the nineties. I can readily see why they didn't do so.

I know. I already addressed that. We're past that, mentalgymnast.

I have been under NO restrictions/condemnations/encouragments, or to "run away screaming" from "anything even slightly resembling an anti-mormon source." Neither have those that I associate with within my family and community. I have been totally free with my explorations without being brainwashed. Am I alone?

Yes, you are alone. The message from SLC central is that anti-Mormons are liars, deceivers, lost the spirit, are not to be trusted under any circumstance, etc. Case in point: See Sethbag's thread about the demonization in the latest issue of the New Era.

If you still don't believe me, take a look at the MAD board.

The information itself doesn't cause anguish and pain; the fact that there is an active campaign of suppression is what (eventually) causes it.

I believe that you have been misled into thinking that this is so.

You disagree with me that there's an active campaign to blacken the reputation of anyone who has left the church or writes books and/or articles critical of it?

If it's NOT the information itself that's caused your anguish and pain, then I think you would be obliged to go back and rethink why it is that the perceived weaknesses of an organization and full disclosure from the same, would inhibit application/practice of what you may have at one time believed doctrinally, I.e., baptism, repentance, gift of the HG, temple ordinances, atonement of Christ, etc.

It inhibits the application/practice of such things as baptism, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost, temple ordinances, atonement of Christ, etc. because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy messengers. If they can't even be trusted to avoid needlessly demonizing people, how can they possibly be trusted to be the custodians of God's authority?

The fact that there has been activity along the way through organized means within the church such as the Strengthening the Church Committee, disciplinary councils, etc., does not have anything directly to do with the actual truth claims of the church as far as I can see.

They demonize any critic of Mormonism, not just those who were Mormons sometime in the past. Even so, they still demonize former members even when the material they present is true, do they not?

Hi Shades,

Here's where I'm going with this. In my experience over the last fifteen years or so I have not, through any official channels or organs of the church, been told to run away screaming from "anti-mormon" sources. Even when I was serving on a High Council and talked repeatedly with the SP about various issues. There are members of the church that will encourage abstinence from said sources, but my experience is that the church itself has not done so over the pulpit, or made a big issue of it in official church magazines or publications. At least enough to where it made a huge imprint on my conciousness.

Yes, FAIR and FARMS have people actively participate in writing papers in rebuttle to the "anti-mormons" that are in opposition to the church or its mission. Certain individuals will tend towards ad hominem attacks on other individuals at times. Granted. I'm not seeing this occur from "SL Central" however.

Let me restate something you said above:

"It inhibits the application/practice of such things as baptism, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost, temple ordinances, atonement of Christ, etc. because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy messengers. If they can't even be trusted to avoid needlessly demonizing people, how can they possibly be trusted to be the custodians of God's authority?"

I disagree with your contention that the church authorities are "untrustworthy messengers". There's a lot of baggage attached to that claim that I believe is unwarranted and at times just plain false and/or manipulated to support the POV of those that are critics.

Everytime you use the word "they", who specifically are you referring to?

Regards,
MG

Dr. Shades wrote:The church always practices full disclosure (and then some) with things that make it look good.

Or when others have been less than forthright in doing so.

Regards,
MG

liz3564 wrote:
I thought that the "Mormons" PBS documentary was fairly well-balanced, though.

As did I, although I have to wonder how many people had actually noticed that the transcripts for the Elder Oaks and the Elder Packer interviews were nowhere to be found online...until the church posted them. Thirteen interview transcripts posted on the Frontline webpage, and two of them are GA's... Pres. Hinckley and Elder Holland. Eleven other people for one reason or another beat out two of the three apostles that were interviewed for the show.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:

liz3564 wrote:
I thought that the "Mormons" PBS documentary was fairly well-balanced, though.

As did I, although I have to wonder how many people had actually noticed that the transcripts for the Elder Oaks and the Elder Packer interviews were nowhere to be found online...until the church posted them. Thirteen interview transcripts posted on the Frontline webpage, and two of them are GA's... Pres. Hinckley and Elder Holland. Eleven other people for one reason or another beat out two of the three apostles that were interviewed for the show.

Regards,
MG

I agree that these other interviews should have been included. If they were edited for time factors, they should have at least been included as "extras" on PBS's website.

I didn't realize this. Maybe Dr. Peterson can give us some insight. He is friends with the director of the show. I wonder if this is something he mentioned to her?

mentalgymnast wrote:Simply, and to the point, I found it interesting that it was the church website that finally put up the two interviews with Oaks and Packer when PBS hadn't done so. Here's an instance where the church practiced full disclosure. Good for them.Regards,
MG

I agree, good for them, because, at least the DHO quote you put in your opening post (which is the one I paid most attention to), didn't make him look exactly intelligent or deep, in my opinion. I see no real parallel between leaving stuff out of church history and privileged information in a court of law, which has its own set of problems but is a completely different issue. If telling a story about a GA's youthful indiscretion would undermine what that GA is saying and doing today, then that GA can't stand on his own merits. That DHO would object to learning any "negative" information about George Washington is childish, that he couldn't admire Washington for his accomplishments if he knew Washington had had an affair in his teens, for example ... that he would rather not know anything negative and put Washington on a pedestal like a saint, I suppose so he would be worthy to have carried out the work of the Mormon God ... well, this is not a man to whom I would look for spiritual guidance, and I've known that for a long time, but thanks for posting it anyway just in case anyone reading this thread might be pondering it right now.

The church could take a lesson from the movie, Schindler's List (too bad it's R-rated so Mormons can't watch it, or if they did they can't learn from it). Schindler was living a rather indulgent and selfish life, but when the time came for him to risk everything for his fellow man he rose to the challenge, and afterward returned to his own normalcy. The movie didn't hide any of this for the sake of making him a perfect hero. Meanwhile, Mormons in Germany were hiding in their chapels behind their "No Jews" signs (except, of course, for the one notable exception who got excommunated for his efforts).