ABC NEWS UPDATE --now says PACKER changed his words
Posted
by: JoD3:360 ( )
Date: October 08, 2010 07:41PM
Wow--
earlier the headline said Church changed the words, but now it says
speakers are allowed to change their own words on Monday following
the
Conference.
ORIGINAL:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Mormon-Church-makes-changes-to-Packers-sermon/OecTkSc980K76VXGKo2bSg.cspx
From the above link:
“Packer’s
sermon claimed that homosexuality was not born of inbred
“tendencies.”
In the Church’s online text
version of Packer’s talk, the word “tendencies” was
changed to “temptations.”
During his original
talk, Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some
suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are
inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would
our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.”
Another change to Packer’s talk
includes the omission of the entire sentence, “Why would our
Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”
???
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
08:01PM
Maybe
he didn't follow his own script in GC? He misspoke? Got off script?
Didn't read the words correctly?
I suppose it's a possible
explanation. Who knows.
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: October 08, 2010 08:03PM
Or he meant every word he said as he said them.
Considering
his stance was similar to his stance in the past, I think it
reasonable he meant what he said.
Posted by: Timothy ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
09:16PM
Or
maybe he meant every word and has become an embarrassment! (n/t)
Posted by: WiserWomanNow ( )
Date: October 08,
2010 08:07PM
"President
Packer has simply clarified his intent." Translation:
Packer
ate crow.
Posted by: JoD3:360 ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
08:18PM
Well he's no Abinidi or Samuel or Ammon or Alma or Helamon or
But
he is a politician.
Politicians change their minds with every
public outcry.
Prophets stand in furnaces rather than recant.
Posted by: matt ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
08:18PM
Re:
ABC NEWS UPDATE --now says PACKER changed his words
WHO
changed his words? I doubt Packer did.
Posted by: luminouswatcher ( )
Date: October 08,
2010 08:27PM
Re:
ABC NEWS UPDATE --now says PACKER changed his words
Since
he spoke words in a public forum that has caused people to lose
their testimonies he should call up the prophet and demand the
culprit should be excommunicated, along with the admonition that the
prophet lie about BKP's involvement and influence.
One thing's
for sure, he now understands that sometimes one's version of the
truth is not very useful.
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
08:38PM
The
church TOLD Packer to change it.
The church (the collective
leadership and committees, PR, et al) needs to distance themselves
from what he said pronto. They can't be the ones who doctored the
content so they have to say he did it. We all know darn well Packer
said exactly what he thinks.
Sheesh. Didn't they learn
anything from Oaks' embarrassing blather recently?
Why don't
they have someone with half a brain proof read their talks BEFORE
they talk? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what they
say WILL get scrutinized by outsiders nowadays.
Posted by: lulu ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
09:03PM
DesNews
headline says church changed it even though article uses same quote
from
Trotter.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072230/Mormon-church-clarifies-intent-of-President-Boyd-K-Packers-talk.html
Posted by: JoD3:360 ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
09:08PM
Too
bad the worldwide audience doesn't know
I
doubt that most of the people who only picked up the telecast or
satellite and radio broadcasts will ever know that his words have
been redone.
So, I can't help but wonder what damage is done
and will be done in those areas where the retraction is unknown?
Oh
why, oh why can't there be a living prophet to guide us in these
latter days?
Posted by: Laban's Head ( )
Date: October 08,
2010 09:17PM
I
think the guys at the top are so insulated and removed from the real
world -- even the real LDS world -- that it never occurs to them that
what seems fine and all to them could possibly outrage people with
normal sensitivities.
They mostly think alike and and it all
sounds fine and wonderful to them so it goes unchanged until
something like the Packer debacle happens. Then it's "Whoa
Nellie!" and let the damage control begin!
The inspired
speechifying fairy must have been taking a break when Packer's talk
got written and approved!
Posted by: onceanelder ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
07:15AM
I
would have thought Packer is old enough - and has been through the
temple enough - to not be phased by 'veiled threats'
Posted by: zzapp the witch ( )
Date: October 08,
2010 09:35PM
Re:
ABC NEWS UPDATE --now says PACKER changed his words
Soooo,
what do we want to bet on? Money changing hands or....veiled threats?
Posted by: sheepshank ( )
Date: October 08, 2010
11:41PM
Re:
ABC NEWS UPDATE --now says PACKER changed his words
Do you
think there was any change that the 12 didn't compare notes and and have someone
review, edit and proof read each others talks before conference? Really you
don't
Posted by: placebo ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
02:05AM
that's
all right, boyd (mild swearing, plus a song)
i
have a tendency to confuse my words, too. especially after the my
personal PR team reminds me of what i meant to say.
sing with
me now, "we thank thee, o god, for our PR team, to guide us in
these latter days. we thank thee for revisionism and retractions, to
cover our asses when we seem strange. we thank thee for every
deletion, when the holy ghost fails to do its job. we feel it our
duty to become mainstream, so the cash flow dwindleth not."
Posted by: Heathjh ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
03:46AM
I
wonder what they are going to do about the video version?
I
bet they edit out the sentence they removed. And rerecord the word
temptations over the word tendencies.
Darn deceitful is what
it is.
Posted by: snowball ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
06:42AM
Not
suprising. Why are they doing this. What do they really think? I
don't see how changing "tendencies" to "tempations"
is an improvement.
As most of you know, what Packer said has
been part of LDS teaching on homosexuality for years. The LDS church
has been on teaching this drivel behind closed doors and in the open
for YEARS! And as Trotter said this changes nothing, so why do it at
all the damage is done.
Trotter: "As we have said
repeatedly, the church's position on marriage and family is clear and
consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of God's
children."
Just another Orwellian spin trick--and a piss
poor one at that. I guess it will mollify some more moderate
Mormons.
What's really going on is that outsiders are paying
attention to this, where they didn't before. The LDS church
demonstrated real political clout with Prop. 8 and there's real
possibility a Mormon could be the U.S. President come 2013, and
people--like the Human Rights Campaign--are paying attention and
calling them to account.
Posted by: Nona ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
08:54AM
The
thing is, as people become more liberal, whilst they'll get even more
and mroe horrified at everything even close to homophobic that the
church says, it's also not long until people start doing the whole
"You can't paint mormons with one brush", "Not all
mormons are homophobic", "You can't hate someone just
because they're a mormon", etc. In a while, it'll no longer be
acceptable for people to say "I hate Mitt Romney, because he's a
mormon", just like it's getting unacceptable to say "I hate
so-and-so because they're female, black, gay, etc.".
It'll
go both ways, but I think the civil rights movement could eventually
benefit mormonism eventually, especially if they start donating more
to gay-rights charities and stuff (and let's fact it, they do have
the money, and they want to prove they're not homophobic. A couple of
GAs would certainly do it).
Posted by: dr5 ( )
Date: October 09, 2010 09:28AM
Give
it a a rewrite? I think not.
Posted by: Jesus Smith ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
09:37AM
What
WMD? What would *Mormon* do?
He would revise, redact and spin.
Joe did it to Spalding's and Rigdon's writings, pretended it was
Mormon who did it as the editor of all the others in ancient
america.
Now we have the church revising Packer's, pretending
he did it, and claiming they've always been a loving tolerant group.
I think the method has been in place since the beginning.
Posted by: munchybotaz ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
10:54AM
This
is supposed to be a transcript, right? Of stuff that was inspired by
God, right? Well,... It's not what he said!
Seriously, how
many functioning brain cells does it take to see that these are a
bunch of LYING ASS-CLOWN CON MEN?! I don't think very many.
Posted by: scarecrowfromoz ( )
Date: October 09,
2010 11:13AM
When
will they learn you CAN'T rewrite history?
I
don't care if this is what he "meant" to say. I suppose
Nixon never said "I am not a crook," Reagan never said to
"launch the nuclear weapons," and Clinton never said "I
did not have sex with that woman!"
You can APOLOGIZE for
it, but you can't just rewrite a speech as if it was never said. But
then the Morg never apologizes for anything. It's like the backhanded
"apology" they gave for MMM a couple years ago. The didn't
apologize. They just said gee it's unfortunate what happened here,
like they had nothing to do with it.
Continuation Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Posted
by: helemon ( )
Date: October 08, 2010 10:24PM
Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.
How
many horrible things in nature can you think of that could be
followed by Packer's statement?
Posted by: taddlywog ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
12:46AM
Re:
Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
Last
week we went to a family restaurant. There was a man paying for his
meal at the register. He was born with no arms and since he was in a
tank top we could see the stubs of fingers poking out what we would
normally call an arm pity. My seven year old has not seen many people
missing appendages. Just about the time I notice he's gawking, he
says in a loud voice, "That's gross! "
The young man
did not even respond. He continued to chat with the cute young girl
behind the counter. Of course we seized the learning opportunity with
our son to explain that was how some people are born. And that
calling it gross is rude.
Posted by: helemon ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
01:31AM
Re:
Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/
"Birth
defects affect about one in every 33 babies born in the United States
each year. They are the leading cause of infant deaths, accounting
for more than 20% of all infant deaths."
Why would our
Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.htm
"Anencephaly
occurs when the portion of the neural tube that forms the brain does
not close. This results in the baby lacking parts of the brain,
skull, and scalp. Babies with this condition often are born without a
forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking
and coordinating part of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is
often exposed; that is, it is not covered by bone or skin."
Why
would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/spinabifida/facts.html
"Spina
bifida can happen anywhere along the spine if the neural tube does
not close all the way. The backbone that protects the spinal cord
does not form and close as it should. This often results in damage to
the spinal cord and nerves.
Spina bifida might cause physical
and mental disabilities that range from mild to severe."
Why
would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/UL-LimbReductionDefects.htm
"Upper
and lower limb reduction defects occur when a part of or the entire
arm (upper limb) or leg (lower limb) of a fetus fails to form
completely during pregnancy. The defect is referred to as a “limb
reduction” because a limb is reduced from its normal size or is
missing."
Why would our Heavenly Father do that to
anyone? Remember, he is our
Father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin-type_ichthyosis
""Harlequin
fetus,"[2]:562 and "Ichthyosis congenita gravior"[1]),
a skin disease, is the most severe form of congenital ichthyosis,
characterized by a thickening of the keratin layer in fetal human
skin. In sufferers of the disease, the skin contains massive,
diamond-shaped scales, and tends to have a reddish color. In
addition, the eyes, ears, penis, and other appendages may be
abnormally contracted. The scaly keratin greatly limits the child's
movement. Because the skin is cracked where normal skin would fold,
it is easily pregnable by bacteria and other contaminants, resulting
in serious risk of fatal infection."
Why would our
Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.
Posted by: helemon ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
11:03AM
Re: Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.
helemon
Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/
>
"Birth defects affect about one in every 33 babies
> born
in the United States each year. They are the
> leading cause of
infant deaths, accounting for
> more than 20% of all infant
deaths."
>
> Why would our Heavenly Father do that
to anyone?
> Remember, he is our
Father.
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm
"Miscarriage
reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However,
according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many
women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may
miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a
heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40
or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will
suffer recurring miscarriages. "
And the Mormons and
Catholics tell us that God hates abortions? Seems to me he likes them
WAY TOO MUCH!
Posted by: ozpoof ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
02:18AM
According
to a post at mormonexpression.com the printed version of BKP talk has
been changed [LINK]
The
original wording from BKP’s talk:
"Some suppose
that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn
tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our
Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”
The
revised wording in the printed version:
“Some suppose
that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn
temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is
our Heavenly Father.”
See Jake's comment
http://mormonexpression.com/2010/10/episode-87-the-october-7th-2010-lds-protest/#disqus_thread
Posted by: helemon ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
02:45AM
I am not saying that homosexuality is horrible. I am arguing against BKP assertion that a kind loving God would not make someone gay (which is a 'horrible' condition in his mind), but if we look at all the truly cruel and debilitating genetic defects that humans are afflicted with it is hard to make the argument that HF is some kind loving father. This unfairly places the blame on the individual as being responsible for any perceived 'defect' that the church says they have.
Posted by: dr5 ( )
Date: October 09, 2010 09:37AM
I
heard Packer say that a kind, loving HF can and does create persons
will all sorts of birth defects and disabilities, but would not
create a person with the one most horrible of all disabilities: being
gay.
Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: October 09, 2010
10:21AM
He
must have forgotten the "god created nature" part....
Maybe
to Packer being an a$shole IS a sign of love. I mean, that seems to
be making God into is own image.
Seriously what an incredibly
stupid thing to say. How could he be so out of touch with what nature
is all about.
|
Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church www.exmormon.org |