Friday, October 8, 2010

Thoughts on the Edits to Packer's Talk

I don't know if any of y'all want to know my perspective on the latest drama with the church changing some pretty key statements Packer said during Conference.

I'm just tired and overwhelmed and disappointed with some of the more faithful's responses to what he said. Now they've changed important aspects of his talk, the most significant I believe is the change regarding the Proclamation on the Family from being "revelation" to "a guide."

That's huge. Proclamations have never been regarded as mere "guides."

Not to mention the one line that took MLDSFDTS aback: "Why would Heavenly Father do that to his children?"

All gone. Like he never even said it.

All in all, this is lame. Some say it's correlation doing it's job and yay for clarifying what Packer obviously meant, but it feels like a cover up. The church isn't good at that, but they will try because their members won't look this shit up. Not supposed to. Also, their faithful members are awesome at rationalizing and can't fathom this man being wrong. Because he's got an in with god, or whatever. The most frightening part is that he's the next in line to be THE prophet. I still remember when I first began investigating, taking part in an online forum where someone believed Packer would follow Hinckley and shuddered in fear. Couldn't figure out why, I mean, if god calls him god calls him. Inspiration.


Here's a link to Mormons For Marriage where you can see all of the changes. Personally, I'm not surprised.

I will just sigh for now and move on.

If I had more time, I'd be working on my resignation letter. I wouldn't send it yet, which is starting to bother me. I want Eric to be ready, but I don't want to push him. He's not ready to tell his family about this very big step and doesn't want them to find out another way, like when they're looking at their family records or whatever. I get his hesitation, but goddammit, I'm having a really hard time staying while the leaders perform all this hurtful mindfuckery. The faithful say we're going through a time of separating the wheat from the chaff. That used to bother me. It still does a little bit, but I have to recognize that it's all a farce and they can thus go fuck themselves. I'll be a chaff if it means I don't have to associate and be associated with the wheat.

So I want to at least write the letter, but...well, I guess my reasons for procrastination are lame. I have enough time to blog but not enough to re-research out the proper way to resign without issue. I want to put my own spin on the letter, not quite like Kristen did but similar. It might be really cathartic to tell the church to fuck off, even if its only to the dude that processes the letter. Besides, he's a grown up.

You can probably expect a draft letter or two from me soon, once I get the time to get my bearings.

I hope my friend notices those changes. She could really use that tithing money. But you know, everyone can. There's really no sense in funding church buildings and temples with members' hard earned and much needed cash when the church can afford to spend billions (that's right, with a b) on malls of all things.


  1. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture, or so says Mormon lesson manuals and standard works.

    “Whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture” ( D&C 68:4 ).

    If his words had to be changed, he clearly wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost, and his words are not in any way, shape, or form, to be considered scripture. It's a clear case of him speaking as a man.

    And a clear failure by the leading apostle -- if he couldn't be in tune enough with God to speak by the spirit, why was he even speaking? And how come a man who supposedly lives in close contact with inspiration didn't notice the difference?

  2. I think it's hard for me to understand what it means in a mostly Mormon family to resign. My husband's parents are both converts to Mormonism and only them and his brothers are members, so resignation wasn't apparently a big deal to anybody.

    Obviously every single situation is different, so it might be a lot harder for some people to resign without significant family backlash. That really drives me crazy, that people would really choose to save face to a bunch of judgmental fellow members over supporting their loved ones and wanting to maintain a relationship with them.

  3. The Holy Ghost has an editor, dontcha know.

  4. It's a colossal mindfuck this whole "it's scripture/word of god except when it's not" stuff.

    Carla: We don't worry, so much, about backlash as much as we worry about hurting family members who put SO MUCH STOCK into this. I don't think Eric's ready to tell his father about this step. I'm just done and figure they'll get over it. I love them and everything, but I feel so slimy staying in for anyone's benefit but my own. Gotta live with myself first.

    But you know, his family, not mine. His lifetime to my 10 years. It was his community before it was mine. That sort of thing. I don't want to push too much.

    CD: He's a shitty editor. You'd think he'd just tell the man what to say as he's saying it instead of letting him go off the cuff like that. Especially with his history.

    Maybe Packer is one of them "maverick" apostles and the church figures, hell. he can't even stand up these days, may as well wait it out.

  5. "There's really no sense in funding church buildings and temples with members' hard earned and much needed cash when the church can afford to spend billions (that's right, with a b) on malls of all things."

    As an ex-Catholic, I can empathize. I've never understood why the Catholic church is always hitting up the laity for cash while it lavishes fine clothing and living quarters on the Magisterium.

  6. I was reading the thread at fmh about this topic and was honestly surprised to see so many people happy about these changes.

    I mean, you could take it to mean that the church doesn't agree with Packer's statements and wants them removed from the record. On the other hand, you could take it to mean that the church wants to cover its ass but not actually change any policy or doctrine.

    I suppose I am cynical but I'm inclined to find the latter more likely.

  7. Ahab: You know, I get the idea of asking for tithing as a matter of faith...wait. No I don't.

    As a matter of asking members to help the poor and needy? Yes, for sure.

    But to build temples and buildings and whatever? Not when they can afford all this other crap. I know it's a matter of stability and self-sufficiency, but good grief. BILLIONS.

    It *doesn't* make sense. I hadn't even considered the Catholic church and their similar practices.

    Diana: It drives me nuts how many people are happy about this, rationalizing it. Especially the weirdos who are all "It clarifies what he obviously meant."

    oh! so glad y'all can read his mind.


    I think it could be both of your guesses. Either or, the editing is still quiet and covert and assumes its members are dumb. Which, apparently, some of them are. But I don't blame them. "Dumb" is the wrong word here. Sufficiently trained to always believe only the best about their leaders? yes.

    Reading it again, I think I'm with you though. The church has become one gigantic PR department. They say they don't and won't change, but they said the same thing before that "revelation" on blacks and the priesthood.

    Stubborn assholes.