Boyd K. Packer Second Comforter?

[canard78]

I've got a relative who is a pathological liar. He won't outright lie about anything, but he exaggerates everything. He gives incomplete information that leads to inflated conclusions. He intentionally lets people think grand things that just aren't true. This is about his career and such. This sort of car-salesman-like indirect way of saying things drives me crazy. Packer is famous for this. He has been called out countless times for inferring that he's seen Christ. And every time he's called out (like by a missionary at a conference), he flat out won't answer the question with a yes or no, and then usually chastises whoever asks, deflects with third person talk about sacred experiences, give a speech about how apostles don't need to see christ and that the witness they receive is even better, etc. I basically roll my eyes whenever I hear Packer. I just can't take him seriously. Most of the apostles are perfectly straight forward and say No, they haven't seen Christ. So why does Packer have to dramatize the whole thing? Imagine if Joseph Smith had refused to give a straight answer because "it was just too sacred". I call bullhonkey., he hasn't seen Christ, and the language he uses borders on dishonesty in my opinion.

Even as one of the board "heretics" I find this comment insensitive.

When in a group such as this there's no reason why you can't at least address the church leaders with respect.

[Calm]

While I don't believe apostles are automatically perfect individuals and I suspect there might be a few I have trouble with liking (not talking just about current ones, but all ever), I do find it highly improbable that God would choose a pathological liar or even a nonpathological one for that matter (I believe some have lied, especially in some difficult situations such as plural marriage, it is the constant lying I doubt).

I find it hard to believe it would be tolerated by the rest if they were primarily honest individuals.

Pres. Monson has been "called out" for lacking a testimony of certain foundational truth claims because he doesnt use language in the 'approved' way. I find this accusation as likely as that one.

Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[wtrdog]

Even as one of the board "heretics" I find this comment insensitive.

When in a group such as this there's no reason why you can't at least address the church leaders with respect.

 

If heretics still deify the leaders then I can only imagine what category I fall into.  I'm really not meaning to be disrespectful towards Packer.  I just really despise dishonesty.  In the position that he's in a lot of people look up to him.  Many base testimonies off the things these leaders say.  His words have a huge impact.  To me it's sort of a big deal when he is fast and loose with issues like this.  If he hasn't seen Christ he shouldn't be speaking in a way that makes people think that he has.  It's a form of manipulation.  

[Mystery Meat]

I'm really not meaning to be disrespectful towards Packer.  

 Yes you are, or else you would call him President Packer.

[Mystery Meat]

I just really despise dishonesty.  

 

You don't know he is being dishonest. Furthermore, accusing him of such is very disrespectful.

[Avatar4321]

He wasn't.  Adam was.  Abel was "head of dispensation" in the same way Brigham was head of ours - he succeeded the restorer.

 

Adam. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith.

 

 

Your question answers itself - "Is Christ the head of His dispensation".  Christ restored all the keys and ordinances to the earth.  And while He was on the earth He presided.  It's His dispensation.

Peter succeeded Christ but restored nothing.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/dispensation?lang=eng&letter=d

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Dispensation

 

Except Joseph Smith taught that Abel was the head of the first dispensation.

[Avatar4321]

If heretics still deify the leaders then I can only imagine what category I fall into.  I'm really not meaning to be disrespectful towards Packer.  I just really despise dishonesty.  In the position that he's in a lot of people look up to him.  Many base testimonies off the things these leaders say.  His words have a huge impact.  To me it's sort of a big deal when he is fast and loose with issues like this.  If he hasn't seen Christ he shouldn't be speaking in a way that makes people think that he has.  It's a form of manipulation.  

 

Except you haven't proven he's dishonest. You just believe he is. That's your choice. But stop pretending your beliefs about him have any real effect on who he is.

[JLHPROF]

Except Joseph Smith taught that Abel was the head of the first dispensation.

 

You mean this?

http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/Rel327/CainAbel%20StoryI.pdf

 

Well, in order to be the head of the first dispensation when Adam was standing right there next to him presiding over him in the priesthood there would have to be a reason Adam wouldn't be considered the head.  It would be like President Eyring or President Packer being called "Head of the Church" with President Monson standing right there with them.  It doesn't make sense unless for some reason even though Adam presided he didn't have authority over the dispensation.

 

Two possible reasons:

1. Abel was only referred to as the head by the Prophet Joseph in the same way every prophet to follow Joseph Smith in our dispensation has spent some time as the on earth "head".  But since Abel died BEFORE Adam there would have to be another reason.

 

2. Adam-God doctrine.

 

Can you think of any other reasons why someone could be standing there with someone with higher authority and still be considered to preside?

[Calm]

Or Adam may have been considered presiding over all the earth throughout the dispensations and he was the one giving the keys to each head, who then resided over their own dispensation, though that doesn't really work with Christ.

I would assume Abel was thought to be head as the first born who righteously followed God, his birth and adulthood signifying the new way of life, Adam having lived a previous one in the Garden at least.

But has anyone else taught this because I believe the Church teaches now that it is Adam.

Add-on: now that I am reading the article I find that is what was claimed about Adam.

Edited April 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

Except Joseph Smith taught that Abel was the head of the first dispensation.

CFR please.

[Calm]

From the link Prof provided:

We read in Genesis 4:4, that Abel brought the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering. And, again, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead, yet speaketh." (Hebrews 11:4.) How doth he yet speak? Why he magnified the Priesthood which was conferred upon him, and died a righteous man, and therefore has become an angel of God by receiving his body from the dead, holding still the keys of his dispensation; and was sent down from heaven unto Paul to minister consoling words, and to commit unto him a knowledge of the mysteries of godliness. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], p.169)

[SamIam]

 

From the link Prof provided:

We read in Genesis 4:4, that Abel brought the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering. And, again, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead, yet speaketh." (Hebrews 11:4.) How doth he yet speak? Why he magnified the Priesthood which was conferred upon him, and died a righteous man, and therefore has become an angel of God by receiving his body from the dead, holding still the keys of his dispensation; and was sent down from heaven unto Paul to minister consoling words, and to commit unto him a knowledge of the mysteries of godliness. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], p.169)

 

Thank you. I have to admit this is a new dimension for me.  This quote by Bruce R. McConkie put's it all into perspective which completes the concept of dispensations.

 

In the providences of the Almighty, Adam stands at the head of all dispensations, he being the presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth. (Teachings, pp. 157-158.) "Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. This, then, is the nature of the priesthood; every man holding the presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from the Lord." (Teachings, pp. 167-169.) It appears that Abel, acting under the direction of his father Adam, held the keys of the first dispensation. (Teachings, p. 169.)

 

When we speak of the great gospel dispensations, we general]y have in mind those given to Adam, Enoch (Moses 6; 7), Noah (Moses , Abraham (Abra. 2:6-11; Gal. 3:6-8, 18) Moses (D. & C. 84:17-28); the apostles in the meridian of time (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18; D. & C. 27:12-13; 128:20), and to Joseph Smith and his associates, (D. & C. 112:14-32.) The keys and powers exercised by the Lord's prophets in each of these ancient dispensations have been conferred upon men in this final dispensation, for in "the fulness of times," the Lord says, "I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth." (D. & C. 27:13; Eph. 1:10.)

 

But there have also been many other gospel dispensations in the course of the Lord's dealings with his children. It is very evident that John the Baptist (Luke 7:24-30; John 1:19-37; D. & C. 84:26-28), the Jaredites (Ether 1:41-43; 3:6-16), the Nephites (1 Ne. 2:2-4), Lehi and Nephi who lived at the time of the coming of the Savior (Hela. 10:3-17; 11:19-23; 3 Ne. 7:15-19; 9:15-22; 11:7-40), and the Ten Tribes whom Christ visited after his resurrection (3 Ne. 16:1-4) all had dispensations of the gospel. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 160-164.)

 

We know that Esaias, Gad, Jeremy, Elihu, Caleb, and Jethro all lived between Abraham and Moses and all enjoyed the fulness of the blessings of the gospel. (D. & C. 84:6-13.) What peoples they ministered to and whether they had dispensations of the gospel are truths yet to be revealed. Paul speaks of having a dispensation of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25), but apparently this is only in the sense that present day apostles have received one, in that the Lord has given them revelation of his mind and will, and in that they hold the keys of the dispensation in which they live. (D. & C. 112:14-32.) 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2014 by SamIam

[Raingirl]

I've got a relative who is a pathological liar.  He won't outright lie about anything, but he exaggerates everything.  He gives incomplete information that leads to inflated conclusions.  He intentionally lets people think grand things that just aren't true.  This is about his career and such.  This sort of car-salesman-like indirect way of saying things drives me crazy.  Packer is famous for this.  He has been called out countless times for inferring that he's seen Christ.  And every time he's called out (like by a missionary at a conference), he flat out won't answer the question with a yes or no, and then usually chastises whoever asks, deflects with third person talk about sacred experiences, give a speech about how apostles don't need to see christ and that the witness they receive is even better, etc.  I basically roll my eyes whenever I hear Packer.  I just can't take him seriously.  Most of the apostles are perfectly straight forward and say No, they haven't seen Christ.  So why does Packer have to dramatize the whole thing?  Imagine if Joseph Smith had refused to give a straight answer because "it was just too sacred".  I call bullhonkey., he hasn't seen Christ, and the language he uses borders on dishonesty in my opinion.

I thought of this post today while listening to two different people give their testimony today, and while doing so, speak of the great impact President Packer's General Conference talk had on them. Their words stand in stark contrast to this obnoxious, disrespectful post.

You speak of "dishonest" language and "dramatization". Could you be projecting?

You speak of "dishonest" language. President Packer is an apostle. Like millions of other members of the church, he has made sacred covenants. Covenants he takes very seriously.

If his language was so "dishonest" and "dramatic", why is it that his message came through clearly to so many, including you who are branding him a liar?

You cannot compare his experience with that of Joseph Smith. You surely know that, as by mentioning Smith you are displaying an awareness and acknowledgement. You believe Joseph Smith's experience happened but call President Packer a liar.

Your hostile, disrespectful reaction comes not from President Packer's words (but please do share with us the proof you must have of this lie you accuse him of, for surely if you can make such a bald, declarative statement, you are in possession of absolute proof), but from within yourself.

Why does the idea that there are those who have seen Christ make you so hostile? Is there something about the idea that scares you?