The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOYD K. PACKER".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
BOYD K. PACKER
Total Articles:
19
Boyd K. Packer, Apostle of the LDS Church and next in line in succession to the Prophet. A megalomaniac, Packer demands that everyone stand when he enters the room and finishes eating when he is finished eating. A man for whom the truth is utterly expendable - he asks that Mormons lie about their testimonies until they have one. A hater of intellectuals and feminists - he called the penis a "little factory" that must not be touched and admonished members to tie their hands to bedposts to stop masturbating. Packer ordered the excommunication of Michael Quinn.
|
|
Boyd K. Packer, Apostle of the LDS Church and 3rd in line in succession to the Prophet.
Boyd has spoken out against Masturbation calling the penis a "Little Factory" that must not be touched (see "Little Factories"). He has spoken out against truth in his talk "The Mantle Is Far Far Greater Than The Intellect".
Boyd K. Packer stated "A testimony is found in the bearing of it." ("The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55.) Those who do not have a testimony of Mormonism are asked to bare their testimonies anyway - even if those testimonies are baring false witnesses. Boyd states that by doing so, eventually a person will gain a testimony. This defines the very spirit of cult-like behavior.
In the year 1977, Boyd gave a talk at BYU counseling members to marry only their own race:
We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, "Well, I know of exceptions." I do, too, and they've been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, "I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race." I say, "Yes--exceptions." Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman's near-scriptural statement, "We'd like to follow the rule first, and then we'll take care of the exceptions."
Boyd K. Packer is a man for whom truth is utterly expendable and who cares more about the results (creating belief no matter what) than about integrity. He clearly believes that honesty is not a necessary part of the due process of obtaining one's belief.
Boyd K. Packer also stated that the three greatest threats to the church were homosexuals, feminists and intellectuals. "The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals." (Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council, May 18, 1993).
| If you're active LDS, you've probably heard this infamous Orwellian quote from the Boydster repeated in Sacrament Meeting talks and Priesthood lessons at least a few times every year, if not more often. It's the one where he advocated combatting your doubts by lying about them publicly. Here is Packer's notorious semantic-perverting phrase:
"A testimony is found in the bearing of it." (from "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55)
That message - which has been reiterated time and time again to missionaries at the MTC and at zone conferences in every mission worldwide - was a classical example of someone shamelessly promoting self-brainwashing!! The implication is: If you don't know whether something [we Mormons teach] is true, just bear your testimony of it anyway, as if you knew it, and eventually you will come to find that you 'know' it.
How acceptable would THAT sort of 'testimony' be in a court of law?!?!?!
After all, what does the word 'testimony' mean? Isn't it a sort of solemn oath that what you are stating, you already personally know to be true???
In a legal court or in any other context, giving a 'testimony' does NOT mean that you want to know that it's true; or that you believe it is true; or that you hope it's true; or that you're confident you will eventually know it's true..... no, it means you already know it.
So if you follow Packer's Orwellian counsel, and bear testimony of something that you doubt, aren't you guilty of perjury? Isn't there a commandment in Exodus that specifically prohibits bearing false witness?
How else can you construe his counsel? Isn't this implicitly what Packer is advocating, once you cut through all the Orwellian Double-Speak bullshit:
"If you don't believe something that we teach, or if you have doubts, BEAR FALSE WITNESS about it, and KEEP LYING until you've convinced yourself that your testimony is true."
Yeah, Boyd, try THAT approach in a court of law, you dishonest bastard.
This counsel is freaking sick stuff -- literally, Brainwashing Methodology 101 -- not to mention unethical (perjury) and immoral (bearing false witness).
Combine this with his quote to Mike Quinn (original post on this thread) and his frightening anti-Truth screed in his 1981 talk 'The Mantle is Far Far Greater Than the Intellect' and you see that this is a man for whom Truth is utterly expendable, who cares more about the results (creating belief, no matter what) than about Integrity. He clearly believes that Honesty is not a necessary part of the due process of obtaining one's belief.
I concur with Sterling McMurrin; there is no worse, no more despicable man among the General Authorities of modern Mormonism than Boyd K. Packer.
| Something I Read In A 1964 Relief Society Magazine By Boyd K. Packer Article Archived: Monday, May 9, 2005, at 03:19 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | TOP | |
He is the author of an article in the 1964 Relief Society Magazine. This was way back when the RS sisters actually had their own little magazine, some of you may remember these. My grandma always had a stack of them on her front room reading table and she would read and re-read them. In them are pictures of RS groups from different parts of the world. And pictures of the singing mothers with articles about service projects they had been involved with. Also faith promoting stories. It wasn't nearly as preachy as the ensign is today.
Well anyway, I found an article by Packer about the lamanites called "For the Blessing of the Lamanites". He refers to a recent youth conference where 200 Indian Placement students gathered for a special conference.
"Today thousands of Lamanites are coming into the Church. More than one hundred lamanite branches have been organized among the stakes and within the missions. In many of these branches the leadership is provided by the Lamanite members. They are the branch presidents, the teachers, the auxiliary leaders, the music directors. Lives are being transformed. In some cases whole Indian communities are being affected.
.... In fulfillment of Nephi's prophetic words, the Lamanites in our day are, indeed,being restored to their rightful plae in the House of Israel. By their obedience to the principles of the gospel, they are beginning to receive the blessings promised to their ancient fathers".
Today it just makes me laugh to see the church today try to wiggle out of the American Indian-Lamanite connection.
| No Pearls From This Swine: What Boyd K. Packer Was In Favor Of (as Opposed To), When It Came To The ERA Article Archived: Thursday, Jul 28, 2005, at 09:01 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | TOP | |
Great Moments in Mormon Misogeny
The following golden nugget of nonsense is from LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer's talk, "The Equal Rights Amendment," (8 January, 1977, Pocatello ID, manuscript copy, pp. 25-26).
For the full text of this hodgepodge of claptrap, see: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai138.html . Under "Ensign Articles," click on "Boyd K. Packer, 'The Equal Rights Amendment,' Ensign, March 1977, 6."
Take it away, Boyd:
"One might ask . . . if you are against the Equal Rights Amendment, then what are you for?
I am for the equitable enforcement of existing laws. There are sufficient of them to protect the rights of women and of children and of men. Or to enact judiciously and wisely any needed legislation to correct particular circumstances.
I am for protecting the rights of a woman to be a woman, a feminine, female woman; a wife and a mother.
I am for protecting the rights of a man to be a man, a masculine, male man; a husband and a father.
I am for protecting the rights of children to be babies and children and youth, to be nurtured in a home and in a family.
I am for recognizing the inherent God-given differences between men and women.
I am for accommodating them so that we can have physically and emotionally and spiritually stable, happy individuals and families and communities.
Without that, when the floods come, in the end what will really be worth saving?
May God bless us and preserve the sacred institution of the family, to the end that this generation and future generations can be preserved. May He bless fathers and mothers and their children to be happy in the life pattern He has ordained."
| Guitars, Trumpets, Dancing, And Loud Crashing Cymbals In Sacrament Meeting - Boyd K. Packer And Sacrament Music Article Archived: Wednesday, Sep 28, 2005, at 08:56 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | TOP | |
In about 1976, I read a disappointing talk from old Brother Boyd K Packer. By the way, I think his middle initial stands for "Killjoy".
When I had my mission homecoming, I got permission for a brass choir to play a medley of hymns from the land of my missionary service. My Bish, now a GA, was worried about it being "too loud". So I read him the 150th Psalm and he relented. Members of my Ward told the musicians afterward that it was one of the most inspiring moments in Sacrament Meeting they had ever experienced. I agreed.
I don't remember all the hynms they played, but they started with "Praise Ye the Lord, the Almighty etc". It was loud and BEAUTIFUL! I wanted to pee my pants it was so lovely.
But first, the HOLY SCRIPTURES:
Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament!
2 Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his surpassing greatness!
3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!
4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe!
5 Praise him with clanging cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
6 Let everything that breathes praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
Just read these excerpts from Bother Boyd's talk.
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dl...
Boyd Killjoy Packer:"And I think a brass section could play a hymn in such a way as to be reverent and fitting in a worship service. But if it should happen, it would have to be an exception. We cannot convey a sacred message in an art form that is not appropriate and have anything spiritual happen. But there is a constant attempt to do it."
Soooooooo. Are you contradicting the Bible. And about that constant attempt to praise, would that not correspond to "LET EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES PRAISE THE LORD" ? Go JESUS FREEKS!
Boyd Killjoy Packer: "A few years ago Sister Packer and I were in Washington, D.C., to represent the Church at an awards banquet held in the reception hall of the Department of State. The elegant and stately surroundings, with a priceless collection of antiques and memorabilia, were impressive. Here, for instance, hangs the painting of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart and other priceless works of art. Both the occasion and the setting were ideal to make reference to the spiritual heritage of our country. And what was the program? A large brass section from one of the service bands played at great length, and with deafening volume, music from Jesus Christ, Superstar.
I sat next to a lovely, dignified woman, the wife of an officer of the government. When the crescendo weakened for a moment I was able to ask, by raising my voice a bit, if she was able to hear them all right. Her obvious amusement at the question soon changed to serious disappointment, as she asked in return, "What would Jesus think?"
Maybe he would think Jesus H. Christ "Hmmmm. That is one fine loud trumpet. And that is one fine guitar (lute), and one fine pipe (flute). And DAMN! That is a damn fine LOUD CRASHING CYMBAL!!! PRAISE ME!"
| Bulletin: As I work out my board etiquette with fear and trembling I inadvertantly hijacked a thread so I probably should have just started a new thread, here it is:
After reading the September 05 Ensign (The Twelve Apostles, Episode 8, by Elder Packer), it appears that the new term for apostates and many of us foyerites is "Some...in the darkness of anonymity" (SITDOA). Elder Packer has, IMHO, definitely identified and acknowledged the existence of various less-than-Mormon boards and is familiar with their content. Here is some additional data indicating the COB's awareness of NOMs, Foyerites, RfMers, and all the other "harmless little fuzzballs" out there.
Apparently, many of us have reproached "leaders in the wards and stakes and in the Church, seeking to make them 'an offender for a word'." I don't exactly know what that means yet, but I plan to look it up and seek understanding. I think I'm pretty clear on what he means when he refers to us internet folks as as "the servants of sin, and "the children of disobedience themselves ..."
I am willing to be open to that possibility; I may indeed be a servant of sin and a child of disobedience. However, I'm not simply going to allow this proclamation to go unexamined. Let's see, I too consider myself "from the ordinary paths of life" and I don't see myself as a servant of sin. In fact I can honestly say that I really work hard to be an ethical and upright person and honest with folks. I value goodness so I would argue that I must then also value Godness. In fact, this dark view of mine appears to be growing in importance as I grow older; and I'm getting better at it by the way.
I place my family firster and I am actually getting better at this as well; after 12 years of marriage I am and have been "true blue". I'm far more afraid and intimidated at the thought of my "woman scorned" than God and his prophets viewing me as a murderer-lite.
I actually do believe in Christ and him crucified, and I believe Christ is very likely indifferent to white shirts and ties. And I would actually lose a great deal of respect for Christ if I were to learn that he was a TBM with all the trimmings.
I don't cheat and steal anymore. I used to when I was between the ages of 5-15; no one need assume me guilty of some heinous deed, it was never in my nature to do so without feeling horribly guilty and having it written all over my face and completely incapable of lying effectively.
However, I did have some affinity to JS in my youth in that I did manage to rack up a rather impressive "necking and petting" rapsheet at BYU and beyond, but that was then I don't believe I "teach that anymore". I guess my rapsheet would constitute heinous crimes in the eyes of some.
I feel confident saying that my crimes pale in comparison to JS'; and on the other hand I certainly am not second only to Jesus in serving humanity. Oops, I just did it again -- I reproached JS for things he clearly never did and I'm weaving this reproachment thing from whole cloth because there ain't a shread of evidence to suggest such a thing. Does sarcasm count as reproachment?
Elder Packer wraps up his column by saying that "There are limits to what the Spirit permits us to say". I find this statement utterly abusive, manipulative and filled with self importance. Even if this is the case (and I am open to that possibility), please keep it to yourself. I don't need to know that you know all kinds of overwhelmingly convincing, irrefutable things that you can't share with me as a grown, mature adult. These are the kinds of statements that folks run with and work themselves into a frenzy over. I can hear it now, "Gee, maybe he does actually dine with God on a daily basis and has seen the Savior face-to-face. And I'll bet you he does receive ministering of angels on a daily basis to boot." Statements like these really smack of "cult".
Elder Packer then states his knowledge/belief in the church being "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth." Someone out there somewhere may in fact know what is good and right for all of humanity and can in fact execute a Plan of Salvation, but I will proceed with caution before accepting that Elder Packer is the proxy for that someone.
I, Boyd K. Packer, am just as the Savior when wearing an apostle hat. It might as well be the creator of the universe himself penning this article; and you wouldn't dare dream of disobeying the Savior, would you now? Now, of course I'm not going to let you in on whether or not I'm wearing an apostle hat right now, I'll just let you torture yourself trying to divine that one.
I don't know Elder Packer, never met him; I will assume that he is indeed "from the ordinary paths of life" and just "a fun guy with a dream" who is working out his salvation just like all the other salvation-working-outers. I simply do not believe parts of his message; they JUST DON'T FEEL RIGHT and they never have for me.
Thanks to the internet and that pesky principle of transparency (Christ's equivalent for transparency were the words, "yes" and "no") plus 20 or so years of direct experience with the church, my rational mind is now lining up with my feelings (and "isn't it about feelings?", oops I mean time).
In closing, must I and some of my fellow foyerites be labeled as "servant of sin" and a children "of disobedience"? Can't it be as simple as those clever lyrics:
"There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy."
"There's only you and me and we just disagree."
Or better yet, howz about permitting the following noble teaching to apply just a little bit within the church itself:
"we allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
| One Of The Talks On Child Abuse - Boyd K. Packer's Talk On "Little Children" Article Archived: Monday, Dec 5, 2005, at 08:34 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Lunaverse | TOP | |
So I've been analyzing the general conference talks on "child abuse", you know.. those 30 or so the Church claims they've given since 1976.
My initial assessment was that these were mostly a collection of talks on other topics, where child abuse was briefly mentioned. I'm about half-way through now, and it seems I was correct.
I just came across a talk that actually *is* about child abuse (mostly...), and the message is a great example of why the Church is enabling it to continue, while still being able to claim they "condemn" it.
The talk itself is by Boyd K Packer, "Little Children ", and can be found at that link.
Here's what I've written:
The talk begins by listing four great modern trends in sin that affect children, in this order: Sex between adults is now acceptable, perverted sexual acts are now promoted, abortion is legal, and children are abused physically, mentally, and morally.
Even if order does not indicate importance, Packer seems to be placing child abuse on equal footing with responsible consensual extra-marital sex, in the degree to which these things harm children. All of these items are expounded upon further in the talk.
This is one of the rare times when a General Authority makes an honest effort at addressing victims and perpetrators, in an attempt to offer healing to both.
Unfortunately, the answer is more of the same... To the abusers, he admonishes them to repent. To the victims, he asks them to... repent. And forgive.
He does not recommend therapy. He does not recommend self-help books. He does not recommend a program of self-esteem improvement, or address the difficulties that arise from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other deeply-seated psychological problems. He does not suggest that modern science may have an answer for complicated situations.
In fact, he expressly speaks against it! In one place, he addresses secular "doctrines", blaming them for the moral decline that is leading to child abuse (and the other sins).
He also says:
"The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel."
So here we have one of the few talks that is actually about child abuse, and the official word from on high is that the scriptures know more about the human mind than modern psychology.
This is does not merely have a neutral effect. Abuse victims who heard this talk were specifically harmed, because these words kept them trapped in the same cycle they've always been in. Abusers who heard this talk went on abusing, because repentance and the Gospel isn't enough to teach people how their minds and emotions work, and how to overcome their difficult problems.
Packer wants to simplify these problems into a neat little package that can be cured by the love of Christ. He seems to believe the human mind is a neatly-functioning little machine, and that all it needs is the correct doctrine to oil it right up. The root of the problem lies in listening to worldly authorities, and if only people would listen to Church leaders, the mechanisms of the mind would jump right back into working order.
Packer wants to use the magic wand of religion to cure one of the most serious diseases within Mormonism. And that wand, not secular knowledge, keeps enabling the disease to spread.
Here is the exact wording of the advice he gives:
Quote:
"To you adults who repeat the pattern of neglect and abuse you endured as little children, believing that you are entrapped in a cycle of behavior from which there is no escape, I say:
It is contrary to the order of heaven for any soul to be locked into compulsive, immoral behavior with no way out!
It is consistent with the workings of the adversary to deceive you into believing that you are.
I gratefully acknowledge that transgressions, even those which affect little children, yield to sincere repentance. I testify with all my soul that the doctrine of repentance is true and has a miraculous, liberating effect upon behavior.
To you innocent ones who have not transgressed, but were abused as little children and still carry an undeserved burden of guilt, I say:
Learn true doctrine—repentance and forgiveness; lay that burden of guilt down!
For we are all children of the same Heavenly Father. May not each of His children, of any age, claim the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in so doing, through complete repentance, be cleansed and renewed to childlike innocence?"
I say, "No". It didn't work for me, and it isn't likely to help most other people, either.
| Almost twenty-five years ago, I was married in the SLC temple to, what I believed at the time, was the right and correct woman. She was, however, from another country (not to be named in this post).
While the initial years were happy, fun and passionate, the fun, happy and passion soon gave way to many problems. Her parents could not speak english to our children and vice-versa. Her perspective about the American (little league football, high school football, proms, high school in general, et al Americana) way of life was always seen through "foreign" eyes. While her family was one to kiss on both cheeks, they were not truly affectionate. The male siblings tended to be full of "machismo" despite their activity in the church. The ability to apologize was always hampered by pride - a "foreign" pride. I knew it, she knew it - we both denied it. As the years passed by, I noticed the lack of affection between our children and their mother - my wife. A type of pride that takes on a "machismo" life of its own - strange and difficult to explain, yet real. And yet, her father had been Bishop twice and Stake President for twelve years in their country - many GAs knew of him and ate at their home. While my TBM wifewas promiscuous before I met her, our temple marriage was the beginning of a judgmental and conditional relationship - i.e., if I was active, she liked me. If I had a temple recommend, she like me. If I worshipped her parents, she like me (almost loved me on that one). Everything became a life about her parents (the perfect ones) and the Church. When I began to pull away from activity, she would tell my children that "I'm not a good father because I'm not a good member of the church".
Finally, two years ago, we separated and began the painful journey through divorce. When I say painful, I am referring to our children. I never wanted divorce for them - the stigma, the dual-homes, all of the painful issues that are associated with divorce. Yet, truth be known, I should have done it long ago.
And now, I have never been happier - free of the judgmental, condescending, prideful existence that was our marriage. I spend each day doing the best I can with my children
While I embraced her family and traveled to her country many times (yes, I learned the language and no, I did not serve my mission in her country - ours was a BYU romance),I soon found that cultural differences were the source of great unhappiness.
I believe that an individual should be free to marry anyone they choose despite the pathetic advice of BKP. However, from one who has experienced a cultural divide within marriage, I would agree with Boyd on this one. For me, at least and for many years it was, "I wish they all could be California, I wish they all could be California, I wish they all could be California girls......."
My thoughts -
| Bedtime Story #2 - Boyd K. Packer At His Best - Some Of You Kids Said You Liked Scary Stories Article Archived: Monday, Jan 9, 2006, at 08:31 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Former Church Insider | TOP | |
Subject: Bedtime Story #2 - BKP at his best - Some of you kids said you liked scary stories
Steve Benson posted some of what I'm about to say a couple of days ago (from our private correspondence) sans a few of the details. I'm going to take a chance that admin. won't pull this one, but you better read fast just in case.....
During the 1980's, the church's purchases of products for its microfilming initiatives were gargantuan in terms of dollars spent. The church was at the time (and may still be) the largest user of raw photographic and microfilm. As an example of some of the ongoing projects, in a deal with the Vatican, the church arranged to offer them two free rolls of microfilmed records for access to data about deceased members of the catholic church..... The catholic church didn't seem to have as much problem with the weird "work for the dead" rituals conducted in the mormon temples - as the Jews did.
There were three companies that competed for the church’s film business, one being Eastman Kodak, headquartered out of Rochester, NY. That was back when Kodak was still in its heyday and was a pretty vibrant company. It just so happened in the late 1980's that a member of the Church by the name of Kay Whitmore (not sure of spelling) became the President and CEO of Kodak.
Kay had been a stake president and regional rep. in NY and was considered by many church insiders to be a prime GA candidate at some time in the near future.....
Apparently at the time Kodak was looking for a sizable charitable contribution for tax purposes, and someone below Kay decided that maybe they could get into Kay's good graces by suggesting a large donation of film product to the mormon church. Obviously, Kay thought this was a good idea and a call was made back to SLC to arrange for the donation.
Kay represented Kodak in presenting the gift to the church.... a handful of COB employees were asked to attend - maybe a couple of dozen (you know to fill seats); most of us didn't even know why we were there. There was a sanitized "church news" employee there to ensure positive spin... particularly for the church and more incidentally to Kodak....
As usual, BKP got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning (the other side must be next to the wall)... anyway, to our embarrassment and horror, after a gracious and short speech by Mr. Whitmore from Kodak and an unfortunate comment about how BKP and Mr. Whitmore had worked together when he'd been a stake president.... BKP got up and instead of graciously accepting the $6 million gift, spent the next 10 minutes berating Mr. Whitmore about what a poor stake president he'd been and how unimpressed BKP had been with his stake.
I do not make this up folks...... There were a few other GA's present and a noticeable silent look was exchanged among them. Those of us, who were there to fill seats only, thought we must have missed something.
Someone in an earlier post asked that I refrain from my opinions and stick with the facts.... You can draw your own conclusions. BKP is the closest individual, bar none, that I've ever been exposed to who instills absolute fear in those that are around him. Most of you know that this unstable individual is second behind TSMonson for the top job. I was so glad to see TSM lose a little weight a few years ago and get into better shape......but if you'd like to see the end of the church sooner, hope that TSM keeps porkin' out on all those pies the little old widow ladies from is old wards keep bringing him.... There's more to come on BKP later kiddies.......
Now kiddies, if you all say your prayers before bedtime, the BKP boogieman won't get you, I promise.... and yes it's ok if you hide his picture in the garage tonight....
| Story #7 - The Little Chapel That Boyd K. Packer Built Article Archived: Thursday, Feb 2, 2006, at 07:45 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Former Church Insider | TOP | |
Being a member of the faith, a building contractor and in a favored status with one or more of “The 12” can mean a steady stream of generous income in fairytale land of Utah Mormonism. Unfortunately, lurking in the dark and hidden forests of this never never land, are a few ogres, trolls, and other beasts that can turn the best of these sacred god given financial blessings into a downright hellish curse.
One such contractor learned his lesson back about 20 years or so ago. Having persuaded the church building committee that he would be the best choice for building a new chapel in what was at that point in time a rather upscale and secluded area of the southeast part of the Salt Lake Valley……. he quickly learned of his mistake…….
A short drive from the exclusive Willow Creek Country Club and golf course in Sandy Utah, Little Cottonwood Creek flows through a low lying neighborhood east of Highland Drive and just north of Creek Road. The creek has at times been known to turn into a raging river and has a tendency some years to overflow its banks during the snowmelt runoff in the spring…. But as with other buildings in this affluent area, permission was given to allow building of a chapel in a known flood plain. It was about this time that the unfortunate builder learned that this particular chapel was to be different than any of the others he’d ever built.
Special zoning waivers had been given, one allowing access to a secluded exclusive drive (Forest Creek Lane) by way of the church property, behind the chapel. Another waiver, allowing about a dozen residential mailboxes to be placed on Church property at the entrance to this drive was granted for the occupants of this seeming private drive. Signs at the entrance to the drive warn anyone wanting to venture there, that it is a dead end drive with no trespassing allowed and include a plethora of “neighborhood watch” signs posted in several places along the winding narrow lane.
As the building of the chapel began, the contractor was surprised to learn that there was a daily visitor who was about to make his life and job a living hell. On his way home from work everyday, the esteemed and spiritually gifted and driven BKP would be stopping by to weigh in with his comments on the building of this edifice, as he happened to be one of the very private occupants of the little “private” lane behind the chapel.
Criticisms of the construction job were endured by the builder on a daily basis, upgrades were demanded, and other concessions were granted all at the behest of BKP. Any inflection that the contractor subtly gave to BKP in question or challenge was met with rebuke and reminders of who he was talking to.
Drive through the parking lot of the chapel and it becomes evident that there are some unusual decorative features to the buildings decadent exterior. Decorative street lights, eves, window coverings, columns, and steeple all exceed normal standards set for LDS chapels. The inside is full of similar upgrades….. As the building’s construction proceeded, the contractor became aware that many of the upgrades requested by the daily visitor were not included in the plans or the buildings budget.
Watching his tidy profit on the building slowly eroding away, the contractor began complaining to the higher level mucky mucks at COB, who could arrange to kick in a few extra tithing dollars to make him whole. Problem was… BKP already knew the building’s budget and let word out that no more was to be spent on this building than any other…. It was then that the contractor learned the hard truth of “being honest in your business dealings” – that it doesn’t always apply to those who make up the questions… those of us close to these projects kind of felt bad for the contractor, but it was evident that he’d drawn the wrong hand in the dealing of the cards and this time his luck had run out, there was no one who dared to try and tame the beast while he was devouring his prey.
Don’t worry, the contractor kept his testimony (at least for the purpose of his business interests) and was awarded many more church building contracts in the future. So remember….. As the scriptures say: Don’t build your house on sand… but if you do, be sure to watch out for those who might huff and puff and blow your profits away…..
| In May of 1993, Elder Boyd K. Packer, a senior apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, delivered a speech to the All-church Coordinating Council, a group church employees and administrators responsible for “correlation,” a church term for the coordination of curriculum used in the numerous teaching programs of the Mormon church. Packer’s message was directed at a small and elite group of church-employees, but reached a much larger audience over the following decade through constant publication and discussion on the Internet. Today, the text can found on at least twenty websites discussing Mormon intellectual issues. Observers of intellectual and social controversy within the church consider it a major statement of church policy on those matters.
In substance, Packer uses his platform to discuss the nature of hierarchy in Mormonism. He quotes another apostle, Harold B. Lee, as saying, “"You must decide now which way you face. Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you.” In other words, in an organization that purports to be led by continuing revelation from God, direction is from the top down exclusively. Packer goes on to identify “three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away… the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.”
In the decades preceding Packer’s speech, the Mormon Church had indeed been embroiled in controversies involving these groups. In the 1960’s, biographer Fawn McKay Brodie was excommunicated for her controversial work on church founder Joseph Smith, No Man Knows my History, and University of Utah philosophy professor Sterling McMurrin was disfellowshipped for his skeptical writings on Mormonism. In the 1970’s the church abolished its historical department and fired Leonard J. Arrington, the highly respected professional historian at its head. The church was also instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, which would have codified gender equality as a basic right. In 1981, Packer engaged BYU historian D. Michael Quinn in a spirited public debate about the role of Mormon historians. Also. Independent groups such as the Mormon history Association, Affirmation (a group for gay Mormons) and the Mormon Women’s Forum, and publications that fostered debate and dissent on Mormon issues such as Sunstone and Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought made serious inroads into the institutional Church’s control over its own discourse during the 1970’s and 80’s.
Since 1993, the church has continued to combat these perceived threats. In September of that year, Quinn and five other prominent intellectuals and dissidents, most of them in the employ of Brigham Young University, were excommunicated. In the 1990’s, the church supported successful ballot initiatives in California, Alaska, and Hawaii that limited Gay Rights. In 2004, the church endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Utah and disfellowshiped former church employee Grant Palmer for his critical book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, forbidding him to speak publicly as a condition for continued membership in the faith.
This twelve-year-old speech is not unique. Packer and other church authorities continually stress obedience to the church hierarchy and state their opposition to certain issues and social movements in their public speech. The importance of this particular speech lies in its frankness. Packer makes real the defining conflict of the modern Mormon Church by naming its enemies and outlining the method by which they should be opposed. This paper will use the ideas of Kenneth Burke to examine the structure of Packer’s talk, and to understand the philosophy and ideology in operation behind it.
Packer’s talk is addressed to those responsible for the “correlation” of LDS programs and curriculum. What he terms the “reduction and simplification in programs” may seem innocuous, but it has been one of the largest forces of change in the religious organization over the last four decades. The historian Jan Shipps proposes that correlation process has transformed the Mormon Church from a localized, tribal organization to a centralized, corporate organization, and making possible its massive expansion into parts of the world other than the intermountain west of the United States.
Packer begins his talk with a series of anecdotes about his experiences with the correlation department over a long career as a church-employed administrator. In addition to the aforementioned encounter with Lee where the hierarchy of the church was made clear, he relates several instances where his speech and writing was corrected by his superiors, colleagues, and learned associates at BYU. He repeatedly stresses the importance of “facing the right way,” and admonishes his audience to do so. He makes some obscurely prophetic statements regarding the future importance of correlation.
Packer then moves on to the more widely discussed portion of his talk, where he lists the three “dangers” facing the church. He reads excerpts of letters from church members representing each of the three threatening groups. He is somewhat derisive in his description of the writers, referring to the gay Mormon as “possibly a gay rights activist,” and another as a “self-described intellectual.” All three offer experience and council to the apostles of the church, who, as Packer notes, are also the “Correlation Committee.” Packer also notes that the “rank and file” feels neglected while the leadership concentrated on the problems of the “exceptions.” He states categorically that if dissatisfied members make advocates of church leaders, “the channels of revelation are reversed.” (Not a good thing in Mormon cosmology) After some additional illustration of his points, he offers authoritative solutions to his letter-writers.
"That young man with gender disorientation needs to know that gender was not assigned at mortal birth, that we were sons and daughters of God in the premortal state. The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things and to know that her trials -- however hard to bear -- in the eternal scheme of things may be compared to a very, very bad experience in the second semester of the first grade. She will find no enduring peace in the feminist movement. There she will have no hope. If she knows the plan of redemption, she can be filled with hope. The one who supposes that he "understands the mind-set of both groups" needs to understand that the doctrines of the gospel are revealed through the Spirit to prophets, not through the intellect to scholars."
He continues with the theme of “facing the right way” and stresses that the entire hierarchy must all face the same way, giving direction from above. Otherwise, he says, “we lose our bearings and leave that segment of the line to which we are assigned unprotected.”
From a Burkean perspective, the pentadic ratio of act to scene seems to apply best to this speech. Packer’s act is to define and make real the adversaries of the Mormon Church. That act created a scene, which could be described as “a growing church threatened by ‘evaporation of values and standards’ and threatened by internal dissent.” In this scene, the only line of defense is a unified and unbending hierarchical leadership.
A dramatic critical perspective is appropriate to this speech and to Mormonism in general. From its foundation the church has always seen itself as the perfect human organization, the Kingdom of God on earth. As such, it competes with all other human organizations and must supplant all other churches, governments and organizations to perfect the earth and prepare for the second coming of Christ. Early Mormons believed that their supremacy was eminent, which is part of the reason they became so unpopular in the Midwest and were forced to move to Utah. Nearly two hundred years after its founding, the church’s lack of dominance must be distressing to many believers, including its faithful leadership. True, Mormons no longer face violent mobs, an antagonistic Federal government, or a hostile desert landscape, so they might be considered victorious in those past conflicts. The church has enjoyed more wealth, power, and public acceptance in the last five decades than ever before in its history, but the Kingdom still has not come to pass. Instead, the church faces a society that is increasingly fragmented and pluralistic, where Mormonism’s universalizing message is increasingly difficult to apply to the variety of human experience. Packer’s act through this speech, then, is to create a scapegoat, and enemy within, to explain the failure of the church to reach the top of the pile and bring about the Millenium.
Packer’s scapegoat is part of the scene he creates in the minds of his initial audience (not the audience who read this talk online for the shocking thrill of hearing him compare an abused woman’s experience to “a very, very bad experience in the second semester of the first grade.”) The church represents itself as a lay organization with no paid ministry. Packer is speaking to a group of invisible professionals who, though not labeled ministers, write the Sunday School lessons, edit the magazines, and provide daily religion classes to the children of the church. He creates identification by with them by telling of the struggles he faced in his career as a professional churchman. He also makes an implicit appeal to the ambitious among them by speaking as an apostle who was once a faithful underling. He creates a scene where the church’s problems and enemies come from its members below, and the solutions come from the authority above. He uses, as is the wont of the church, military terminology such as “protecting the line” and “abandoning a position” to cement in the minds of his officer class the nature of the battle they are fighting.
What, then, is the ideology from which Packer is operating in this speech? How can he legitimize the personal difficulty many of the members of the church he leads are having in applying its teachings, and make an unresponsive hierarchy seem natural, and in their best interest? What are his personal and religious motives?
Packer does not seem cynical in this speech. He does not seem motivated purely by money or power. He seems to believe that the unified and inflexible front of correlation is the best thing for the Mormon organization, even if it is painful for some individuals. He believes that Mormonism is inherently good, and has invested his career and personal life in perpetuating it. It is difficult to know the quantity and nature of inspiration he feels he receives as an apostolic witness of Jesus Christ, but his statements indicate his feeling the directions that come “down the line” come from God.
The stated purpose of Mormonism is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” This idea goes a long way toward the legitimizing of any church policy that seems absurd or offensive on its surface, including the one under discussion here. It is a superstructure to the base of members who are expected to support the organization and its leadership, monetarily and philosophically, even when that leadership does not support the best interests of the members in their lifetime. By holding out the promise of eternal salvation, the church consolidates its hegemony (this writer fully understands that other religious organizations exercise power in a similar way) Anything that reduces the effectiveness of the church in growing, spreading its message, and fulfilling its perceived purpose is against the interest of church members, even if that thing is the happiness of those members. Whatever rewards his high position in the hierarchy give him, Packer believes he is fulfilling God’s will.
If the purpose of Boyd K. Packer’s talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council was to control the discourse in Mormonism by correlating the leadership as well as the message, then this analysis is evidence of its ineffectiveness. With its frankness, its acknowledgement of a professional elite in the church, and its adversarial tone, it was surely not meant for general consumption. Certainly many faithful members of the “rank and file” still look exclusively to approved church sources for information on Mormonism, but growing numbers look elsewhere. And they are finding things the Mormon leadership would rather they not know. Though the church keeps its rates of conversion and activity strictly confidential, anecdotal evidence suggests a correlation of stable or shrinking membership to areas with greater access to information technology. A Google search can offer insight into controversies that Packer and others in church leadership are loath to explain.
Change within Mormonism has always been a painful process, as evidenced by long controversies over Polygamy and the denial of the priesthood to blacks. If Packer’s rhetoric is to be seen as effective at all, maybe it will hold the leadership of the church together until the inevitable day of reckoning with the “gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement, and the so-called intellectuals.”
| July 2001 Ensign - Packer Berates An Organist In Front Of An Entire Stake Conference, And Bateman Praises Him For It Article Archived: Thursday, Apr 20, 2006, at 01:10 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Majun | TOP | |
A good Christian leader knows when to beat up The One as a way of teaching a lesson to The Ninety-Nine. The July 2001 Ensign has an article by Merrill Bateman, taken from a talk he gave at BYU in 1998. The following two paragraphs were telling:Many years ago, while living in the East, I attended a stake conference that left an indelible impression with regard to the sacred role played by music in a Church setting. Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was the visiting authority. Fifteen minutes before the general session began, Elder Packer took his place on the stand along with the stake presidency. Many in the congregation had traveled 75 to 100 miles to attend and were engaged in conversation with friends from other wards and branches. Some were seated, while others were visiting with friends as they entered the chapel. The organist had chosen various Bach selections for the prelude and was absorbed in presenting a Bach concert. As the music crescendoed it forced the members visiting with each other to raise their voices. The louder the din, the more determined the organist, and the volume of voices and music rose higher and higher.
Five minutes before the session was to begin, Elder Packer suddenly stood up and approached the podium. He asked the organist to stop. He asked the congregation to cease speaking and find their seats. He spoke clearly and firmly to the congregation, reminding them of their need to be reverent and prepare for the general session. He then turned toward the organ and told the organist that he had a special responsibility to bring the Spirit into the building and prepare the members for the meeting. Elder Packer continued, “This can be accomplished best by playing hymns.” He then suggested that hymns be a central part of the prelude for subsequent conferences in that stake. Can't you just feel the love? I can't decide whose behavior was more appalling: Packer, for mortifying the poor organist in front of the entire stake conference, or Bateman for making sure the story ended up being shared with the entire church. Bateman also trains his power of discernment on the poor organist and takes us on a tour inside his or her head. Notice that he doesn't just know what the organist did, he presumes to know the organist's motives and intentions. That's right, folks, Bateman just knew that the organist "was absorbed in presenting a Bach concert" and "the more determined the organist."
Being a general authority is quite the racket. Men like Packer and Bateman can heap this kind of abuse on the members, and the members can't say a thing about it without being accused of "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed."
We can only hope that the Ensign article at least made some people think twice about accepting an assignment to play the organ anywhere near Boyd Packer.
Thus spake Mujun.
| Callings - Packer Says The Bishop's Wish Is Your Command! Article Archived: Wednesday, Jul 19, 2006, at 11:44 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Lucyfer | TOP | |
The August 2006 Ensign has some classic articles - a hilariously dramatic one on the evils of pornography, a completely predictable list of 10 steps for "financial freedom" (with step 1 being pay your tithing FIRST - groan), and a pedantic diatribe on callings entitled "In the Service of the Lord".
In the article about callings, the writer describes how a bishop could not get anyone to serve as the ward Primary president (NO…really???) Apparently, he asked 9 different sisters and each one wisely declined. The writer went on to relate that when this problem was raised in a LDS leadership training meeting, President Boyd K. Packer had something to say about it. According to the article, President Packer told this bishop that he knew precisely why none of the sisters had agreed to serve: "You asked them - you didn't call them".
President Packer went on to explain that if the bishop had extended the call properly it would not have taken 9 attempts to get someone to accept the call. The article goes on to state, "In the secular world there are no direct parallels to the issue of a calling. One who holds priesthood keys does not ask, assign, or recruit people to serve. He calls them and the calling comes from the Lord".
So, let me get this straight. It is not acceptable to treat members in an adult manner with respect and courtesy by requesting their consideration of a "calling" which may require significant time and effort to fulfill. It is not appropriate to discuss potential assignments in an egalitarian manner with individuals who may have obligations, life circumstances, or simply preferences of which the bishop is not aware. No, in the Mormon Church, the bishop issues decrees and commands - straight from God no less. These are to be obeyed without question, without consideration for self or family, without regard to potential consequences. This is absurd.
The problem with this whole calling thing is the insertion of "the LORD". The guy who is your bishop - who incidentally was merely your dentist or your insurance broker the day BEFORE he became your bishop - now has the direct line to GOD. Everything he says, every cockamamie idea he has, every assignment he decides to give is "inspired" - whispered in his ear by none other than GOD almighty. Do people actually believe this nonsense??? God has time to decide who cleans the ward meeting house toilets? God is such a micromanager that he has to weigh in on who changes poopy diapers in the nursery? Men serving as Bishops actually believe that they are relaying the wishes of GOD whenever they extend a calling? This isn't just silly, it is dangerous thinking.
This is the kind of thing that just makes me shake my head in wonder.
| Revisiting Boyd K. Packer's "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect" Article Archived: Thursday, Sep 7, 2006, at 07:20 AM Stored Under Topic: BOYD K. PACKER Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION Original Author Of Article: Mister Scratch | TOP | |
"The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" was delivered at the 5th Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, on August 22nd in 1981. Prior to this, Mormon History had been enjoying what some have called its "Camelot Era" under the guidance of historians like Leonard Arrington. Some of the Brethren, however, did not like this free-wheeling examination of church history, and Elder Packer was among them.
Very early on, the talk says this:
| Quote: |
It is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to measure the Church using the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his standard. In my mind it ought to be the other way around. A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of the Lord.
|
Already, we are being set up by Packer to place the church ahead of all other things: to do whatever the church tells us to do, and implicitly to ignore what academic disciplines might have to tell us. Next he goes on to describe a scenario in which he advises a "personable, clean-cut, very intelligent young Latter-day Saint" on how to successfully defend his dissertation. Really, the passage points to something Packer alludes to throughout the talk: that there is a power struggle going on between the Brethren, and the academy---a struggle which receives further attention in Packer's "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council" in the early 1990s. The anecdote wraps up with Packer dismissing the acadmeic point of view via the title of the talk itself: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."
What follows is a very telling passage:
| Quote: |
I must not be too critical of those professors [who evaluated the above-mentioned student's dissertation]. They do not know of the things of the Spirit. One can understand their position. It is another thing, however, when we consider members of the Church, particularly those who hold the priesthood and have made covenants in the temple. Many do not do as my associate did; rather, they capitulate, cross over the line, and forsake the things of the Spirit. Thereafter they judge the Church, the doctrine, and the leadership by the standards of their academic profession.
|
This is significant, because it establishes a hierarchy of knowledge and judgment. Elder Packer is arguing that the Brethren--and by extension, correlated church publications---trump everything else. According to Packer, the work of a professional historian must be seen as pale in comparison to, say, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.
For Ben and others, the next passage, in my view, obliterates the apologetic claim that Packer's remarks weren't intended for the ears of historians:
| Quote: |
| This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons. |
(emphasis added.)
Once more, Packer is asserting that history as it is presented in church-sanctioned materials is to be paid greater creedence and attention than material written by historians. Presumably, one would have to include a text such as Rough Stone Rolling in the latter category. The next portion of the talk segues into the "Four Cautions," which are as follows:
1. There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work
I like that he says this, but it doesn't explain why such specifics as the seer stone in the hat get left out of the discussion. Does he think that mention of the seer stone would somehow detract from the "spiritual powers" that attended the coming forth of the BofM? A bit further down, another nail in the coffin of the apologetic argument that Packer wasn't admonishing historians:
| Quote: |
Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.
|
Notice that history is the only discipline he mentions in this passage, despite the fact that his own PhD is in education. He also acknowledges here the reason why the history gets 'whitewashed': because "it may be a faith destroyer." Further, this raises a number of problems for those (such as juliann and others on the FAIRboards) who 'blame the victim', since there is an implicit expectation in Elder Packer's comments vis-a-vis history being "properly taught." Where, as I asked in a previous thread, can one go for 'meat'? What does it mean to "properly teach" church history? Based on the available, correlated texts, it evidently means whitewashing.
Here's yet another instance in which Elder Packer seems to be addressing his remarks to historians:
| Quote: |
| Those who have the Spirit can recognize very quickly whether something is missing in a written Church history this in spite of the fact that the author may be a highly trained historian and the reader is not. And, I might add, we have been getting a great deal of experience in this regard in the past few year. |
(emphasis added).
The 2nd (and most damning, imo) Caution: There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
In other words, don't tell everything. Hide some of the "less than faith-promoting" material. Apologists will probably want to argue that the talk is aimed at church educators. The problem with this is that Packer has already mentioned the idea of church history being "properly taught," without really saying how one is supposed to accomplish it, other than "use of the Spirit." Notice how often he mentions "history" in the following passage:
| Quote: |
Some things that are true are not very useful.
Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult--often impossible--to verify.
|
He then goes on to discuss his view that historians who publish controversial items deserve to be punished, and to have their faults broadcast in the manner of the "Great List" described by Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone in his talk, "A Self-Inflicted Purging." In fact, this "caution" seems aimed at striking real fear into the hearts of all Mormon historians:
| Quote: |
One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.
|
The key portion of this excerpt is in bold. How is there any way to interpret this other than: "Whitewash the history or face eternal damnation"? Elder Packer has already established that accurate history can be "faith destroying," and that full, secular history often can't pass muster in the academic realm, so what's a historian to do?
3rd Caution: In an effort to be objective impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.
Here Packer takes yet another jab at historians:
| Quote: |
Some of our scholars establish for themselves a posture of neutrality. They call it "sympathetic detachment." Historians are particularly wont to do that. If they make a complimentary statement about the Church, they seem to have to counter it with something that is uncomplimentary.
|
Compare this with this prior comment:
| Quote: |
In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.
|
Thus Packer is rejecting neutrality, impartial observation, or any impulses towards such things. This seems, once more, to be an exhortation for whitewashing: "Downplay the negatives, or you're going to get burned."
Later, he includes this silly analogy, where he compares historians and teachers to attorneys:
| Quote: |
Suppose that a well-managed business corporation is threatened by takeover from another corporation. Suppose that the corporation bent on the takeover is determined to drain off all its assets and then dissolve this company. You can rest assured that the threatened company would hire legal counsel to protect itself.
Can you imagine that attorney, under contract to protect the company having fixed in his mind what he must not really take sides, that he must be impartial?
Suppose that when the records of the company he has been employed to protect are opened for him to prepare his brief he collects evidence and passes some of it to the attorneys of the enemy company. His own firm may then be in great jeopardy because of his disloyal conduct.
Do you not recognize a breach of ethics, or integrity, or morality?
I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the Church have a special responsibility to build faith not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect.
|
It's worth noting that, at this point, he has conflated historians with teachers. Everyone must do the Brethren's bidding, and any allegiance to things such as truth or honest history has to be jettisoned in favor of the "war going on."
This is interesting, too, as it seems almost like a slip-up (and weird, in an ESP way, since the talk was delivered during the early portion of Mark Hoffman's career):
| |