What if President Boyd K Packer becomes the next President of the Church?

[Jeff K.]

Saints being fired from their jobs because they don't support the homosexual agenda. There is a movement in CA it is pushed by the LGBT groups and it includes pressuring companies to get rid of saints who don't see it their way.

Your friends may not be directly involved, but I have seen their movement in action here in California.

It isn't simply about acceptance, it is also about changing the moral code and affirming and forcing all others to acknowledge their lifestyle as equally moral.

[USU78]

I have to speak up for my homosexual friends, who are among the kindest, most responsible, and reverent people I know. I don't know whether they are part of a "movement," but they do understandably want to be accepted for the people they are. They aren't putting pressure on anyone. They are reminding us by example that everyone deserves respect and kindness.

And I have found those of a political bent and those who find themselves thwarted in their desires to the slightest degree to be vile, venal, malicious, relentless, single-minded, bellicose, and obscene.

Those whom I count among my friends . . . tend to eschew politics, live privately, and tend towards the individuals you describe.

USU "Could tell some nasty tales" 78

[Deborah]

Those whom I count among my friends . . . tend to eschew politics, live privately, and tend towards the individuals you describe.

I ditto that.

[Avatar4321]

The Church would continue as usual. Our detractors will probably complain louder but remain just as ignored as they are now.

[cinepro]

I have noticed recently that Elder Boyd K Packer (the president of the council of the Twelve) has become the new punching bag for the critics (LDS) on this board. He seems to have replaced Elder McConkie and President Joseph Fielding Smith as the most vilified and hated of the modern apostles. I am frankly shocked at the disrespect and open hostility exhibited by some "LDS" board members. Since he is the President of the Council of the Twelve, it is within the realm of possibility that he could one day become the President of the Church if President Monson passes away before he does. So I was curious to see how the vote would go with some here.

If President Monson passes away before President Packer, it isn't "within the realm of possibility" that Packer will be the next President of the Church. It is 99.99999% likely to happen. We may as well treat it like a done deal, since I'm sure the Apostles who will make that decision will treat it like a done deal.

I, for one, will be very interested to see what a Packer presidency would be like. Packer, more than any man since Joseph Fielding Smith, seems to be willing to speak bluntly and clearly about issues. If he keeps any of that forthrightness as Prophet, it could be a very interesting time. Especially if works to develop an official Church position on evolution, a topic about which he has spoken about in the past.

[TAO]

I have to speak up for my homosexual friends, who are among the kindest, most responsible, and reverent people I know. I don't know whether they are part of a "movement," but they do understandably want to be accepted for the people they are. They aren't putting pressure on anyone. They are reminding us by example that everyone deserves respect and kindness.

And who is more familiar with persecution anyway: Mormons or gay people?

Yes, many are kind people that they are.

I have a feeling, like many other groups, some are nice, some aren't.

I know we as Mormons must be careful, not to fall into the trap that some of the not-so-nice ones have, that I do.

[krose]

Shades' theory proposes that the LDS Church is undergoing a literal schism and has become two distinct religions...conservative "Chapel" Mormons who believe the teachings of the prophets (Who he deems to be Chapel Mormons)...and liberal "Internet" Mormons who do not believe the teachings of the prophets.

Shades likens the dicotomy between the two as so great that to be an Internet Mormon is to have converted to another religion.

Perhaps I don't understand the idea as well as you, but I consider the Chapel/Internet distinction to be related to beliefs regarding doctrinal and historical issues (evolution, flood, polygamy, BoM geography, etc.).

While they may discount much of what past (or even current) leaders have taught, dismissing much of it as opinion, I see nothing to indicate that liberal Mormons would not continue to revere and sustain the current prophet as the spiritual leader of their church.

Even if you think your father is completely wrong about all things political and intellectual, you can still (and probably would) respect who he is and what he does for the family. He is still your father.

[Lightbearer]

If President Monson passes away before President Packer, it isn't "within the realm of possibility" that Packer will be the next President of the Church. It is 99.99999% likely to happen. We may as well treat it like a done deal, since I'm sure the Apostles who will make that decision will treat it like a done deal.

More like 100% if President Monson does pass away before President Packer. Also I do not think it is a decision that will be made by the Apostles... but that is the subject of another thread.

I, for one, will be very interested to see what a Packer presidency would be like. Packer, more than any man since Joseph Fielding Smith, seems to be willing to speak bluntly and clearly about issues. If he keeps any of that forthrightness as Prophet, it could be a very interesting time. Especially if works to develop an official Church position on evolution, a topic about which he has spoken about in the past.

I second that and I would love to see that eventuality, although I am sure there would be those that would insist his stance on evolution was a personal opinion... perhaps there is a reason the Lord has not made an "official-official" declaration on that, maybe because he knows that some members faith cannot handle such a bold declaration of doctrine? (It would be rather monumental either way pro or con) but I would like to see it in my lifetime.

[DH]

I disagree with BKP on some matters, but I don't hate him at all. If Boyd Packer were called to be President of the Church, I would sustain him in that capacity. However, I would reserve the right to pray and receive my own answer from God about whatever policies Pres. Packer may enact, just the same as with any other prophet. I don't agree with blind obedience, but I also don't agree with blind disobedience.

[LeSellers]

Packer, more than any man since Joseph Fielding Smith, seems to be willing to speak bluntly and clearly about issues. If he keeps any of that forthrightness as Prophet, it could be a very interesting time. Especially if works to develop an official Church position on evolution, a topic about which he has spoken about in the past.

About which President Smith was no less passionate as a "simple" Apostle and about which he spoke next-to-nothing as President of the High Priesthood.

Lehi

[blueadept]

I disagree with BKP on some matters, but I don't hate him at all. If Boyd Packer were called to be President of the Church, I would sustain him in that capacity. However, I would reserve the right to pray and receive my own answer from God about whatever policies Pres. Packer may enact, just the same as with any other prophet. I don't agree with blind obedience, but I also don't agree with blind disobedience.

For my better understanding of the LDS faithful, what wes the last major disagreement with a policy you had with a prophet? ...or what was the last issue a minor disagreement?

I'm truly asking since I know the difference of when the Pope speaks with authority on doctrine and when he doesn't. I've never developed an understanding of the LDS process and it has always appeared as 'blind faith' since the answer is the typical pray about it and have the Holy Ghost confirm it. My experience with LDS is that policies can always be confirmed thus it appears as blind faith. Help.

[Jeff K.]

I disagree with BKP on some matters, but I don't hate him at all. If Boyd Packer were called to be President of the Church, I would sustain him in that capacity. However, I would reserve the right to pray and receive my own answer from God about whatever policies Pres. Packer may enact, just the same as with any other prophet. I don't agree with blind obedience, but I also don't agree with blind disobedience.

All members are told to pray and pray and pray constantly to receive revelation. In essence you are following what the Lord has dictated through his prophets.

[DH]

All members are told to pray and pray and pray constantly to receive revelation. In essence you are following what the Lord has dictated through his prophets.

Agreed.

[DH]

For my better understanding of the LDS faithful, what wes the last major disagreement with a policy you had with a prophet? ...or what was the last issue a minor disagreement?

I'm truly asking since I know the difference of when the Pope speaks with authority on doctrine and when he doesn't. I've never developed an understanding of the LDS process and it has always appeared as 'blind faith' since the answer is the typical pray about it and have the Holy Ghost confirm it. My experience with LDS is that policies can always be confirmed thus it appears as blind faith. Help.

A small example would be Elder Packer's implication in the last General Conference that gay people are not "born that way." I think that homosexuality is an inborn tendency for many people, and it would seem the Church either agrees with me or is not willing to argue the point, given the corrections made to Elder Packer's talk in the printed version. However, I do agree with Elder Packer that just because we have certain natural inclinations, doesn't mean we have to act on them. For example, I think that most men have a natural inclination to have sex with multiple women, but that does not make it right to do so. So we need to exercise self-control.

Another example of something I disagree with is the recent emphasis on single adults not "hanging out." While I understand that the Brethren want singles to get married instead of remaining eternal "just friends," my opinion is that "hanging out" is a legitimate way that single people have of getting to know each other. It's less formal than Dating (with a capital D!), and is a lower-pressure situation for shy people, and I think that works well for many.

DH

[cdowis]

I remember this very same discussion regarding Ezra Taft Benson.

There was no mass exodus of members, as some had predicted. The church is still here.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think if he become Pres. and keeps "business as usual", all will continue tranquil in the church. But if he becomes prophet and brings back some of that "old time religion" (which I suspect he might do if Pres.), I can guarantee a major split in the church. Many LDS are happy with what the LDS Church is now, but would not be happy if it reverted back to some former teachings/practices of their "dead prophets".

[Lightbearer]

A small example would be Elder Packer's implication in the last General Conference that gay people are not "born that way." I think that homosexuality is an inborn tendency for many people, and it would seem the Church either agrees with me or is not willing to argue the point, given the corrections made to Elder Packer's talk in the printed version. However, I do agree with Elder Packer that just because we have certain natural inclinations, doesn't mean we have to act on them. For example, I think that most men have a natural inclination to have sex with multiple women, but that does not make it right to do so. So we need to exercise self-control.

Which corrections might that be? Unless the version in the printed Ensign varies from the online version Elder Packer's statement is quite clear:

(General Conference October 2010- "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" by President Boyd K. Packer President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles)

"We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan

[Lightbearer]

I think if he become Pres. and keeps "business as usual", all will continue tranquil in the church. But if he becomes prophet and brings back some of that "old time religion" (which I suspect he might do if Pres.), I can guarantee a major split in the church. Many LDS are happy with what the LDS Church is now, but would not be happy if it reverted back to some former teachings/practices of their "dead prophets".

Which changes are you referring to? Plural marriage? The withholding of the priesthood on account of race? Since there are revelations that changed these there is no way to "revert" to these practices. I have been a member for 40 plus years and I see no changes in the leadership... the commandments are the same. Emphasis is placed on different things for the current needs of our time.

Consider this a CFR to prove that the Church has drifted from the "old time religion" that it was say 30 years ago.

[mfbukowski]

If President Monson passes away before President Packer, it isn't "within the realm of possibility" that Packer will be the next President of the Church. It is 99.99999% likely to happen. We may as well treat it like a done deal, since I'm sure the Apostles who will make that decision will treat it like a done deal.

I, for one, will be very interested to see what a Packer presidency would be like. Packer, more than any man since Joseph Fielding Smith, seems to be willing to speak bluntly and clearly about issues. If he keeps any of that forthrightness as Prophet, it could be a very interesting time. Especially if works to develop an official Church position on evolution, a topic about which he has spoken about in the past.

Whatever he does, I will sustain him, but I would be surprised if he did that. Even those who are fairly strident (and I don't think Elder P is) tend to moderate their positions when they become prophets. It is one thing speaking one's own mind than speaking for the Lord's church.

[mfbukowski]

I'm truly asking since I know the difference of when the Pope speaks with authority on doctrine and when he doesn't.

An interesting statement. How do you know?

[mfbukowski]

Consider this a CFR to prove that the Church has drifted from the "old time religion" that it was say 30 years ago.

I am curious why you think major revisions to Gospel Principles were necessary.

If anybody has time available, it might be interesting to see a count of how many times the word "God" is mentioned in General Conference relative to the term "Heavenly Father" in an conference, say, from the '60's and the present.

I predict a marked decrease of the term "Heavenly Father" and an increase in the use of "God".

I would also predict a major decrease in the use of the word "evolution" and an increase in the use of "heaven" over "paradise", and "hell" over "spirit prison".

Just an idea- it would take a little time, but not be an onerous task for a holiday weekend. Beats video games.

[mfbukowski]

Another question: I love Pres Monson and hope he is Prophet for a long long time, but should he pass away sooner than expected in his mission as Prophet, and Elder Packer take over sooner, would it be taken as a statement from the Lord that we should take a more conservative course?

[David T]

Which corrections might that be? Unless the version in the printed Ensign varies from the online version Elder Packer's statement is quite clear:What changes are you referring to?

As given in the broadcast/video:

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

Published version, online text and in Ensign:

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

[DH]

Thank you, nackhadlow--those were indeed the changes I meant.

Only a few words were changed, but I do think it's significant (else why would they bother changing it? ).

I can't say for sure what BKP's personal opinion on the matter is, but his original (spoken version) talk implied that people are not born with an inclination to homosexuality, which is a rather controversial idea (and, IMO, inaccurate). But either he, the Correlation folks, the PR people, or someone higher up chose to change the wording to something less controversial, and more reality-based.

[Lightbearer]

Thank you, nackhadlow--those were indeed the changes I meant.

Only a few words were changed, but I do think it's significant (else why would they bother changing it? ).

I can't say for sure what BKP's personal opinion on the matter is, but his original (spoken version) talk implied that people are not born with an inclination to homosexuality, which is a rather controversial idea (and, IMO, inaccurate). But either he, the Correlation folks, the PR people, or someone higher up chose to change the wording to something less controversial, and more reality-based.

Thank you nackhadlow for the citations, and yet the same meaning is implied in both texts. In fact the use of the word "temptation" instead of "tendencies" to me is more of a rejection of the idea that a person is "born that way" and that they are temptations and not tendencies... I am the only one that sees this? As for the other deleted text: "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" that of course implies that God is not the one that fixes our temptations or tendencies. I see this as totally opposite from how you are reading it. It by no means endorses the "politically correct" idea that homosexuals are "born that way." In fact the including of the phrase temptations to me shows that these things are temptations and not some sort of a fixed genetic inheritance. In fact the entire tenor of his talk said that nobody has the excuse of the devil or human nature or whatever being an excuse for yielding to sin. The ploy of the devil is to deny that it is a sin, that how can a person be expected to reject these temptations when it is inborn and thus impossible to deny. This very diabolical ploy is indended to cause the poor sufferer of this tempation to loose all hope or redemption. No matter what so-called scientists (who's funding is at the mercy of the political whims of the ones paying the bills) may claim about the sin of homosexuality, they cannot hide the fact that it has always been look upon as an aberation that is against nature. And yes IT IS A SIN! You may not like it, but it is and always will be considered such by God and His prophets. It is not a popular opinion in this wicked and perverse generation, but then again when has the word of the Lord ever been popular with the world?

I find it absolutely amazing that any member of this Church would consider his remarks (either the spoken or written) as controversial! I guess it comes in fullfillment of Isaiah's words:

(Isaiah 5:20-21) "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"