Page 1 of 7

Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:06 pm
by _consiglieri
I went back last night and read (for the third time now) Greg Smith's defense of Boyd K. Packer in his "Shattered Glass" article in last year's one (and only) copy of the newly christened Mormon Studies Review.

The reason I did this is because I still could not figure out what the first half of his paper was about. (The second half was easy to see as a supercillious slam on the website Mormons for Marriage, in which Smith uses the same tactics I expect he employed in his 100-page Dehlin "hit piece" which has yet to see the light of day.)

The first half of the paper deals with the one sentence that was said in Elder Packer's October 2010 GC address that was deleted from the written report. That sentence was a question, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" This was queried in connection with his apparent allegations that homosexuals were not born that way, and that they could overcome this orientation by some means.

Greg Smith argues that this is not what Elder Packer was saying, that the deleted interrogatory may have given an impression not intended by Elder Packer, and that the deletion of that question from the report of his talk makes it clear that is not what Elder Packer was trying to say. (Greg then goes into six prior conference addresses of Elder Packer to try to show at length that this is the case.) This constitutes the first half of his paper.

Going back over it, though, the thing I don't get is this--It is not only the question that gives the impression this is what Elder Packer is saying. It is every thing else that was said around the question, and which still remains in the Conference report.

I will reproduce here the paragraph as it was given in Conference, and then the paragraph as it was amended in the written report.

Elder Packer's Conference Talk:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father." [Packer-2010A, 9:00–9:20]

Now the Conference report:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father." [Packer-2010B]

I can see no difference the omitted question makes in the meaning of this passage. It is clear in both that Elder Packer is saying homosexuals are not "preset" and their feelings are not "inborn." He also says in both that it is the "temptation toward the pure and unnatural" that can be overcome, meaning he believes a homosexual can choose (or be trained) to be heterosexual.

In short, I am at a loss as to why Greg Smith spent so much time and research trying to explain that Elder Packer did not mean what he obviously meant.

Greg Smith's full article can be found here.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=820

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:13 pm
by _Bob Loblaw
consiglieri wrote:In short, I am at a loss as to why Greg Smith spent so much time and research trying to explain that Elder Packer did not mean what he obviously meant.

Greg Smith's full article can be found here.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=820

All the Best!

--Consiglieri


FARMS: Trying to explain away the obvious since 1979.

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:19 pm
by _Stormy Waters
Bob Loblaw wrote:FARMS: Trying to explain away the obvious since 1979.


Since Greg Smith wrote a paper on it, now apologists will say that it has been 'debunked' and 'dealt with'.

Why not just admit that Boyd Packer made a statement that wasn't in accordance with the official position of the church. Would that really be so terrible?

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:21 pm
by _Bob Loblaw
Stormy Waters wrote:Since Greg Smith wrote a paper on it, now apologists will say that it has been 'debunked' and 'dealt with'.

Why not just admit that Boyd Packer made a statement that wasn't in accordance with the official position of the church. Would that really be so terrible?


There is no hill insignificant enough that the apologists will not choose to die on.

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:35 pm
by _Shulem
The changing of the word tendencies to temptations is unjustified and I can prove it. You will note that the written report deleted the statement, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

Therein, that statement is proof that Naziman Packer said what he meant and meant what he said. He was saying that Heavenly Father would never allow someone to be born gay and have those kinds of natural tendencies. That's exactly what he was thinking and saying. The gospel of Mormonism makes it quite clear that Heavenly Father has every intention that mankind suffer temptations and even sin -- thus there would be no need to couple that doctrine with "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?", because, clearly, Heavenly Father allows mankind to be tempted so that's why they had to take that sentence out in order to sanitize the message and rewrite history. Mormons are such liars.

Packer got caught red handed and the church is covering it up.

Paul O

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:41 pm
by _sock puppet
consiglieri wrote:I will reproduce here the paragraph as it was given in Conference, and then the paragraph as it was amended in the written report.

Elder Packer's Conference Talk:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father." [Packer-2010A, 9:00–9:20]

Now the Conference report:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father." [Packer-2010B]

* * * He also says in both that it is the "temptation toward the pure and unnatural" that can be overcome, meaning he believes a homosexual can choose (or be trained) to be heterosexual.


The change from 'inborn tendencies' to 'inborn temptations' is, in my view, significant. The post-talk editors confused that sentence. What is an inborn temptation if not an inborn tendency or inborn proclivity? At what point before birth then does sexual temptation begin? Was there sexual temptation in the pre-existence? If so, why did we need to come here to be tempted and tested? Is it now the LDS position that sexual orientation onsets during gestation, somewhere between conception and live birth?

'when at first we set out to deceive, oh what a tangled web we weave'--New lesson learned by the conference edition editors of the Ensign.

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:42 pm
by _consiglieri
Shulem wrote:The changing of the word tendencies to temptations is unjustified and I can prove it. You will note that the written report deleted the statement, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"


I'm glad you caught that, Paul. I had missed it because I was so focused on the deleted question. But that is important, "tendencies" was changed to "temptations."

If anything, that makes what Boyd Packer said even stronger (from his point of view).

These are not just "tendencies" some mistake for being inborn, they are actually "temptations."

Tendency is a neutral word.

Temptation is not neutral, but used for tendencies toward that which is evil.

(Funny I don't recall Greg Smith addressing this change in his paper. Maybe I missed it. It does not seem to support his argument, though.)

Good catch, Paul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:51 pm
by _bcspace
I can see no difference the omitted question makes in the meaning of this passage. It is clear in both that Elder Packer is saying homosexuals are not "preset" and their feelings are not "inborn." He also says in both that it is the "temptation toward the pure and unnatural" that can be overcome, meaning he believes a homosexual can choose (or be trained) to be heterosexual.

In short, I am at a loss as to why Greg Smith spent so much time and research trying to explain that Elder Packer did not mean what he obviously meant.


Because I come to the same conclusion, I am at a loss as to why those with a homosexual agenda hail the change.

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:52 pm
by _Bob Loblaw
bcspace wrote:Because I come to the same conclusion, I am at a loss as to why those with a homosexual agenda hail the change.


Nobody said the church's PR flacks aren't good at what they do.

Re: Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:57 pm
by _bcspace
Because I come to the same conclusion, I am at a loss as to why those with a homosexual agenda hail the change.

Nobody said the church's PR flacks aren't good at what they do.


No one's ever shown criticism of the Church in this (or any) area to be valid or of any significance.