Page 1 of 2

Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:54 pm
by _Dwight Frye
Saw this on another board. Thought it was interesting:

Elder Boyd K. Packer, in this Ensign piece, had this to say:

Several years ago Monte F. Shelley and James S. Rosenvall, both professors at Brigham Young University, conceived of a way to input the scriptures into a computer data base and program them so that any word or combination of words may be called up instantly.

A logical reaction to such a proposal might have been, “Better be careful; you do not know what might come of this kind of analysis of the scriptures. We might open a Pandora’s box that might never be closed. Don’t do it.”


Packer goes on to assure us that this was not the reaction Shelley and Rosenvall received, but why would he think in the first place that such a position might be a "logical reaction" to this project? Any ideas?

.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:15 pm
by _harmony
Because BKP lives in fear and assumes everyone else does too.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:47 pm
by _The Dude
Because, logically, if you put the scriptures onto a computer it might gain knowledge of good and evil, and then we would have to cast it out into curel and dreary wilderness.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:29 pm
by _KimberlyAnn
The Dude wrote:Because, logically, if you put the scriptures onto a computer it might gain knowledge of good and evil, and then we would have to cast it out into curel and dreary wilderness.


HA! Then it is no coincidence that so many computers bear this symbol:

Image

KA

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:36 pm
by _Sethbag
Well obviously BKP is worried the scriptures might not withstand critical scrutiny - so the obvious "logical" response, to him, is simply not to scrutinize the scriptures. After all, if one knows that the scriptures are true, what does it profit a man to scrutinize them? One stands to gain nothing, and to lose a lot if one gives in to the Natural Man and lets oneself be influenced by an "arm of flesh" scriptural scrutiny that reveals problems.

I think Harmony nailed this one, with one caveat. BKP lives in fear and at least believes everyone else ought to as well.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:02 pm
by _John Larsen
Sethbag wrote:Well obviously BKP is worried the scriptures might not withstand critical scrutiny - so the obvious "logical" response, to him, is simply not to scrutinize the scriptures. After all, if one knows that the scriptures are true, what does it profit a man to scrutinize them? One stands to gain nothing, and to lose a lot if one gives in to the Natural Man and lets oneself be influenced by an "arm of flesh" scriptural scrutiny that reveals problems.

I think Harmony nailed this one, with one caveat. BKP lives in fear and at least believes everyone else ought to as well.

I think it points to the underlying suspicious--maybe subconscious--that it is all untrue. Where is the bravado of Smith or the Pratt brothers who shouted out "Bring it On!" It is just not there anymore.

Can you image the lead scientist upon firing up a new big telescope fusing that we "Better be careful; you do not know what might come of this kind of analysis of the cosmos. We might open a Pandora’s box that might never be closed. Don’t do it.”

Faith based people know deep in the their guts they are standing on shaky ground.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:15 pm
by _The Nehor
Sheer Idiocy.

Here's what he said in context:

Several years ago Monte F. Shelley and James S. Rosenvall, both professors at Brigham Young University, conceived of a way to input the scriptures into a computer data base and program them so that any word or combination of words may be called up instantly.

A logical reaction to such a proposal might have been, “Better be careful; you do not know what might come of this kind of analysis of the scriptures. We might open a Pandora’s box that might never be closed. Don’t do it.”

That did not happen. We have no doubt about the scriptures. These brethren were urged to proceed. The result is LDSView, computerized scripture software. It is simple to operate and is capable of infinite ways of searching through, comparing, and analyzing this sacred library of the Lord. It did not open a Pandora’s box; it opened the scriptures to analysis beyond anything that had been imagined.

For instance, you may key in the word faith. Instantly you see that it appears 696 times in the standard works. Press a key, and the verses appear before you.

Add the word hope. You will see that it appears forty-six times. Then add the word charity. It appears seventy-five times. Push a key, and you will see that faith, hope, and charity appear together in the same verse nineteen times. All of that has taken less than three and a half seconds.

Select a verse, and it appears in its chapter setting. You may scroll back and forth from Genesis to the last verse in the Pearl of Great Price and, with a touch of a key, print a copy.

This does not replace the printed page. While every member may not have need for this computer program, it is a research instrument of profound importance.

And work is well underway to provide this software in Spanish, German, and other languages.


He was saying that from a secular point of view it was a bad idea. Note how he says, "We have no doubt about the scriptures."

Yeah, he's living in real fear here, Harmony.

His full address did have the bravado of a Smith or a Pratt.

Edit: Yet another fine misrepresentation from those who accuse the Church of misrepresenting things.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:18 pm
by _The Dude
KimberlyAnn wrote:HA! Then it is no coincidence that so many computers bear this symbol:


You read my mind KA.

Sethbag and John Larsen: I think you are being far more logical that BKP meant to be. If you read his talk, it's all about cheerleading the new digital scriptures (bravado) and the bit about Pandora's box is 100% non sequitur. Rhetorical filler with no logical lead in or direction in the talk.

The Nehor wrote:His full address did have the bravado of a Smith or a Pratt.


More like Sarah Palin.

Re: Boyd K. Packer and "A Logical Reaction"

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:39 pm
by _Tom
Packer goes on to assure us that this was not the reaction Shelley and Rosenvall received, but why would he think in the first place that such a position might be a "logical reaction" to this project? Any ideas?


It's a logical reaction to Packer because it was his reaction (plus the reaction of his associates) when presented with the concept. He was worried about how the Tanners would use the program. But Packer and his associates ultimately opted to taste the salt and make the "leap of faith" into the darkness.

Modern Revelation

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:23 am
by _Danna
Maybe BKP was worried about people having the sort of experience I had this morning:

While poking around LDS.org scriptures looking for any light on how Cain survived the flood, I came across the last instance of canonised revelation: D&C 138, by Joseph Feilding Smith. It is quite hope inspiring, a vision of spirits in the spirit world and how Jesus spent three days organising the missionary effort of good spirits to bad spirits. But then my discrepancy detector went off.

JFS describes the good spirits in the spirit world. Here are some from D&C 138 [note that I have left the link letters in, they are important:
16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the aspirit world, to declare their bredemption from the cbands of death.
17 Their sleeping adust was to be brestored unto its cperfect frame, dbone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the espirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of fjoy.
18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their adeliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring bliberty to the ccaptives who had been faithful;

27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the abrief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;

36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of aspirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the bprophets who had testified of him in the flesh;
37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, because of their arebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants might also hear his words.
38 Among the great and amighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father bAdam, the cAncient of Days and father of all,
39 And our glorious aMother bEve, with many of her faithful cdaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.
40 aAbel, the first bmartyr, was there, and his brother cSeth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express dimage of his father, Adam.
41 aNoah, who gave warning of the flood; bShem, the great chigh priest; dAbraham, the father of the faithful; eIsaac, fJacob, and Moses, the great glaw-giver of Israel; 42 And aIsaiah, who declared by prophecy that the Redeemer was anointed to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the bcaptives, and the opening of the cprison to them that were bound, were also there.
43 Moreover, Ezekiel, who was shown in vision the great valley of adry bones, which were to be bclothed upon with flesh, to come forth again in the resurrection of the dead, living souls;
44 Daniel, who foresaw and foretold the establishment of the akingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people;
45 aElias, who was with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration;
46 And aMalachi, the prophet who testified of the coming of bElijah—of whom also Moroni spake to the Prophet Joseph Smith, declaring that he should come before the ushering in of the great and dreadful cday of the Lord—were also there.
47 The Prophet Elijah was to plant in the ahearts of the children the promises made to their fathers,
48 Foreshadowing the great work to be done in the atemples of the Lord in the bdispensation of the fulness of times, for the redemption of the dead, and the csealing of the children to their parents, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse and utterly wasted at his coming.


Note that Enoch is not mentioned, of course he had been translated, so he was not in the spirit world.

Then I recalled having read this on another occaision:
As was the case with many of the ancient prophets, Moses’ ministry extended beyond the limits of his own mortal lifetime. In company with Elijah, he came to the Mount of Transfiguration and bestowed keys of the priesthood upon Peter, James, and John (Matt. 17: 3-4; Mark 9: 4-9; Luke 9: 30; D&C 63: 21; HC 3: 387). From this event, which occurred before the resurrection of Jesus, we understand that Moses was a translated being, and had not died as reported in Deut. 34 (Alma 45: 19). It was necessary that he be translated, in order to have a body of flesh and bones at the time of the transfiguration, since the resurrection had not yet taken place. Had he been a spirit only, he could not have performed the work on the mount of giving the keys to the mortal Peter, James, and John (cf. D&C 129).


So JFS could not have seen Moses in the spirit world. He was translated, like Enoch. He had a body already.

Interestingly, the entry for Moses is not linked in D&C 138, and D&C 138 is not included in the Bible dictionary for Moses at all. So if one were following the story of the translated Moses, LDS.org will not offer up JFS' vision- and vice versa. So someone at LDS.org must know about this.