Buffalo wrote:No, not really. Quinn's characterization is born out by Packer's on-the-record talks. And let's not forget, Quinn is a staunch, faithful LDS apologist. He may have been excommunicated, but as far as I know he still has a strong testimony. He has no reason to lie. In fact, most of the trouble he's gotten into with the church has been for being too candid.
What more can I say, Buffalo? I offered the possibilities as I see them and I don't see you really explaining away the possibilities. Of course I can disagree with Packer on this, as Quinn obviously did, way back when.
Uh, that's exactly what happened, eventually.
Man, all too often your guys' sense of humor fails you. Jokes right under your noses get missed. Oh well.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
floatingboy wrote:i gave stemmy the benefit of the doubt on this one...i figured he knew that and was being funny.
p.s. can i call you stemmy? i know we're not properly acquainted. it reminds me of lemmy.
Call me what you like. Probably fits...I used to be a nipple shower too. by the way thanks for giving benefit of doubts, and trying to be aware of jokes.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
DrW wrote:Boyd K. Packer is my favorite Apostle. I will miss him when he is gone.
All the things he says (and has said in the past) that are such potent ammunition for critics will soon be put into the "speaking as a man account" by apologists and the critics will have to look for a new "go to" Apostle for their ridiculous and embarrassing Mormon Apostle quotes.
Fortunately for critics, it appears that there are plenty of more than capable candidates coming along to take Elder Packer's place.
There will always be room for critics to crow and complain when these folks are so heavily scrutinized. i think it'd be easy to do to any group of people. Sometimes criticism seems to be more about convenience than anything.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
DrW wrote:Boyd K. Packer is my favorite Apostle. I will miss him when he is gone.
All the things he says (and has said in the past) that are such potent ammunition for critics will soon be put into the "speaking as a man account" by apologists and the critics will have to look for a new "go to" Apostle for their ridiculous and embarrassing Mormon Apostle quotes.
Fortunately for critics, it appears that there are plenty of more than capable candidates coming along to take Elder Packer's place.
There will always be room for critics to crow and complain when these folks are so heavily scrutinized. i think it'd be easy to do to any group of people. Sometimes criticism seems to be more about convenience than anything.
Forgive me Stem, but I failed to detect much if any content or meaning in this post. Care to clarify?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Forgive me Stem, but I failed to detect much if any content or meaning in this post. Care to clarify?
I'm just saying criticism people is easy--particularly when you are so intent on scrutinizing people so closely (as critics tend to scrutinize the words of apostles like Packer). There's some convenient about criticisms sometimes--not specifying this time.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Forgive me Stem, but I failed to detect much if any content or meaning in this post. Care to clarify?
I'm just saying criticism people is easy--particularly when you are so intent on scrutinizing people so closely (as critics tend to scrutinize the words of apostles like Packer). There's some convenient about criticisms sometimes--not specifying this time.
Well, you have to admit that Packer in particular makes it easy. Otherwise we'd all be as likely to criticize Uchtdorf, and you don't see much of that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I appreciate your approach to these issues as a believer. You seem like a reasonable individual.
Me too.
And believe me, I don't wake up in the morning looking for an Apostle to criticize. But then I see a headline such as the one wherein BKP said of homosexuals that, "God would never make someone that way".
Or I read where BKP says that we should ignore scientific or objective truth in favor of the "mantle" (some magical power that BKP imagines he and his kind possess but for which we have never seen evidence of any kind) or that truth should be ignored when it is not "faith promoting" or that some truth is "not useful".
And I think to myself that I have six children and more than a dozen grand children who are being exposed to this idiocy by religionists they trust who label these pronouncements as "truth" and "gospel doctrine", or "guidance from inspired leaders".
Why, its enough to make me reach for the nearest keyboard and type out a message just like this one in hopes that one or more of my offspring, or someone similarly in need of a dose of reality, will read it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Buffalo wrote:Well, you have to admit that Packer in particular makes it easy. Otherwise we'd all be as likely to criticize Uchtdorf, and you don't see much of that.
You make a good point. I agree Packer is more of a conservative traditionalist or something. But varied perspectives is what makes it all enjoyable for me. I can only hope the diversity becomes more--which I suspect it will. Then mine eyes might really open up a bit.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I appreciate your approach to these issues as a believer. You seem like a reasonable individual.
Me too.
And believe me, I don't wake up in the morning looking for an Apostle to criticize. But then I see a headline such as the one wherein BKP said of homosexuals that, "God would never make someone that way".
Or I read where BKP says that we should ignore scientific or objective truth in favor of the "mantle" (some magical power that BKP imagines he and his kind possess but for which we have never seen evidence of any kind) or that truth should be ignored when it is not "faith promoting" or that some truth is "not useful".
And I think to myself that I have six children and more than a dozen grand children who are being exposed to this idiocy by religionists they trust who label these pronouncements as "truth" and "gospel doctrine", or "guidance from inspired leaders".
Why, its enough to make me reach for the nearest keyboard and type out a message just like this one in hopes that one or more of my offspring, of someone similarly in need of a dose of reality, will read it.
All fair points too. I hope you take some solace in some ideas propounded by certain LDS individuals. I don't know if you saw it, but the interview with Dr. Peterson on mormonexpressions could provide a bit of hope for you. he speaks of how at times he disagrees with the pronouncements of leaders of the Church. What does he make of that? Its not like he necessarily, it seems, just falls in line and forces himself to trust that the leader is right. he takes the idea expressed and understands that in a way he agrees with the general principal involved. As I said regarding history, earlier in the thread including the example I offered, to some historical fact is more like picking a historical possibility and calling it fact. In this the spirit of Packer's words can resonate. Sure there are ways to argue that Joseph Smith never had a first vision, but that doesn't mean its historical fact, or truth, that he never did. Coming from a believers perspective, one can certainly understand that point. That's not to say I agree with Packer's pronouncements regarding the uselessness of historical analysis or truth.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
When I was admitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University, I had the same kind of interview that all prospective faculty members have, and that is that a General Authority of the LDS Church meets with the prospective faculty member. ... The person who interviewed me was apostle Boyd K. Packer. We were together about 45 minutes, and almost all of that was a lecture. He began by asking me what position I was going to be hired in or was being considered for, and I said it was as a professor in the history department. The very next words out of his mouth were -- and I'm not exaggerating; these were seared into my memory -- Elder Packer said, "I have a hard time with historians, because historians idolize the truth." I almost sunk into my chair. I mean, that statement just bowled me over.
Then he went on to say, quoting him as accurately as I can ...: "The truth is not uplifting. The truth destroys. And historians should tell only that part of the truth that is uplifting, and if it's religious history, that's faith-promoting." And he said, "Historians don't like doing that, and that's why I have a hard time with historians." And the conversation just went from there. He occasionally would give me the opportunity to respond to what he was saying, and I would talk about putting things in context, and that one could deal with a controversy or a sensitive area, or even a negative experience in the past, but put it into context. I said that it's a question of do you talk about this in a sentence, a paragraph, a page, or do you just have a footnote reference to it? And I said, "That's a decision that each individual historian will make, but," I said, "I cannot agree with the idea that I should conceal this evidence." And he just shook his head, and he said, "You're wrong," ... and he went back to what he had started with to begin with. ...
I would hope that if an apologist were going to challenge this, it would be that Quinn is either lying or simply misunderstood, because if this accurately represents how Mormon leadership approaches history, well, the game is over for the apologist. There is no way to defend this at all if you have the least appreciation for critical thinking.
If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds that this is about 20% truth and 80% "Quinn Spin". That's about the ratio of truth to spin in most of what he has written. I wonder if Quinn also mentioned to Elder Packer the fact that he (Quinn) was supposedly destined to join him (Packer) as a member of the twelve one day? Does Quinn still suffer from these delusions, or has he pretty much settled into a persecution complex for the remainder of his life?
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her. -DrW about his friends (Link)
