Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

[_DonBradley]

Drifting,

The General Authorities are not assigned talk topics, nor are their talks reviewed in advance. And church doctrine on any subject, including homosexuality, is not established by a single apostle's conference talk. If it wanted to change its doctrine on the subject to endorse the idea that homosexuality can be changed, it could do so in a much clearer way than having an ailing apostle give a disjointed talk at a single conference.

And, hopefully, Conference listeners will have the sense to remember how church doctrine is, and isn't, established, rather like Tobin here.

Don

[_Drifting]

LOL Drifting. I get the sense Don is a bit more practical and knowledgable about the Church and the gospel than that. I don't know why you would expect any Mormon just to accept anything that is taught in General Conference (you should probably use that line on bcspace instead). A lot of false doctrine has come down from that podium in the past and that will continue to happen. It is better to use our reason, understanding of the gospel, the context in which it was stated, and yes, even a little inspiration from God before accepting anything stated there.

I refer you to the last quote in my post.
The one where the Prophet of the Church informs us that Conference speakers have been inspired from heaven to give the messages that they give.

Now if you can to go ahead and get Monson to admit that Boyd K Packer (Apostle and President of the Q12) was NOT under the inspiration when speaking at Conference I'll be impressed. Whilst Packers alive that is.

[_Drifting]

Drifting,

The General Authorities are not assigned talk topics, nor are their talks reviewed in advance. And church doctrine on any subject, including homosexuality, is not established by a single apostle's conference talk. If it wanted to change its doctrine on the subject to endorse the idea that homosexuality can be changed, it could do so in a much clearer way than having an ailing apostle give a disjointed talk at a single conference.

And, hopefully, Conference listeners will have the sense to remember how church doctrine is, and isn't, established, rather like Tobin here.

Don

As the Prophet tells us, the talks are developed under the inspiration of heaven. Was Packers talk developed and delivered under the inspiration of heaven? Yes/No

[_Tobin]

LOL Drifting. I get the sense Don is a bit more practical and knowledgable about the Church and the gospel than that. I don't know why you would expect any Mormon just to accept anything that is taught in General Conference (you should probably use that line on bcspace instead). A lot of false doctrine has come down from that podium in the past and that will continue to happen. It is better to use our reason, understanding of the gospel, the context in which it was stated, and yes, even a little inspiration from God before accepting anything stated there.

I refer you to the last quote in my post.
The one where the Prophet of the Church informs us that Conference speakers have been inspired from heaven to give the messages that they give.

Now if you can to go ahead and get Monson to admit that Boyd K Packer (Apostle and President of the Q12) was NOT under the inspiration when speaking at Conference I'll be impressed. Whilst Packers alive that is.

And if God reveals to me that his talk was inspired, I will accept it as such. I do not feel it was so inspired however and disagree with many of his points and premises on what I believe are reasonable grounds.

[_Drifting]

And if God reveals to me that his talk was inspired, I will accept it as such. I do not feel it was so inspired however and disagree with many of his points and premises.

And that is fair enough - standing up for what you believe despite what the Mormon Prophet states. Clearly that makes you an apostate who doesn't sustain Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator but I'm guessing you have made peace with God on that one.

Don however seems to be struggling to Follow The Prophet...

President Monson then talked about three essential signals from the Lord's lighthouse that will help the young women return to their Heavenly Father who eagerly awaits their triumphant homecoming. Those signals are believe, obey and endure.

[_DonBradley]

Drifting,

While I'm not willing to be roped into false dichotomies appropriate to the high school debate club, I am happy to have a genuine discussion with you.

Mormons don't believe, nor has any LDS prophet said, that everything that comes from a General Authority's lips during a conference talk is doctrinal or inspired, nor do I believe they all are. Do I listen to General Conference talks with the hope of gaining spiritual insight? Yes. Do I think President Packer was inspired specifically in the disjointedness of his address and in saying things that could wrongly be taken to signal that the church's position on this issue has moved backward? The question answers itself.

Don

[_Drifting]

Drifting,

While I'm not willing to be roped into false dichotomies appropriate to the high school debate club, I am happy to have a genuine discussion with you.

Mormons don't believe, nor has any LDS prophet said, that everything that comes from a General Authority's lips during a conference talk is doctrinal or inspired, nor do I believe they all are. Do I listen to General Conference talks with the hope of gaining spiritual insight? Yes. Do I think President Packer was inspired specifically in the disjointedness of his address and in saying things that could wrongly be taken to signal that the church's position on this issue has moved backward? The question answers itself.

Don

Thanks Don, but don't blame me for the false dichotomy caused by President Monson's explicit claims about Conference talks. To my knowledge President Monson has never ever suggested that Conference talks are anything other than 100% inspired (feel free to show me where he has stated otherwise). I know PR people have suggested taking things with a pinch of salt, but that's not the Prophet speaking - is it?

Now, if you are suggesting we go with what Church PR suggests then that presents us with a different dilemma. If the edited and written version of Conference is more reflective of the official position of the Church on matters, and that some of the things spoken at Conference are mere speculation and opinion that may be in error - then we should avoid the confusion of listening or attending conference and wait for the written version in the Ensign.

Rock>Don<Hard Place

[_malkie]

Drifting,

While I'm not willing to be roped into false dichotomies appropriate to the high school debate club, I am happy to have a genuine discussion with you.

Mormons don't believe, nor has any LDS prophet said, that everything that comes from a General Authority's lips during a conference talk is doctrinal or inspired, nor do I believe they all are. Do I listen to General Conference talks with the hope of gaining spiritual insight? Yes. Do I think President Packer was inspired specifically in the disjointedness of his address and in saying things that could wrongly be taken to signal that the church's position on this issue has moved backward? The question answers itself.

Don

Don, is it possible that this question answers itself because of how it is asked? I think that perhaps "wrongly" and "backward", in this case, signal preconceptions, preferred conclusions, and make the question rhetorical. That may be why the question answers itself.

Let me ask it another way: "Do I think President Packer was inspired in saying things that could be taken to signal that the church's position on this issue has moved."

If the answer to this question is "no", then I think there is some more explaining to do. The more definite the "no" is, the more there is to explain.

[_consiglieri]

Consig,

I was at that conference session and did not perceive it as a backward step by the Church on gay issues.

President Packer was clearly very much in decline and could not remember the General Conference style guidelines (e.g., for quotations ["quote"--"unquote"] and scripture references) he'd been using for 45 years. He wasn't speaking officially for the Church, and wasn't even speaking particularly clearly or cogently for himself.

What I got out of the statement you quoted is that he didn't believe God would give anyone a temptation they couldn't resist, an idea taken from the Doctrine and Covenants.

There is no sense fighting with the man when he is neither the leader of the Church nor likely to long be speaking from its pulpit. If one of the posters on this board were 87 and in rapid decline, hopefully we'd all give him a break. I don't see why not to do the same for Boyd K. Packer.

Don

Hi, Don! I hope you are doing well.

Heaven knows I am always in favor of more freedom of expression during GC, not less, even when I happen to disagree with the expression itself.

The main thing I have been trying to figure out in this thread has to do more with Greg Smith than Boyd Packer; which is why he thinks the rewording of that passage from President Packer's talk changes the meaning at all. If I am picking on anybody, it is more the young and virile Greg Smith.

I have to confess I see President Packer's words as saying one can overcome the tendency/temptation itself rather than the completed act. But once again, I am in favor of more expression, not less.

I hope you are finding time to do some "polishing" in your spare time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Bob Loblaw]

Drifting,

While I'm not willing to be roped into false dichotomies appropriate to the high school debate club, I am happy to have a genuine discussion with you.

Mormons don't believe, nor has any LDS prophet said, that everything that comes from a General Authority's lips during a conference talk is doctrinal or inspired, nor do I believe they all are. Do I listen to General Conference talks with the hope of gaining spiritual insight? Yes. Do I think President Packer was inspired specifically in the disjointedness of his address and in saying things that could wrongly be taken to signal that the church's position on this issue has moved backward? The question answers itself.

Don

Don

That's the right approach, in my opinion. Unfortunately, too many people accept what is said in conference as inerrant without even thinking about it. If there is a God, I would hope He expects more thought and pondering from His children.