Was President Packer trying to apologize today?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Was I alone or did President Boyd K. Packer's speech in the second session of conference today an attempt to express regret or even an attempt to apologize for the controversy his comments cause from the Oct 2010 General Conference?

I know he doesn't regret or apologize for the content but I got the feeling that he was trying to say he was sorry for the controversy that his comments caused the Church, in the public's eye.

I am probably crazy and making things out of nothing, but I want to know what you think?

[Mike Richards]

I thought he was saying, "don't be so sensitive." I have to admit, though, with 3 little boys running around the whole time, I certainly could have got the wrong message.

[Sevenbak]

President Packer has never been known to cow tow to political correctness or even care what the world thinks.

I think you're just crazy.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I thought he was saying, "don't be so sensitive." I have to admit, though, with 3 little boys running around the whole time, I certainly could have got the wrong message.

I know he didn't actually apologize, but it seemed like his "don't be so sensitive" message was his way of trying to apologize for the controversy the Church had to deal with.

Kinda read between the lines type thing, if you know what I mean, as a military man from a military background, I know that a lot of times the strong, proud, and tough military fathers and grand fathers find interesting ways to say they are proud of you.

I remember my grandpa's way so saying good job was "Well your not a complete failure this time". You had to understand that he just wasn't the type to express himself like most people do, that what most would see as an insult is actually a complement in his own way.

I felt the same way listening to President Packers "don't be so sensitive" comments, he must feel that some explanation is needed to the membership or he wouldn't of made the comments he did. At the same time though he is not one to bow to pressure from the world especially when he feels that he is in the right, so he isn't offering an apology for what was said, simply his own way of saying he regrets that the membership had to deal with grief because of his comments.

Like I said maybe I am insane, maybe all those years made my think that everyone is saying something they are not, but that was the way I felt when I heard him speaking.

[Mike Reed]

Was I alone or did President Boyd K. Packer's speech in the second session of conference today an attempt to express regret or even an attempt to apologize for the controversy his comments cause from the Oct 2010 General Conference?

Not in the slightest. If it had anything to do with the recent controversy, I think it is more likely that Packer would have identified himself with the story he opened his talk with: William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating/delivering the word of God in "plain English." Wondering if Packer identifies Tyndale's fellow "clergymen" with anyone in particular--was that a jab at those who made the decision to edit his recent controversial talk?

Edit to express what I should have said.

[jskains]

He had nothing to apologize about, and he certainly didn't create the controversy. During one of my lunches, I went and talked to the protestors, most of whom were very young and very impressionable, and asked every single one what they didn't like about the speech. Most had not even heard what he said, nor didn't even know that the word homosexual was not even in the talk.

I think a combination of the media and troublemakers (the real ones who should apologize) made it a controversy.

I believe as many others did, his central target was pornography.

JMS

[jadams_4242]

He had nothing to apologize about, and he certainly didn't create the controversy. During one of my lunches, I went and talked to the protestors, most of whom were very young and very impressionable, and asked every single one what they didn't like about the speech. Most had not even heard what he said, nor didn't even know that the word homosexual was not even in the talk.

I think a combination of the media and troublemakers (the real ones who should apologize) made it a controversy.

I believe as many others did, his central target was pornography.

JMS

And the other comments in regards to "God wouldnt do that" {homosexuality} was taken completely out of context and should not ever have been changed because that is not what he said in context; thats what upset myself was that his words were changed, {wheather he changed them or not} was wrong.

[Daniel Peterson]

Rather, I think [President] Packer identifies himself with the story he opened his talk with: William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating/delivering the word of God in "plain English." Wondering if Packer identifies Tyndale's fellow "clergymen" with anyone in particular--was that a jab at those who made the decision to edit his recent controversial talk?

In the free-associating spirit of the above, I think that President Packer identifies himself with the painter Rembrandt. The General Authorities behind him represent the 1932 Yankees, while the Conference Center audience symbolizes the many years that have passed since the building of Stonehenge and the pulpit is a metaphor for deep sea fishing. Meanwhile, in the background of his mind, he hears the theme from the movie Exodus, played on marimbas and kazoo.

[Stargazer]

In the free-associating spirit of the above, I think that President Packer identifies himself with the painter Rembrandt. The General Authorities behind him represent the 1932 Yankees, while the Conference Center audience symbolizes the many years that have passed since the building of Stonehenge and the pulpit is a metaphor for deep sea fishing. Meanwhile, in the background of his mind, he hears the theme from the movie Exodus, played on marimbas and kazoo.

I'll drink to that.

[Mike Reed]

In the free-associating spirit of the above, I think that President Packer identifies himself with the painter Rembrandt. The General Authorities behind him represent the 1932 Yankees, while the Conference Center audience symbolizes the many years that have passed since the building of Stonehenge and the pulpit is a metaphor for deep sea fishing. Meanwhile, in the background of his mind, he hears the theme from the movie Exodus, played on marimbas and kazoo.

Cute. Edited above to express what I should have said.

[Pahoran]

Not in the slightest. If it had anything to do with the recent controversy, I think it is more likely that Packer would have identified himself with the story he opened his talk with: William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating/delivering the word of God in "plain English." Wondering if Packer identifies Tyndale's fellow "clergymen" with anyone in particular--was that a jab at those who made the decision to edit his recent controversial talk?

Assuming that anybody (apart from himself) actually did. I recently did a line-by-line comparison between the published version of his talk and the version he delivered. My conclusion is that the published version is entirely his own, and is probably the prepared version of the talk. The differences can be accounted for on the simple hypothesis that, while speaking, he made minor extemporanous changes that made no substantial difference to the meaning; as experienced speakers often do.

Notice, please, that whatever "message" the immoralists get from his spoken talk is fully intact in the written version.

Now I realise that you probably aren't in favour of any suggestion that contradicts your conspiracy theory; but I would simply point out that my explanation has the advantage of being considerably more parsimonious than your unsupported assumption.

Put another way, Okham is on my side in this case. I have no doubt that many of those who regularly conjure by his name will, upon discovering this fact, immediately abandon him.

[Edited for spelling.]

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

I know he didn't actually apologize, but it seemed like his "don't be so sensitive" message was his way of trying to apologize for the controversy the Church had to deal with.

Kinda read between the lines type thing, if you know what I mean, as a military man from a military background, I know that a lot of times the strong, proud, and tough military fathers and grand fathers find interesting ways to say they are proud of you.

I remember my grandpa's way so saying good job was "Well your not a complete failure this time". You had to understand that he just wasn't the type to express himself like most people do, that what most would see as an insult is actually a complement in his own way.

I felt the same way listening to President Packers "don't be so sensitive" comments, he must feel that some explanation is needed to the membership or he wouldn't of made the comments he did. At the same time though he is not one to bow to pressure from the world especially when he feels that he is in the right, so he isn't offering an apology for what was said, simply his own way of saying he regrets that the membership had to deal with grief because of his comments.

Like I said maybe I am insane, maybe all those years made my think that everyone is saying something they are not, but that was the way I felt when I heard him speaking.

President Packer is a true Apostle of God and he is well aware that it comes with controversy. I do not think it was an apology but rather an admonition to get over it and worry about what is right and not what is popular.

[Messenger]

Actually his talk was reminiscent of Elder Bednars talk from several years ago regarding not taking offence, except that President Packer was also mentioning forgiving those that have offended you. He gives the example of the country doctor who was busy making house calls and was summoned to help deliver a baby. Being rushed, he apparently forgot to sterilize his hands and infected the mother with the same infection from the previous house call he saw that night. The mother died and he used the example of the stake president's advice to the father to "let it go" rather than sue the doctor.

I was never offended by what President Packer said a few years back, and I don

[CQUIRK]

I am probably crazy and making things out of nothing, but I want to know what you think?

I think you did too much LDS back in Berkeley.

[Zeta-Flux]

My impression wasn't that he was apologizing, as much as basically giving the same talk but using difference words so people would understand this time around.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not in the slightest. If it had anything to do with the recent controversy, I think it is more likely that Packer would have identified himself with the story he opened his talk with: William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating/delivering the word of God in "plain English." Wondering if Packer identifies Tyndale's fellow "clergymen" with anyone in particular--was that a jab at those who made the decision to edit his recent controversial talk?

Edit to express what I should have said.

Anytime someone is telling the truth, they are being controversial. It is the nature of true and taking a stand. Not to mention it has become a sport to analyze every word they speak or complain that it is the same old same old stuff. I guess in the minds of some the gospel should change every six months.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Assuming that anybody (apart from himself) actually did. I recently did a line-by-line comparison between the published version of his talk and the version he delivered. My conclusion is that the published version is entirely his own, and is probably the prepared version of the talk. The differences can be accounted for on the simple hypothesis that, while speaking, he made minor extemporanous changes that made no substantial difference to the meaning; as experienced speakers often do.

Notice, please, that whatever "message" the immoralists get from his spoken talk is fully intact in the written version.

Now I realise that you probably aren't in favour of any suggestion that contradicts your conspiracy theory; but I would simply point out that my explanation has the advantage of being considerably more parsimonious than your unsupported assumption.

Put another way, Okham is on my side in this case. I have no doubt that many of those who regularly conjure by his name will, upon discovering this fact, immediately abandon him.

[Edited for spelling.]

Regards,

Pahoran

Amen...He just does not fit the liberal (I speak religiously) mode that is taking over in the church. Many would like to have a popular vote on doctrine

[pcarthew]

Was I alone or did President Boyd K. Packer's speech in the second session of conference today an attempt to express regret or even an attempt to apologize for the controversy his comments cause from the Oct 2010 General Conference?

I know he doesn't regret or apologize for the content but I got the feeling that he was trying to say he was sorry for the controversy that his comments caused the Church, in the public's eye.

I am probably crazy and making things out of nothing, but I want to know what you think?

What would President Packer have to apologise for?

[LDS Guy 1986]

President Packer is a true Apostle of God and he is well aware that it comes with controversy. I do not think it was an apology but rather an admonition to get over it and worry about what is right and not what is popular.

I think this is what I was trying to say all along, but in my ignorance was unable to properly express.

Thread closed at request of OP