I have to admit, after talking with a faithful LDS friend today, that BKP is the ONLY LDS apostle with any gumption what-so-ever. Albeit, a little (okay, A LOT) on the wacky side, he doesn't care if he offends you or not. He is going to say what he believes which not many mormons will do un-apologetically. Unlike GBH of old "I don't know if that we teach that", BKP would say, 'Yeah, we teach it and you're going to Hell if you don't adhere to it.' He is a walking nightmare for the PR department.

Please don't misconstrue my comments for being an apologist for the church, quite the opposite.

What are your thoughts on his character for telling it like it is vs. the others who won't shoot straight.

I think you have a point. What has angered me the most over the years with the ERA, Hawaii marriage amendment, Prop 8, and the numerous local SLC issues, is that the Church does not proclaim its position and let the chips fall, but uses all forms of sleazy insider manipulation and deception to try to affect the issue without appearing to do so. It is so counter to the notion of "Abinidi on the wall of the city" speaking with the force of truth. Imagine Abinidi organizing a private non-profit corporation with funds from individuals who were directed by the church to donate private funds, etc, etc, etc. It is all so sleazy and corrupt and fundamentally DISHONEST. At least Boyd "KKK" Packer is willing to "call a spade a spade" (no pun intended) and take the consequences. I wonder what the rank and file would do if the Church actually showed what their positions were on the record, and they could finally see how people would react.

IIITimothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least
> Boyd "KKK" Packer is willing to "call a spade a
> spade" (no pun intended) and take the
> consequences. I wonder what the rank and file
> would do if the Church actually showed what their
> positions were on the record, and they could
> finally see how people would react.

Maybe Boyd was a "useful idiot"

Knowing exactly what Boyd would say, TSM trotted him out to gauage reaction to the churches position.

Boyd will be dead soon, and they can dismiss him as "speaking as a man".

Its a win-win for the church.

The church will never go back on that position. BKP wasn't the only one to say those things. It's been said before and it will be said again.

To suggest that any of these men, whilst in the course of perpetuating the most holy of frauds, possess even the slightest hint of honor or integrity is to say that while they may be thieves at least they're honest thieves.

WTF, mate?

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2010 03:50PM by Timothy.

... gumption would be BKP going to Washington DC and preaching on the steps of the Capitol, or the on the streets.
Gumption would be going to tyrannical regimes and demanding freedom.
Gumption would be living in a slum and making the world a better place.
What BKP is a senior manager of a conservative organisation peopled by individuals who don't stand-up. Basically he is bully who picks on easy targets.
Not worthy of respect.

My two pennies' worth,

Rudi

Thanks for this Nightingale.

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,” Boyd K. Packer, president of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in a strongly worded sermon about the dangers of pornography and same-sex marriage. “A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?”


It reminded me of another old quote I once heard regarding **passing laws against Nature**.

to wit: "In nearly every state there is a law against adultery. I guess that is why it is so unpopular."

I think even Maher finally admitted he could have worded it better (or better yet not said it at all) when he stated that certain terrorists were courageous for having carried out their attack (an extreme example of having the courage of their convictions - matching actions to opinions/beliefs). There are some words or actions that are so beyond comprehension, so horrific, that nothing is positive at all about the words, the actions or those responsible for them.

I get what you mean about Packer at least acknowledging what he truly believes while many of the others try to smudge it for PR reasons or whatever. But. I cannot see using the word 'respect' even in that instance when his opinions include stuff like this:

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,” Boyd K. Packer, president of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in a strongly worded sermon about the dangers of pornography and same-sex marriage. “A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?”

___

There's plenty more where that came from, just from this last weekend's Mormon conference. I don't even want to wade through it to find other examples.

I see it as a religion of complete negatives. Always on about this or that 'evil' and berating members for not doing enough, rather than ever saying "well done". It is so depressing and tiring.

And how can they simultaneously believe that God created every individual, knows every hair on every head, that he so lovingly placed, personally, but that somehow the way you are, if not in line with their rigid dogma, is your own choice, and a sinful one, and NOT a result of the way God made you? I have never understood that dichotomy.

And furthermore, homosexuality is so much more 'sinful', apparently, than any sin that anyone else commits. If all sins are appalling in God's sight, which is what is preached, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about one or two of the sins they love to hate more? For gay members who believe their spewage, it can be soul-destroying.

Instead of adding to the burdens of fellow Mormons, why can he not find an ounce of compassion for people's struggles or even better, help to alleviate some of the pain?

I see nothing at all there to respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2010 04:24PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale

I agree, "respect" was a bad choice of words in the context of 'respect for the man' but I still have respect for the actions. And I agree with you on the fact that they should show compassion, but alas, that is not what they do.

You must agree though that BKP is the only one that will stand at the front and say what they (all mormons) really believe without apologies. The rest vapor lock like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar when pressed for a committed stance. uh uh uh! And then they will change the subject just like the video, "lying for the Lord" "Answer the question that should have been asked."

He is the "meat" sermon giver where all of the other 'apostles' are the "milk" sermon givers. The problem lies in the fact that the mormon church as a whole, DOES NOT want to hear the 'meat' nor share the 'meat'. It's too embarrassing to them. They want to be looked at as main stream christians but it order to fufill the commandments of the church properly, they are anything but.

If this is what you really believe as a mormon, have the BKP attitude and get out there and say it without apologies. It will never happen with a person at his level in the church once he is gone and I would bet that there are several at his level that would like to see him gone.

"If this is what you really believe as a mormon, have the BKP attitude and get out there and say it without apologies."

I can definitely agree with this sentiment and have stated it many times myself. If you believe it, say it and stand behind it. As a convert I noted the embarrassment and the dissembling that was a widespread response among the Mormons I knew, even when the topic was basic doctrine. If they didn't know for sure that it was not making sense or was inconsistent or flawed in some major way, they must have suspected it. They are the only religious people I have ever run into who were routinely uncomfortable discussing their own beliefs. If you have to avoid, lie, redirect, be non-specific and routinely dissemble when answering the most basic questions does that not raise a red flag or two, even to a fervent believer? I thought they must have a gut-feel for the big hole they were in but chose not to acknowledge it.

I asked quite often why there was a need to stifle one's beliefs. If you're going to say you believe it and furthermore it is the truth of the universe then you need to endorse it fully and unapologetically, in my view.

I was not popular in my ward. I didn't know the game. I spent three years sensing that there was a big fat naked emperor in the building. My convert friend and I used to whisper "naked emperor" to each other in SM quite often. She stayed in. Fortunately, I got out. I prefer my emperors to wander around in new suits I guess.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2010 08:12PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see it as a religion of complete negatives.
> Always on about this or that 'evil' and berating
> members for not doing enough, rather than ever
> saying "well done". It is so depressing and
> tiring.
> ...
> Instead of adding to the burdens of fellow
> Mormons, why can he not find an ounce of
> compassion for people's struggles or even better,
> help to alleviate some of the pain?


Well said, ma'm. Couldn't agree more.

And yet after conference there was a slew of testimony bearing in Facebook on how they felt the sweet spirit. I sometimes wish I can just un-friend / de-friend these people, especially the nice ones, without their knowledge b/c it gets old real fast. Plus I feel my blood pressure rising with each inane statement.

Amen, Nightingale.

WTF? The only think Packer did not do that the others did was put lipstick on himself and try to convince us he was not a pig.

The whole thing was a jumble of vague allusions. BKP never made a clear, honest statement of belief at all. Just said the family is important and that without it continuing just like it is now, the world will end. I found it hollow and weak.

BKP is consistent that's for sure. It is about him, and control...nothing else. He just couldn't let Elder Jensen's apology and the talk at BYU on some evidence of science supporting homosexuality go unanswered.

BKP asked if HF would let people born gay and said he would not...but HF doesn't control all of that...

how we are born is just being born..we are what we are. human, left handed, smart, dumb, prone to addiction, gay, straight, whatever...

God lets man do what he does...biologically included. Why to the general authorities go contrary to this reality?

I respect Packer for his gumption and speaking his mind in the same way I respect Hitler.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree. The day Hinckley spoke about the podium at the new conference center being built from a tree in his yard, Packer spoke immediately afterward and said something like "Is it possible that we could draw our attention away from this wonderful building long enough to talk about the purpose for which it was built?" Stage-manage a grizzly is right. But he's not really that courageous. He only talks big when he's around Mormons. When has Packer ever spoken to a crowd that isn't going to love every word he says? That's not courage, and it doesn't take gumption. Packer is actually a loose cannon, and he's doing harm to the Church, and I'm sure they're all trying to figure out how they're going to head off the PR disaster that Packer set in motion yesterday.

I know what you mean. It's like after Prop 8, when the church got the backlash from the populace.

They could've stood up and said, "Yeah, we did most of the work. Yeah, we contributed boatloads of money. Yeah, we did it, and we stand by it. Wanna make something of it?" Politically speaking, anyway.

Instead, they blamed it on the people (esp the blacks) for voting for it, and asked how *little tiny* 2% of the CA populace could possibly have affected something big like a state vote? Oh, how *awful* it was that those nasty gays were mad! Didn't the prophet say that the church loved everyone, even vile homosexual sinners?

Of course, even before the vote they were telling the richer Mormons to contribute under their wife's name.

And all the other churches and political groups they wanted to ally with learned that the Mormons would throw them under the bus if the going got tough.

The Mormon leadership is much like BKP--they stand for something as long as no one is around to object.

It'll be a pitty to see him die, he's one of the last idiots who says what he pleases. The church will never be as damaged during his tenure.... Here's to hoping that he lives at least another year, and says more stupid things.

For some odd reason, people claim that we should respect those that "say what they think" and that "speak their mind". They do the "at least they are honest" dance.


Should we start with Adolf Hitler and list the people that spoke their mind and said what they think? Or is that one name enough to expose the folly of that "at least they are honest" crowd?

Yeah, for whatever it's worth, at least he's not two-faced about it. He says what he means and we can take him at his word. Others manage their words more carefully to obscure the fact that that they believe the same thing fundamentally, and escape the consequences of being labeled 'bigot'.

That's partly why I'm a little surprised at how offended some members of the church are about this. It isn't the substance of what he said, it's the style that bothers them. If they were more honest, they'd see that he is just speaking openly about what they actually believe. If all that homophobia is cleverly cloaked in pretty words, they don't have to realize any kind of accountability for what they believe and what their church teaches. Cowards.

I'm just a dog but I got NO RESPECT for people what HATE!

And hate is all it is.

Crap like what he spews is what makes gay people think there's no way out and that even God hates them! And it encourages hate crimes from other haters.

Ain't no difference between Packer and Phred Phelps except Packers got a podium instead of a picket sign.

Once again glad 2B a dog...

Yer disgusted pal,
Reggie

Perhaps is was only under the Hinckley administration, but there was an article at one point in time where a GA said those who were to speak during GC had to have their talks approved. If I recall correctly, they had to give their talks to the top 3 - the president and his councilors. The president could change anything in the talk even if it changed the content intended by the speaker and the talk was to be delivered at conference as changed.

I would suspect that while we may not be seeing the personal viewpoints of all the top LDS leaders, we do see in Packer's speech the official and approved position of the top brass of Mormondom. I think it would be a mistake to completely single out Packer because of this talk without some recognition that he speaks for more than himself from this pulpit. I believe that Monson and the rest of those who sit on the stand - as well as all those who sit quietly in the pews listening - bare varying degrees of responsibility for the position he presented for the church as a whole.

So much for "we love our gay members". According to this Church(not just to Boyd) we are "evil" and "unnatural" regardless of how well we are able to control our behavior. Perhaps we should have some gratitude to BKKKP for making this frightfully clear to us.

downsouth (and others),

I call Bullpoop.

Packer absolutely DID NOT "shoot straight" or "tell it like it is" or anything else. He couched his terms and word choices such that we could clearly tell what he was talking about (homosexuality, "the gay agenda," gay marriage, etc.) but he NEVER ONCE mentioned any of those terms, nor did he use any of the church's terms such as "same gender attraction," etc.

Packer's statement is DESIGNED for apologists to be able to defend it. I can hear the apologists now: "Oh, so you think he was talking about homosexuality? He never mentioned it once. He was talking about pornography and immorality in general. You liberals can twist anything."

No, if Packer wanted to "shoot straight" he would have said "same gender attraction can be cured through repentance and prayer," but he DID NOT say that. He absolutely gave that impression, and that was his intent, but he didn't SAY it, and that will forever give the church "wiggle" room, and that wiggle room was PLANNED.

This was church PR at its BEST. Deliver the message you want delivered, everybody hears the message, but significant deniability exists. Cult expert Steven Hassan addresses this when he explains how cult leaders often use code words or jargon that appear to be saying one thing, but in reality are saying something else altogether. Here, we heard his intent, and so did the membership, but there is plenty of room to deny that the topic had anything whatever to do with gay rights, since he never brought the subject up once.

I'm so not surprised. Mean, sneaky and abusive. The code words were all there, everyone knows to whom he was referring.

A$$, sh*t, beotch. I really didn't type any of these words, but you do know what they are and you're right Flatlander on your assertion but even his own masses are a little ( some a lot) up in arms over this debacle of a talk. Some - No, they say right on Packer, this is clearly separating the saints from the sinners but I think a lot of members are saying 'wait a minute, didn't GBH and Monson say something different?'

In the end, I think so long as Packer is alive, the PR department is on call 24/7 for the church. This has really got a lot of people talking across the net which is good and could open some eyes to a few more who are either investigating or reasoning from the inside.

As for me, I can think back to the first instance (13 years in) when I first went "huh, that doesn't seem right" which opened my eyes to seek more answers.

To borrow from their side, could this be the mustard seed planted for some to grow to understand?

I think he is given the topics that everyone else wants to avoid. He has the role of the stern parent and they all probably agree to let him have that role.

He probably feels important and strong because he is the one who puts the smack down on the "heavy" topics. All the other GA's get to look like good cops by comparison.

He often lectures about sin and discipline. He uses threats. He's the church's hard a$s and has been for a long time. I think he fancies himself a notch above the fluff GA's for being so hard core.

He comes off as a crotchety old fart with his head up his rear.