The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[mercyngrace]

I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.

So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."

I don't think the issue is that an unwritten order exists. I think the issue is when adaptation is abandoned in favor of strict adherence to one's perception of this unwritten order which may be colored by culture or tradition. At least, that's how I interpreted Rongo's OP.

I love the quote you excerpted. Principles are anchors, practices can change to some degree with the wind and waves. The thing about an anchor is that while it keeps the boat tethered for security, it also allows movement for safety. If the boat were tethered too tightly, it could be torn asunder in some circumstances. Flexibility has to be incorporated which is why the "order" is unwritten, to allow for movement when necessary - not to tether the boat so tightly that it might as well be cemented into the dock.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think the issue is that an unwritten order exists. I think the issue is when adaptation is abandoned in favor of strict adherence to one's perception of this unwritten order which may be colored by culture or tradition. At least, that's how I interpreted Rongo's OP.

I love the quote you excerpted. Principles are anchors, practices can change to some degree with the wind and waves. The thing about an anchor is that while it keeps the boat tethered for security, it also allows movement for safety. If the boat were tethered too tightly, it could be torn asunder in some circumstances. Flexibility has to be incorporated which is why the "order" is unwritten, to allow for movement when necessary - not to tether the boat so tightly that it might as well be cemented into the dock.

Wise words.

I'm guessing from this that you would agree that just because a past practice or protocol is not in place today does not necessarily mean it was wrong during the time it was in force. That is to say, times and circumstances change and ideally, practices change with them.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.

Well, I hope we are; but given that she did, in fact, flat-out misrepresent something I wrote, it doesn't seem all that terribly unfair to point out that she misrepresented something I wrote.

Anyway, I have no wish to harp on this point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.

So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."

For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.

I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:

As with most of President Packer's talks, I find it to be excellent counsel.

If you listen to the apostate/anti-Mormon/fringe Mormon crowd, you get the impression that President Packer is one of the most hated of our leaders ever. For my money, that just goes to show that he's right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

As with most of President Packer's talks, I find it to be excellent counsel.

If you listen to the apostate/anti-Mormon/fringe Mormon crowd, you get the impression that President Packer is one of the most hated of our leaders ever.

That attitude, I feel, stems from the fact that he so often says things that need saying, though some don't like hearing them.

[mercyngrace]

Wise words.

I'm guessing from this that you would agree that just because a past practice or protocol is not in place today does not necessarily mean it was wrong during the time it was in force. That is to say, times and circumstances change and ideally, practices change with them.

Absolutely. I firmly believe that the church is a work in progress and that it is a vehicle for moving God's work and glory forward.

[cinepro]

That attitude, I feel, stems from the fact that he so often says things that need saying, though some don't like hearing them.

As I pointed out in another thread, if you made a list of everything Elder Packer had taught over the years, I suspect apologists and/or internet Mormons would have more to complain about than critics or anti-Mormons.

http://evolution.nfs...volution/jared/

Edited March 22, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.

So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."

For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.

I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:

I think it is an inspired talk and I am glad he wrote down some of what is expected, which was until he wrote it, unwritten.

The problem as I see it, is don't expect converts to get everything "right" unless you tell them what to do. As a now former bishop and a member for 32 years I still don't "get" why certain things are done the way they are. That's fine, and I have no trouble conforming or seeing the inspiration in the "unwritten rules"

Just don't expect me to know what they are! I still ask my wife (a "lifer") "Would it be weird if ...(thus and so)" and she gives me her take on it.

On some of these things, it just seems you have to be born into the culture or convert as a child. I guess it is like learning a language- you can learn one as an adult and after 40 years of speaking it daily, still have an accent. Once you learn a way of doing something basic, it is hard to change.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited March 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Pahoran]

As I pointed out in another thread,

I interrupt here to (ahem) point out that the expression "point out" or "pointed out" means drawing attention to something that is pretty much neutral and non-controversial. The following assertion is not; therefore, you did not point it out, you asserted or argued it.

if you made a list of everything Elder Packer had taught over the years, I suspect apologists and/or internet Mormons would have more to complain about than critics or anti-Mormons.

http://evolution.nfs...volution/jared/

I don't agree.

The fact is that it is critics and anti-Mormons whom we see in paroxysms of rage whenever President Packer's name is mentioned.

And I again point out (I am using this phrase correctly) that "internet Mormons" is an invented category that reflects no reality, but merely serves a polemical agenda. It serves no function in any honest, good-faith discussion.

Please keep that in mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

As with most of President Packer's talks, I find it to be excellent counsel.

If you listen to the apostate/anti-Mormon/fringe Mormon crowd, you get the impression that President Packer is one of the most hated of our leaders ever. For my money, that just goes to show that he's right.

Regards,

Pahoran

Along with Elder Holland and Oaks, he is the one I look forward to at GC. He does tend to be old school but it was because of one of his talks that I changed my entire philosophy about the meaning of temple sealings. He was also the one to state unequivocably that abortion was a forgiveable moral sin.

[Pahoran]

Along with Elder Holland and Oaks, he is the one I look forward to at GC. He does tend to be old school but it was because of one of his talks that I changed my entire philosophy about the meaning of temple sealings. He was also the one to state unequivocably that abortion was a forgiveable moral sin.

President Packer's critics love to portray him as some kind of Grand Inquisitor in the noble tradition of Tomás de Torquemada. They are no more capable of understanding the real Boyd K. Packer than they are the church he serves so well. He is a kind, compassionate servant of the Lord who has spent most of his ministry holding wide open the door of repentance, and beckoning all to enter.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

President Packer's critics love to portray him as some kind of Grand Inquisitor in the noble tradition of Tomás de Torquemada. They are no more capable of understanding the real Boyd K. Packer than they are the church he serves so well. He is a kind, compassionate servant of the Lord who has spent most of his ministry holding wide open the door of repentance, and beckoning all to enter.

Sounds like proselytizing to me .

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

I interrupt here to (ahem) point out that the expression "point out" or "pointed out" means drawing attention to something that is pretty much neutral and non-controversial. The following assertion is not; therefore, you did not point it out, you asserted or argued it.

I don't agree.

The fact is that it is critics and anti-Mormons whom we see in paroxysms of rage whenever President Packer's name is mentioned.

And I again point out (I am using this phrase correctly) that "internet Mormons" is an invented category that reflects no reality, but merely serves a polemical agenda. It serves no function in any honest, good-faith discussion.

Please keep that in mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've been accused of being an "internet Mormon" (though I agree with you that it is an invented category constructed for polemical purposes) and I am a great fan of President Packer.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is an inspired talk and I am glad he wrote down some of what is expected, which was until he wrote it, unwritten.

The problem as I see it, is don't expect converts to get everything "right" unless you tell them what to do. As a now former bishop and a member for 32 years I still don't "get" why certain things are done the way they are. That's fine, and I have no trouble conforming or seeing the inspiration in the "unwritten rules"

Just don't expect me to know what they are! I still ask my wife (a "lifer") "Would it be weird if ...(thus and so)" and she gives me her take on it.

On some of these things, it just seems you have to be born into the culture or convert as a child. I guess it is like learning a language- you can learn one as an adult and after 40 years of speaking it daily, still have an accent. Once you learn a way of doing something basic, it is hard to change.

I suspect that during the time you were bishop (and perhaps even before or after) you conformed to at least some aspects of the unwritten order of things not because any person told you to but because the Spirit whispered to you that it should be so.

[Scott Lloyd]

That last one is really odd. Obviously, they shouldn't use a blatant nickname, but if someone goes by "Chuck" instead of "Charles", then it may cause confusion if people don't recognize the name. If God isn't bothered by weird Utah baby names like Qwayde, Treygon or Deizel I don't see how He can be bothered by Bill, Chuck or Liz.

Damn Utah Mormons and the weird things they name their kids! What's with them?

Top Ten Utah Baby Names 2010

1. William, Olivia
   
2. Mason, Abigail
   
3. Ethan, Sophia
   
4. Jacob, Emma
   
5. James, Lily
   
6. Samuel, Brooklyn
   
7. Isaac, Chloe
   
8. Logan, Elizabeth
   
9. Jack, Ava
   
10. Benjamin, Addison
    

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

Random Mormon names are often hybrids of two or more family names - I wouldnt expect those to show up in the top ten lists.

(null)

Edited March 23, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[cinepro]

I interrupt here to (ahem) point out that the expression "point out" or "pointed out" means drawing attention to something that is pretty much neutral and non-controversial. The following assertion is not; therefore, you did not point it out, you asserted or argued it.

I don't agree.

The fact is that it is critics and anti-Mormons whom we see in paroxysms of rage whenever President Packer's name is mentioned.

And I again point out (I am using this phrase correctly) that "internet Mormons" is an invented category that reflects no reality, but merely serves a polemical agenda. It serves no function in any honest, good-faith discussion.

Please keep that in mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

If it makes you feel better, I will simply assert that there is a large population of LDS who agree with President Packer's statements about evolution (or the lack thereof), and another population of LDS who disagree. Whether you accept any labeling of these groups of people or simply want people to describe them the long way every time they're referred to, it seems a little odd to get prickly over the rather inoccuous identifiers.

Other than Packer's old statement about "Feminists, Gays and Intellectuals being a danger to the Church", I'm not aware of what he's said or done that critics and anti-Mormons would be upset about.

[Grundelwalken]

If it makes you feel better, I will simply assert that there is a large population of LDS who agree with President Packer's statements about evolution (or the lack thereof), and another population of LDS who disagree. Whether you accept any labeling of these groups of people or simply want people to describe them the long way every time they're referred to, it seems a little odd to get prickly over the rather inoccuous identifiers.

Other than Packer's old statement about "Feminists, Gays and Intellectuals being a danger to the Church", I'm not aware of what he's said or done that critics and anti-Mormons would be upset about.

Really!! It seems to me that every conference (except maybe the last one) there has been a large uproar from various groups, claiming that Pres Packer is driving away members and potential converts with his tough stance on gospel doctrines. Many are offended by his words but I find them comforting because they have so much truth. MW

[rongo]

I don't think the issue is that an unwritten order exists. I think the issue is when adaptation is abandoned in favor of strict adherence to one's perception of this unwritten order which may be colored by culture or tradition. At least, that's how I interpreted Rongo's OP.

You got it. I don't object at all to President Packer's specific examples, and I support the principles he taught in the talk. What I have a problem with is how *others* have, with a free hand, imposed their particular UOoT, claiming that theirs is self-evident and carries as much weight as President Packer and others similarly situated. Sometimes with harmful rigidity and Pharisee-ism.

[Pahoran]

If it makes you feel better, I will simply assert that there is a large population of LDS who agree with President Packer's statements about evolution (or the lack thereof), and another population of LDS who disagree.

And has the inventor of the wilfully dishonest "Chapel/Internet Mormon" false dichotomy now settled on that as the utterly arbitrary discriminator (all other attempts having dismally failed) or are you just helping him out?

Other than Packer's old statement about "Feminists, Gays and Intellectuals being a danger to the Church", I'm not aware of what he's said or done that critics and anti-Mormons would be upset about.

So all the outbursts of rage every time he says sexual sins can be repented of -- yes, even by "Gays" -- are just a figment of my imagination, are they?

And nobody has ever tried to parlay his benign permission for young men to defend themselves when cornered by a sexual predator into advocacy of "Gay" bashing, right?

And Harmony/Serenity/WAZing has never launched threads over at the Sty in which she rages about how utterly disgusting it is that his house has risen in value over the last however many decades he's lived in it, has she?

I get that you have a different view of things than I do, Cinepro. Not being able to see what's right there in front of you seems a little more than a difference of opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Damn Utah Mormons and the weird things they name their kids! What's with them?

I notice that at number 5 we have the highly interesting pairing of "James" and "Lily."

Which just happen to be the names of Harry Potter's parents. Aha!

Where's Richard Abanes these days? The possibilities for comic relief seem endless...

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

You got it. I don't object at all to President Packer's specific examples, and I support the principles he taught in the talk. What I have a problem with is how *others* have, with a free hand, imposed their particular UOoT, claiming that theirs is self-evident and carries as much weight as President Packer and others similarly situated. Sometimes with harmful rigidity and Pharisee-ism.

What's really interesting, is that in the meeting where Pres. Monson presented the new handbooks, he told a story about a high councilor who had created his own "unwritten order" by turning the chairs toward the temple during ordinations. In this instance, then Bishop Monson, rejected the action of the Stake representative in a very public way - in front of the congregation! Talk about violating an unwritten order...

[Scott Lloyd]

Random Mormon names are often hybrids of two or more family names - I wouldnt expect those to show up in the top ten lists.

(null)

Maybe it's a matter of people in Utah not being any more apt than people in other places to give their kids quirky names.

But gee whiz, don't let me ruin a cherished stereotype for you by suggesting that it's outmoded or mythical.

[Scott Lloyd]

I notice that at number 5 we have the highly interesting pairing of "James" and "Lily."

Which just happen to be the names of Harry Potter's parents. Aha!

Where's Richard Abanes these days? The possibilities for comic relief seem endless...

Regards,

Pahoran

One site I checked suggested that parents of newborns in Utah are taking their cue from the "Twilight" series. This and your observation indicate that the influence in Utah comes not from Mormon culture, but from Hollywood, which, umm, makes the Beehive State pretty much like the rest of the country in that respect.

But again, don't let me be the killjoy and ruin people's trite stereotypes.