Jump to content

Packer Talk Corrected in Published Version


David T

Recommended Posts

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published 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.

Link to comment

Doesn't seem to change the perceived interpretation much... that people suppose they have an inborn tendancy or tempation. I think the key point of question has been whether he was stating that such things are not inborn.

I wonder if the printed version is the same version he had at conference, and he just read it wrong or ad-libbed part of it.

Link to comment

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published 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.

Impeccable timing.

TAO just laughingly dismissed my doubt that the church would ever use the word "Syndrome" to define SSA. He says they already have and pointed to a quote from Pres. Hinckley, wherein he used the the word "Inclinations", as if they were synonymous.

I would say inclinations and tendancies are quite synonymous.

Now it appears that not only is "syndrome" not good word, but "tendancies or inclinations" don't quite cut the mustard either. Temptation appears to be the word of the day. Go figure.

Link to comment

Impeccable timing.

TAO just laughingly dismissed my doubt that the church would ever use the word "Syndrome" to define SSA. He says they already have and pointed to a quote from Pres. Hinckley, wherein he used the the word "Inclinations", as if they were synonymous.

No, actually the statement that you made was unclear, I was not referring to the word 'syndrome'. I was referring to the existence of given weakness. And then I said they were still overcomeable.

I would say inclinations and tendancies are quite synonymous.

Somewhat, but I have to say tendencies has more to do with the action where inclinations has more to do with the temptation. Not much of a difference though.

Now it appears that not only is "syndrome" not good word, but "tendancies or inclinations" don't quite cut the mustard either. Temptation appears to be the word of the day. Go figure.

Lol, okay, let me explain, just because 'Tourettes Syndrome' has the word syndrome in it, whereas SSA does not, doesn't mean they can't be compared.

Because from this aspect, they are both psychological issues, which the person has to deal with.

In my case, the psychological weakness called Tourette's made it more difficult for me to overcome addictions associated with relief of stress.

In their case, the psychological weakness which has not been named made it more difficult to obtain a natural affection.

Both are barriers, yes, but both can be overcome if the person chooses to do so.

And don't get me wrong Tourette's isn't always a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways too ;-) But I bet so can SSA, although being a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways.

Link to comment

No, actually the statement that you made was unclear, I was not referring to the word 'syndrome'. I was referring to the existence of given weakness. And then I said they were still overcomeable.

Somewhat, but I have to say tendencies has more to do with the action where inclinations has more to do with the temptation. Not much of a difference though.

Lol, okay, let me explain, just because 'Tourettes Syndrome' has the word syndrome in it, whereas SSA does not, doesn't mean they can't be compared.

Because from this aspect, they are both psychological issues, which the person has to deal with.

In my case, the psychological weakness called Tourette's made it more difficult for me to overcome addictions associated with relief of stress.

In their case, the psychological weakness which has not been named made it more difficult to obtain a natural affection.

Both are barriers, yes, but both can be overcome if the person chooses to do so.

And don't get me wrong Tourette's isn't always a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways too ;-) But I bet so can SSA, although being a weakness, it can be a strength in other ways.

Pbbb...

Whatever, TAO

Link to comment

Is pedophilia a temptation, an inborn tendency, an inclination, a syndrome, a sin, a weakness?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, by the way. Also, I'm not talking about consenting adults, but

about the person who experiences pedophilia.

Bernard

Link to comment

I'm pretty upset the transcripts didn't include Pres. Uchtdorf's coughing and hilarious comment. :P

Link to comment

If true, it's an excellent example of how official publication is the stamp of official doctrine. Is it not true that GC talk subjects generally aren't assigned, that the speakers generally have to come up with their own inspiration for subjects? In that case, there is indeed a need for there to be agreement on what is said before it can become doctrine (published).

But the bottom line with Packer's talk is that some have misunderstood words of understanding and compassion by other authorities as tolerance for sin. Even Jesus did not always mix compassion with condemnation. Often he separated the two and we think of them as combined because they appear in the same book. Such is the nature of Biblical misinterpretation and why some people inaccurately think of Jesus as someone without an "unkind" word to say.

Link to comment

Oh brother. Just because you don't approve of someone's behavior doesn't mean you don't love them. Also, don't they read the talks off of teleprompters? I was under the impression that the talks were written out before conference and then the transcripts come out later.

Link to comment

This is not the first nor will it be the last that the LDS church has played this "change the text game". Honesty and truthfulness is best left for children, not for corporations of religion.

How is this dishonest and/or untruthful?

Link to comment

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published 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.

"Tendancies" is neutral while "temptations" has a negative connotation. So, with respect to homosexuality I agree: inborn temptations towards homosexuality do not exist, but inborn tendancies most certainly do. The church is just trying to get their facts straight so they don't sound confused.

What about removing the rhetorical question that draws attention to the problem of evil? I think the change definitely turns down the the combativeness a notch. I think that was a good move from a diplomatic POV, probably inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment

"Tendancies" is neutral while "temptations" has a negative connotation. So, with respect to homosexuality I agree: inborn temptations towards homosexuality do not exist, but inborn tendancies most certainly do. The church is just trying to get their facts straight so they don't sound confused.

What about removing the rhetorical question that draws attention to the problem of evil? I think the change definitely turns down the the combativeness a notch. I think that was a good move from a diplomatic POV, probably inspired by the Holy Ghost.

I am wondering if it is a change at all. If i understand it correctly, the speeches are vetted before the speaker the talk, i.e. the speaker supplies a written text and the talk is transcrbed from the submitted text. I am not sure if this is correct. Could anyone more familiar with the process clue me in?

Glenn (who attended General Conference live once in his life)

Link to comment

This is not the first nor will it be the last that the LDS church has played this "change the text game". Honesty and truthfulness is best left for children, not for corporations of religion.

When I read the two versions it struck me that they had the same basic principal, and that he made an unfortunate choice of words. I am sure that this has happened to all of us.

The second version is closer to his intention, and I am certain that any change would have been approved, if not initiated, by Elder Packer.

You cynically call it dishonesty, but it is a clear case of correcting the choice of words to reflect what he intended to teach.

Link to comment

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published 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.

More accurately,

As given

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father."

Link to comment

Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

I'll one-up you: I remember him saying, "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies towards the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?. He is our Father."

I think the written version is what should serve as our guidance going forward. He may have misspoken, misread, deviated from, or reconsidered his text (or someone edited it for him). Speculating on his motives or his heart and judging him harshly does no one any good. Whether an apology is in order is being discussed on another thread.

Link to comment

I am wondering if it is a change at all. If i understand it correctly, the speeches are vetted before the speaker the talk, i.e. the speaker supplies a written text and the talk is transcrbed from the submitted text. I am not sure if this is correct. Could anyone more familiar with the process clue me in?

Glenn (who attended General Conference live once in his life)

No, talks are not submitted for approved or vetting before they are given, only for means of translation. In most cases, the first time the other GAs hear the talk is the same time we do. Afterwards, they are reviewed, and revised if necessary.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...