Comments on: Packer: Mouthpiece of God or Prejudicial Old Man?

By: mtnnomad

mtnnomad — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:35:31 +0000

I found this post and it intrigued me..so here it goes. I think about the time in which Elder Packer has lived. Some things come to mind…Strict Asian immigration laws, Japanese internment, lynchings, segregation of African Americans…Were these things discussed in church while they occurred? These things in hindsight make me sick, I pray they would have made me sick if I had lived to experience them.

By: will

will — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In answer to your questions, yes and no. But I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Elder Packer as a prejudicial old man. He was simply falling in line with other leaders at the time.

This raises a question: Given that the counsel has never been retracted, is it still in force today?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Pres. Kimball gave several speeches saying the same thing. I do think that one has to keep in mind when the discussion was made. I don't think it applies to our current social context.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

So do you believe that in the 70's it was good advice, but it isn't now?

Do you think Elder Packer's opinions have changed?

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Your bigotry against the aged is showing again. When you were denigrating members of the Seventy, you called them “septuagenarians” as if that had something to do with the validity of their teachings. Now that you’re denigrating Elder Packer, you call him a prejudicial OLD man, as if being old were relevant.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Nah, I was just being dramatic.

Although I do think that being older might contribute to these kinds of prejudicial comments.

It's specifically that at that age people will think like that, it's that people his age often think like that.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That was supposed to be "It's NOT specifically that at that age..."

note to self:must use preview

By: Last Lemming

Last Lemming — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Pres. Kimball gave several speeches saying the same thing.

Pres. Kimball also explicitly characterized his statements on interracial marriage as "fatherly advice." Surely Packer could not have been claiming that his statements were more binding than Pres. Kimball's. So however embarrassed one might be that the statements were made by Church leaders, at least we don't have to defend them as doctrine.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I believe the interracial marriage issue has more to do with diverse cultrual differences which in the past and sometimes even now, can make a difference for some people. When someone in one culture is used to living life a certain way it can be hard to change that or adjust to a different culture. I believe this is what they meant.

For example there is NO way I could be married to someone who comes from a male domineering culture. Not only does it go against the grain, I couldn't handle that in a marriage.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The funny thing, as I see it, is that he quotes from Kimball where he's stated in the Ensign:

The "gathering of Israel" is effected when the people of the faraway countries accept the gospel and remain in their native lands. The gathering of Israel for Mexicans is in Mexico; in Scandinavia, for those of the northern countries; the gathering place for the Germans is in Germany; and the Polynesians in the islands; for the Brazilians, in Brazil; for the Argentines, in Argentina. [Ensign, May 1975, p. 4]

So does that mean that mixed marriage peoples will be in the wrong queue when the "gathering of Israel" is taking place?

"Sorry, you're obviously a Mexican and this is the caucasion gathering of Israel...maybe if you hurry you can make it back to the Mexican one before it closes..."

That's just crazy talk.