Boyd Packer criticized

I have to admit, Boyd was committed. He spent 45 years as an apostle of the LDS Church, and don't think that the majority of the other 45 weren't spent serving the Church. He fought hard for the absurd. He probably even believed it.

Unfortunately for Boyd and his family, what he will be remembered for is all the bullshit he said. No, I'm not talking about all the times he bore his testimony of Jesus as the Savior or Satan as the Enemy, but we should careful not to give too much credit to that drivel either. What I'm talking about are his tirades against masturbation, homosexuality, feminism, objective history and intellectual pursuits.

The man wanted to suppress sexuality, women, historical facts and knowledge of the real world. What kind of deranged man claims to stand for truth and then discourages anyone from making  hard, honest inquiries into the motivations behind human behavior, ways to advance social justice, gaining a clearer understanding of our past, and trying to better understand how the world works in general?

He was a very loud Mormon voice on the wrong side of just about everything, and neither memory or history is kind to voices like that.

I believe the world is a slightly better place without Boyd K. Packer. I know that's not an especially kind thing to say. I know his family will miss him dearly. But while the vast majority of the world's population won't even realize he's gone, a whole lot of us - believers and non - will be crossing our fingers that the apostle who takes his place will not be so arrogant and dogmatic as Boyd was.

Teenaged and doubting?

The LDS Church has recently released an article for the doubting youth of the Church. It's a beautiful piece reminding kids that if they don't reach the conclusion that the Church is true, then they've been lazy and illogical.

P.S. The annotated version might also be of value.

Losing the Lamanites

Back in the day Joseph Smith regularly spoke with Nephite angels and had no trouble at all locating their evil kin, the Lamanites. They were all over the place and they were commonly referred to as Indians. Joseph knew exactly where the Lamanites overtook the Nephites in a great final battle, he found the remains of a Lamanite warrior named Zelph (as revealed to him by God) once, and he even took direction (from God) to send missionaries to western Missouri to convert the Lamanites residing there.

We knew exactly who the Lamanites were and it wasn't uncommon growing up to hear someone say to a young man with a mission call to Central or South America "Oh wonderful! You'll get to teach those wonderful people about their own family history!"

Today the Church isn't nearly as certain about who's a Lamanite. In fact, the Church now openly admits that it cannot find any Lamanites at all. But don't worry! Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence! (The existing evidence, however, does discredit the notion of Nephites and Lamanites ever physically existing.) So believe on, dear brothers and sisters! Everything has been explained sufficiently for our needs, and, on the plus side, the Church's statement indicates that it has finally officially accepted human evolution as legitimate, truthful science!

Or you can read why Simon Southerton thinks we should doubt on.

I don't know that we deny that

When, in the years following the King Follet Discourse, has eternal progression not been a central tenant of Mormonism, besides when Hinckley said it wasn't (or might not be) back in 1997? I know, I know, this topic has been run into the ground, but, hey, it's a classic moment of doubting a prophet and Mormon doctrine. I think everyone was taken aback when they read the interview.

I think it's a wonderful example of Hassan's distinction between insider and outsider doctrines. No casting pearls before swine. No milk before meat. No freaking out Christian America before getting them to respect our beliefs a bit.

Isn't that a little dishonest? Isn't it a little disconcerting to be lead by men who are okay with deception and denial? How do we feel about justifying that behavior for the sake of maintaining faith in those leaders?