Will Boyd K. Packer ever be the President of the church? - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SoonerCoug · 06-25-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Is there a reason why relatives of apostles are in a habit of circulating rough drafts of prophetic discourses?

P.S. While we're at it, does someone have a transcript of SoonerCoug's ecclesiastical confessionals?

It's not a rough draft. He actually gave the talk including the evolution comments, after which the subsequent print versions were changed. (The original print version included the evolution/humanism statement.)

SoonerCoug · 06-25-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I am confused, are you saying it was in an original version but changed before the talk was uttered? I strongly believe if it was actually uttered I would have heard about it before this.

The original ensign publication included the evolution/humanism statement.

jay santos · 06-25-2007, 06:16 PM

"The talk" for me comprised of a vague reference to the evils of masturbation and my dad giving me a copy of Elder Packer's "To the One" talk, which I later found out was about homosexuality. I wonder if my dad thought there was something wrong with me?

Anyway, just trying to get the group back on topic, since it didn't look like masturbation was going to get worked in this thread.

Tex · 06-25-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

He taught my Book of Mormon class at BYU. The AIDS story with Nelson was a major news story, including the retraction and apology. I don't understand why you're skeptical about this. It's a well established fact, and these events are not infrequently mentioned by professors during classes at BYU.

I'd simply like to see the quotes for myself, so I can make my own judgment on it. If it was a major news story, surely you can find a reference for me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I confused the Pride and the Book of Mormon talk. Compare the text on LDS.org to the original talk as given by President Benson.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...____&hideNav=1

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. Our missionaries are not as effective unless they are "hissing forth" with it. Social, ethical, cultural, or educational converts will not survive under the heat of the day unless their taproots go down to the fulness of the gospel which the Book of Mormon contains. Our Church classes are not as spirit-filled unless we hold it up as a standard. And our nation will continue to degenerate unless we read and heed the words of the God of this land, Jesus Christ, and quit building up and upholding the secret combinations which the Book of Mormon tells us proved the downfall of both previous American civilizations."

Organic evolution and humanism were removed, on purpose. It's no secret.

Again, if it's no secret, surely you can find a reference for me?

SoonerCoug · 06-25-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Ok, just making sure your source was as reliable as I thought it might be. (Yes, that's a tad of sarcasm there.)

Is Oaks' son your source on the Nelson AIDS allegation as well?

OK, Tex. I've already come to terms with the fact that you're not in touch with reality, and that you seem to be deeply skeptical of established facts. You can doubt me all you want.

I love the Church. I sustain the prophets. And I believe in being in touch with the truth. I think changes made to talks after the original printing gives us great insight into the workings of our Church leaders, who I believe to be good people who are inspired and trying to do their best.

Tex · 06-25-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

OK, Tex. I've already come to terms with the fact that you're not in touch with reality, and that you seem to be deeply skeptical of established facts. You can doubt me all you want.

I love the Church. I sustain the prophets. And I believe in being in touch with the truth. I think changes made to talks after the original printing gives us great insight into the workings of our Church leaders, who I believe to be good people who are inspired and trying to do their best.

I don't think I've doubted your "established facts" just yet, neither have I challenged your faith or testimony. I've just challenged your sources. When you make a claim, you need to be prepared to substantiate it ... not just appeal to the "everyone knows this" fallacy.

Again, if this is "no secret" than please point me to where I can read it for myself.

SoonerCoug · 06-25-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think I've doubted your "established facts" just yet, neither have I challenged your faith or testimony. I've just challenged your sources. When you make a claim, you need to be prepared to substantiate it ... not just appeal to the "everyone knows this" fallacy.

Again, if this is "no secret" than please point me to where I can read it for myself.

Here's a 1975 version with the evolution statement still present:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...____&hideNav=1

Indy Coug · 06-25-2007, 06:47 PM

I don't think it's that controversial to say that there are falsehoods in all of those things. At least, it shouldn't be.

Jeff Lebowski · 06-25-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think it's that controversial to say that there are falsehoods in all of those things. At least, it shouldn't be.

Interestingly, the church leaders felt otherwise.

BYU71 · 06-25-2007, 07:06 PM

that you are told that just don't ring true. Some ring very true and some you are not so sure of. Except for the don't ring true ones I either step in line or admit I am doing something I shouldn't be doing.

Some things in the past that just didn't ring true were drinking coca cola was a sin and the Catholic church being the great and abominable church.

A good and faithful priesthood holder has to show up in a white shirt to church is one of those that doesn't ring true with me right now.

06-25-2007, 07:06 PM	#30
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	Don't you just feel there are some things that you are told that just don't ring true. Some ring very true and some you are not so sure of. Except for the don't ring true ones I either step in line or admit I am doing something I shouldn't be doing. Some things in the past that just didn't ring true were drinking coca cola was a sin and the Catholic church being the great and abominable church. A good and faithful priesthood holder has to show up in a white shirt to church is one of those that doesn't ring true with me right now.

06-25-2007, 06:16 PM	#23
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	"The talk" for me comprised of a vague reference to the evils of masturbation and my dad giving me a copy of Elder Packer's "To the One" talk, which I later found out was about homosexuality. I wonder if my dad thought there was something wrong with me? Anyway, just trying to get the group back on topic, since it didn't look like masturbation was going to get worked in this thread.

06-25-2007, 06:47 PM	#28
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	I don't think it's that controversial to say that there are falsehoods in all of those things. At least, it shouldn't be.