mcmep11 Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Could be. Or, maybe he's thinking of the upcoming election. I am certain it was actually a reference to the BYU TCU game
bebeegal Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Lol, I am sorry to say that I passed this particular email on to my family. I took it as truth as I had received it from a co-worker who's friend received it from the originator. Within a few hours after sending it to my father, he wrote me back saying he had done a little research. On a Deseret Book discussion board, a woman posted that she had received the email and called President Packer's office to find out if it was true. His secretary told her that she was appalled someone had sent that email out. Apparently, President Packer did in fact speak that day, but someone in that ward had taken notes and then went home and tried to put it back together herself in an email for her family. She grossly overstated his statements and added her own thoughts. Due to problems that arise from this, that ward has now taken to recording him whenever he speaks to avoid these types of problems. He did speak about preparedness, but absolutely not to the degree that is being plastered over the internet. His secretary also said that if there was something really important that needed to be said, it would have been said in conference the week before. Hope this helps!
Alan Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 A friend of ours lives in that ward and was present when President Packer spoke in fast & testimony meeting. She say's that he did say those things and the article circulating is correct.Alan
emeliza Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Visiting Nauvoo when you live nearby is not a "super-activity". However, your group traveling to Palmyra I'm sure is. Stake Presidents must approve trips over a 100 miles away.Our Temple (Winter Quarters) and Nauvoo are both over 100 miles away. Does that mean that the Stake President has to approve each time the youth want to go to the Temple for baptisms?
bluebell Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 A friend of ours lives in that ward and was present when President Packer spoke in fast & testimony meeting. She say's that he did say those things and the article circulating is correct.AlanWhy was Pres. Packer speaking at a fast and testimony meeting? Those meetings don't generally have 'speakers'.
peeps Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Why was Pres. Packer speaking at a fast and testimony meeting? Those meetings don't generally have 'speakers'. Are you gonna tell him to sit down if he stands up and takes the stand at F&T?
alter idem Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Our Temple (Winter Quarters) and Nauvoo are both over 100 miles away. Does that mean that the Stake President has to approve each time the youth want to go to the Temple for baptisms?Well, I don't know about your stake, but our Baptism for the Dead assignments usually come from the stake. Since your temple is so far away, I would assume the Stake does need to be aware of any trips planned.I don't know about your stake, but in ours, the Stake Pres. has to approve any activities that require travel over 100 miles. The CHI discourages activities that involve "long distance travel". As for temple trips in your stake, I don't know. I do know that if the Youth are traveling in cars, they are supposed to have signed permission slips, proof of insurance and adequate chaperoning etc.
alter idem Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Why was Pres. Packer speaking at a fast and testimony meeting? Those meetings don't generally have 'speakers'.My understanding is that he asked the Bishop for some time to speak to the ward either before or after the testimonies(don't know which)--but I understand it was not during the bearing of testimonies. My friend said this is not uncommon for General Authorities to do this when they attend their own ward.
JDave Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Regardless of what was said, it was meant for the people he was addressing. He addressed the whole church a week earlier, then addressed his ward. We are meant to follow the counsel he gave at General Conference.The things he said to the ward were probably good advice for pretty much anybody -- I don't know for sure because I decided to not even read what was sent around.But it is important to point out that we were told not to distribute private notes from meetings we have as if they were meant for the whole church. This was done in a letter to all Church units and leaders May 13, 2004.No matter how good it sounds when we read it, if it is from a local, stake, or even regional meeting -- DELETE IT. These emails are not how the Lord has set up to teach us.
bluebell Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Are you gonna tell him to sit down if he stands up and takes the stand at F&T? My question was only why was he speaking, not whether or not he should be.
peeps Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 My question was only why was he speaking, not whether or not he should be. I know - I was just trying to make a funny.
cinepro Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 But it is important to point out that we were told not to distribute private notes from meetings we have as if they were meant for the whole church. This was done in a letter to all Church units and leaders May 13, 2004.No matter how good it sounds when we read it, if it is from a local, stake, or even regional meeting -- DELETE IT. These emails are not how the Lord has set up to teach us.I think members of the Church will continue to ignore the letter requesting that they not forward email accounts of GA talks for one very specific reason: it is obvious that their comments apply to a much wider scope than the immediate audience.If Elder Packer had gotten up and told the ward how much he liked their bishop, and to support the new Primary Presidency, and thank you for bringing over the casserole two weeks ago before conference, then obviously those remarks are meant for just that ward; they wouldn't make any sense to anyone else.But when a General Authority speaks and says things which might apply to a wider audience, then it is only natural for people to want to get the word out. If Elder Packer stood up in my ward and warned us that all of Southern CA is going to fall into the ocean in two months, do you think I'd think to myself "How interesting...too bad it's just meant for my ward, so I can't tell my friends in Irvine." No, I would be telling everyone I knew, by phone, email and bull-horn.So if GA's want their remarks kept private to those in the immediate congregation, they should limit their remarks to subjects of concern only to those in the room, or provide a reliable method for their remarks of general concern to be propagated through the Church. Because they can ask people to not email such things until they're blue in the face, but it's still going to happen.
emeliza Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Because they can ask people to not email such things until they're blue in the face, but it's still going to happen.I sort of wonder if partly they would like others to know, but at the same time would like to go over what they said first rather than have it put out without editing.
katherine the great Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Our Temple (Winter Quarters) and Nauvoo are both over 100 miles away. Does that mean that the Stake President has to approve each time the youth want to go to the Temple for baptisms?The Stake most definitely must approve it because they issue the temple recommends for the kids.
cinepro Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Are you gonna tell him to sit down if he stands up and takes the stand at F&T? If I were the Bishop, I would gently stand, put my arm around him, and explain to Brother Packer that such talks go against the unwritten order of things for Fast and Testimony meeting, and that I could set aside some time in a regular sacrament meeting or 5th Sunday if he has something he feels like he needs to share. After all, there's nothing worse than a "world-is-going-to-endimony", even from an Apostle.
katherine the great Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 If Elder Packer stood up in my ward and warned us that all of Southern CA is going to fall into the ocean in two months, do you think I'd think to myself "How interesting...too bad it's just meant for my ward, so I can't tell my friends in Irvine." No, I would be telling everyone I knew, by phone, email and bull-horn.Since it was his own ward, maybe he just wanted to give them a special "heads up" since they are especially dear to his heart.
jwhitlock Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 The Stake most definitely must approve it because they issue the temple recommends for the kids.Actually, the Bishop issues recommends for baptisms in the temple for youth. The stake has nothing to do with it at that level.
emeliza Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 The Stake most definitely must approve it because they issue the temple recommends for the kids.I thought those were good for a year? We go to the temple more often than once a year. I would guess though that we get approval for those trips. Not sure.Actually, the Bishop issues recommends for baptisms in the temple for youth. The stake has nothing to do with it at that level.Duh, I knew that.
jwhitlock Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 If I were the Bishop, I would gently stand, put my arm around him, and explain to Brother Packer that such talks go against the unwritten order of things for Fast and Testimony meeting, and that I could set aside some time in a regular sacrament meeting or 5th Sunday if he has something he feels like he needs to share. After all, there's nothing worse than a "world-is-going-to-endimony", even from an Apostle.Actually, I can think of quite a few things that are worse - including having an apostate stand up and tell the ward that Mormonism isn't true, because he's become enlightened on the subject.
ERMD Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 I think members of the Church will continue to ignore the letter requesting that they not forward email accounts of GA talks for one very specific reason: it is obvious that their comments apply to a much wider scope than the immediate audience.If Elder Packer had gotten up and told the ward how much he liked their bishop, and to support the new Primary Presidency, and thank you for bringing over the casserole two weeks ago before conference, then obviously those remarks are meant for just that ward; they wouldn't make any sense to anyone else.But when a General Authority speaks and says things which might apply to a wider audience, then it is only natural for people to want to get the word out. If Elder Packer stood up in my ward and warned us that all of Southern CA is going to fall into the ocean in two months, do you think I'd think to myself "How interesting...too bad it's just meant for my ward, so I can't tell my friends in Irvine." No, I would be telling everyone I knew, by phone, email and bull-horn.So if GA's want their remarks kept private to those in the immediate congregation, they should limit their remarks to subjects of concern only to those in the room, or provide a reliable method for their remarks of general concern to be propagated through the Church. Because they can ask people to not email such things until they're blue in the face, but it's still going to happen.If Pres. Packer were to stand up in your ward and warn about such a calamity, somehow I think that you would not believe him.Would you?
cinepro Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 If Pres. Packer were to stand up in your ward and warn about such a calamity, somehow I think that you would not believe him.Would you?I would believe him. For exactly two months and one day. And I wouldn't be one of the Church members who tried to drastically redefine the words "two", "months", "fall" and "ocean" if it didn't happen.(And even if I didn't believe him, you can bet I would be telling everyone I know regardless.)
ERMD Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 I would believe him. For exactly two months and one day. And I wouldn't be one of the Church members who tried to drastically redefine the words "two", "months", "fall" and "ocean" if it didn't happen.(And even if I didn't believe him, you can bet I would be telling everyone I know regardless.)Fair enough!
cinepro Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Tech., cynicpro, it's Pres. Packer. Sheesh... now I know how you got 11k+ posts in >2 years.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.