This is starting to bug me!

[_consiglieri]

Greg Smith wrote an article in the one and only edition of FARMS Review to be published in 2011, called "Shattered Glass," in which he analyzes President Packer's infamous comments from the October 2010 General Conference.

The first half of his article recasts what President Packer meant when he asked rhetorically why a loving Heavenly Father would make somebody gay, and goes back over six prior Packer addresses to show that, regardless of what you think about Boyd K. Packer, at least he has been consistent.

The more I think about it, the more this is really starting to bother me.

Greg Smith intuits what President Packer "really" meant by his language, and winnows prior addresses to try to place it in its "proper" context. Smith treats Packer's 2010 comments as if he is dealing with an ancient text, trying to come up with its original meaning. Why does this bug me? Because Packer is still around! I mean, why not just ask Packer what he meant? And why doesn't Packer just come forward and explain it?

Packer & Co. have to know this has caused an uproar. Packer & Co. know his original address was modified for publication.

Why doesn't he just say something by way of explanation?

Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?

And yet President Packer (and the others) are so removed from the rest of the Church that they can't even be bothered to explain what they meant when they have said something that has caused legitimate confusion.

But this isn't where my concern ends. Because I have to wonder how it is that the rest of the membership is okay with this kind of treatment.

It is like the leaders make pronouncements and can't be bothered to clarify, even when clarification is needed. The members are left to read the tea-leaves and try to figure things out, even when the guy who said it is still alive and can actually explain it if he would just take a couple of minutes.

How has the LDS Church come to this point, I wonder.

Why do the leaders no longer do anything other than make semi-annual pronouncements? Why do they only talk at the membership instead of to the membership?

And why does the membership put up with it?

These are some questions that have been bothering me recently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Shulem]

All of your points seem quite valid and you have every right to be disturbed by the fact that the General Authorities talk AT the saints rather than TO them like real people do. They are up on the stand like talking birds saying pretty much the same old stuff -- boring Mormonism of praying, paying, and obeying.

The church does not consider itself accountable but above all things. It doesn't answer to the saints but gives directives and orders. It's not like a real relationship where there is give and take and effective communication. That's why you see apologists have to try and interpret what the living prophets are saying when they stick their feet in their mouth.



Paul O

[_Shulem]

Also, I believe what Packer originally said in conference came from his heart and was exactly what he really thought and how he feels. He could have corrected himself on the stand had he thought he stumbled or needed to clarify. Afterall, he's supposed to be speaking under the direct influence and power of the Holy Ghost. BS! Mormon leaders are good at covering their tracks and refusing to answer up. It's really just a religious mob.



Paul O

[_Stormy Waters]

I think the comments that Russell M. Nelson made about the exploding print shop had a very similar effect. People immediately started arguing about what he meant and were dissecting his words.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. With living prophets, seers, and revelators, there shouldn't be this kind of confusion. There is no need for these kind of debates. There is no need for this type of ambiguity.

[_Shulem]

I think the comments that Russell M. Nelson made about the exploding print shop had a very similar effect. People immediately started arguing about what he meant and were dissecting his words.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. With living prophets, seers, and revelators, there shouldn't be this kind of confusion. There is no need for these kind of debates. There is no need for this type of ambiguity.

This is what he said:

"Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!"

Or, we could say:

Could a prophet, seer, and translator take the Facsimile No. 3 and read the ancient inscriptions correctly by the Mormon Spirit? What does this say for the rest of Mormon scripture?

Paul O

[_Drifting]

Two of the membership in my ward suggested that the full membership of the Church isn't ready for the bold and plain speaking of President Packer.

[_lulu]

Greg Smith wrote an article in the one and only edition of FARMS Review to be published in 2011, called "Shattered Glass," in which he analyzes President Packer's infamous comments from the October 2010 General Conference.

The first half of his article recasts what President Packer meant when he asked rhetorically why a loving Heavenly Father would make somebody gay, and goes back over six prior Packer addresses to show that, regardless of what you think about Boyd K. Packer, at least he has been consistent.

The more I think about it, the more this is really starting to bother me.

Greg Smith intuits what President Packer "really" meant by his language, and winnows prior addresses to try to place it in its "proper" context. Smith treats Packer's 2010 comments as if he is dealing with an ancient text, trying to come up with its original meaning. Why does this bug me? Because Packer is still around! I mean, why not just ask Packer what he meant? And why doesn't Packer just come forward and explain it?

Packer & Co. have to know this has caused an uproar. Packer & Co. know his original address was modified for publication.

Why doesn't he just say something by way of explanation?

Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?

And yet President Packer (and the others) are so removed from the rest of the Church that they can't even be bothered to explain what they meant when they have said something that has caused legitimate confusion.

But this isn't where my concern ends. Because I have to wonder how it is that the rest of the membership is okay with this kind of treatment.

It is like the leaders make pronouncements and can't be bothered to clarify, even when clarification is needed. The members are left to read the tea-leaves and try to figure things out, even when the guy who said it is still alive and can actually explain it if he would just take a couple of minutes.

How has the LDS Church come to this point, I wonder.

Why do the leaders no longer do anything other than make semi-annual pronouncements? Why do they only talk at the membership instead of to the membership?

And why does the membership put up with it?

These are some questions that have been bothering me recently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then some one would have to explain the explanation.

[_Philo Sofee]

Two of the membership in my ward suggested that the full membership of the Church isn't ready for the bold and plain speaking of President Packer.

LOL! Why yesssssss, it is ALWAYS the MEMBERS fault in these things.......

[_Philo Sofee]

Two of the membership in my ward suggested that the full membership of the Church isn't ready for the bold and plain speaking of President Packer.

He has been plenty bold with um heap big morality stick he carries. THE problem is the MORE he talks, the less he communicates effectively. Remember this witness to Christ, of Christ now says it is TOO SACRED to ever divulge ANYTHING about Christ in personal meeting. Am I the only one who finds that seriously odd for a witness to clam up?

[_sock puppet]

I think the comments that Russell M. Nelson made about the exploding print shop had a very similar effect. People immediately started arguing about what he meant and were dissecting his words.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. With living prophets, seers, and revelators, there shouldn't be this kind of confusion. There is no need for these kind of debates. There is no need for this type of ambiguity.

Exploding printing shops creating the Bible?

Maybe Nelson's real message was implying that JSJr's ordering the destruction of the Expositor was an attempt at JSJr to concoct a Third Testament of Jesus Christ.