From his anti-masturbation rants through "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect" to his 'clampdown' on music.

Certainly, Packer was a control freak.

But do you think that, overall, it indicated he was a bitter man, personally?

bitter and unhappy, possibly from a lifetime of yearning after men and not being able to be what he was.

It's obvious that Kimball was gay, but Packer just had a stick up his ass. I never got a gay vibe from him, just the indignation of a self-righteous prick who was given a ridiculous title to shoulder his prejudices.

He had strong opinions about things like any other Apostle, and that stubborn air that only those in management seem to have (seen it in various jobs, I've had). Some people like to act like Moses.

Like when he said that God wouldn't curse someone to be Gay, that would work against the plan of salvation. Or when he declared the three enemies of the church. Feminists, Intellectuals, and Gays. But he had a numerous, squeaky clean, white, posterity that I'm sure are pillars in the Utah community.

But for the rest of us who are locked out of an ideal world where we can all be the king. He represents something unattainable.

There was an interesting podcast on mormon stories europe, of a chap called Lynn Packer. It was mostly about his work on the Paul H Dunn stuff, but he is/was a relative of Boyd, and had a different view of the man, in that he was a guy delivering tough messages against his will.

I know he was evntually fired from a teaching position at BYU over his authorship of the Paul H. Dunn claims...

I don't know Lynn Packer's status with the church at this point.

Here's one I lifted from an LDS apologetic board. To borrow an Orwellian phrase, this one is clearly "defense of the indefensible":

"Wayfarer":

>I came to know Paul Dunn personally, and by the time I went on my mission, I owned every book he ever wrote. He was a master storyteller -- fables, as it turned out, but still, stories that really motivated me and a host of others of my age group.

>If you ever met him in the real person, in the 70s, you would have met one of the most motivating, inspiring people i have ever met personally. He had a way of speaking and writing that spoke truth to the very soul.

>I saw him again right about the time he was "outed" by Lynn Packer. He was a broken man. All the good he had done, all the wonderfully motivating stories, all of us who ate up his words -- all destroyed. he was humiliated, and with him, a massive amount of good works.

>I know that this is unpopular on an apologetic board, but I see Paul Dunn as a man like Joseph Smith. Joseph had serious issues with honesty, yet to meet the man, according to accounts, was to meet someone who had presence, who could motivate, who could be a prophet of god and help others find the Way. We honor the prophet, and hide his mistakes and his inconvenient foibles. Paul Dunn had no such luck.

>To out someone in this way, while being 'honest' in one level, is the magnitude of cruelty to everyone involved. My heart aches for the man Paul Dunn was before he was destroyed. What was the point of destroying him?

The subtle dishonesty in this one is that Paul H. Dunn destroyed himself; the objective horror is that Lynn Packer was also badly harmed for telling the truth...

I'd like to read what this clown wrote about his parents, when he found out about the Santa Claus deception... Of course, maybe his parents sucked it up and just went on with life?

Dunn's mistake was spinning tall tales and giving too many details. Monson always gave some vague person that made his stories impossible to verify.

If Dunn had made his stories less personal, he would have been a beloved storyteller instead of a giant, self-aggrandizing fibber.

BKP came across like a cranky asshole. His voice and message grated on my nerves. I would avoid listening to, or reading anything he had to say. IMO, he was toxic.

He liked to carve and paint birds. He was very good at it. I think he would have rather been an artist and resented the choices he made instead.

...he should have married his boyfriend...

He never seemed happy speaking at General Conference. Was he that way too at other morg functions!???

The answer to both is obvious and the same.

He had a fiery dart of Satan up his rear.

The poor guy was so worried that somewhere, someone might be having fun.

Must instill guilt! Must instill fear! Satan is everywhere. Boo!

To me, he appeared to be a bitter man in that he couldn't tolerate those who didn't follow his line of thinking. What he put his heart and sole into doing was taking vendettas against those he thought might harm the church (such as those proving some LDS doctrines as non-sense). Then he was out for the kill.

Nothing short of excommunicating his victims, to embarrass, shame, and harm them as much as within his power to do. His committee of the same were Bro. Oaks, and Nielsen (sp?).

He gave the orders, and had others do his dirty work for him (Area Supervisors, Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc.). A hypocrite.

Other than that, he built nice--false--birds.

He was extremely bitter and resentful of others that not only excelled in their field of expertise, but were happy.

He will always be known as "King of the Peckers."