I agree that WHAT a revelator is talking about is just as important as WHOM he or she is talking to.

Lets consider the example going around the internet, rather than vague hypotheticals regarding NJ. President Packer is quoted to have said, following a brief diatribe on the Great Depression and The Book of Mormon Pride Cycle, that a major calamity is coming – he also alludes that we are in some stage of the alleged cycle now. Now he either said and/or intended this, or the quote does not accurately protray Pres. Packers intended meaning or sentiments. His office has claimed the latter by generally stating that the talks being circulated on the internet are incorrect – but fail to clarify the particulars. Now the logical question is, if a proclaimed Prophet/Seer/Revelator, sought an oppurtunity to address a congregation with this type of rhetoric clothed in calamitous scriptural parallel, how could that only apply to the Forrest Bend Ward? I acknowledge that some comments made some of the time may be congregation specific, but not this type of discourse. So, again – the matter really boils down to did Pres. Packer actually say these things, or not? And if the former is true, why all of the sudden take that back?

Good comments. Let me see if I can tackle some of your concerns. First, your summary about whether Elder Packer’s comments should be heeded or not is this:

If Pres. Packer’s comments were a prescient warning against frivolity and miss-prioritized values, which could bring about biblically proportioned calamities, then again, how could that only apply arbitrarily to a single Ward in SLC.

I agree with you, to a point. If Paul is talking about problems with the Corinthians, are we wise to learn from his comments to them? Of course, but we should not think that Paul, in speaking to the Corinthians, is speaking expressly to us. The Corinthians were obviously having problems in a certain area, Paul saw what was coming down the pike, and he warned them to clean up their act. But the specificity of the statements do not necessarily apply to us.

Now, let’s look at Elder Packer. If he speaks to a ward in New Jersey about the coming catastrophes and how the people there had better prepare, is it applicable to me in Utah? Perhaps, but perhaps not. I trust that Elder Packer’s remarks were tailored to his audience. I trust that he knew what the people there needed to hear, and he said it. I also trust that if he had been speaking in my ward during the same week, he may (or may not) have said the same thing. I don’t know; only the Spirit knows, and trust that Elder Packer follows that Spirit in his remarks. So, do the comments of Elder Packer have applicability to me? Sure–but only in the most general of ways, the same as listening to my brother’s stake president may be uplifting, encouraging, or comforting.

Now, if Elder Packer comes out to a ward in Missouri and says “the world as you know it will soon come to an end,” what does that mean? Does it have meaning beyond the borders of the people to whom he is talking? Does it have meaning for just the city? The county? The state?

The problem is, we don’t know. And that is where the issue of trust again comes in. Elder Packer’s talk went viral largely because people saw within it dire warnings for the future of our country. Yet, that wasn’t what Elder Packer said. And, one would think that if his words were to have a broader meaning, they would have been said in his General Conference talk the week before the talk in that ward. Applying words meant for a limited audience to a much wider audience is inappropriate, don’t you think?

So, the Church suggests (in your words) that the talk spreading around the Internet “does not properly reflect President Packer’s comments or intentions.” If his intentions were to apply to a smaller area–such as a ward–and people are applying them to a larger area–such as a country, isn’t the Church’s suggestion correct?

People passed around the talk so much because of the “Oh My Gosh!” factor, which is entirely inappropriate. It is intellectual (or, perhaps, spiritual) voyeurism, running after the titillating story while ignoring what really was applicable to the Saints as a whole, which was delivered the week before in Conference.

Just my two cents.

-Allen

Revelation, Domains of Authority: The argument is incomplete if we are to maintain a cohesive hierarchy, to ask “who” a Bishop can have authority to receive revelation for, if we do not also ask “what” types of revelation a bishop can receive within his ecclesiastical domain. I’ll forego the obvious analysis, but clearly a Bishop and/or an Apostle has limits to what they may say and do within their domains, independent of the Church much more broadly.

When Jesus told the Apostles in the New Testament that he had given them all authority to accomplish his works, should we infer along with most of the evangelicals that this bestowal was to be generally applied beyond the apostles? When he answered their questions about his Second Coming in Matthew 24-25, still a private discussion for a private audience, do we conclude not to take heed to the council because, “well that was a private meeting and only applied to the ancient apostles”? Of course not, we cannot assume that council which is relevant to the entire world, such as allusions to local/national/global calamities, would be relevant to President Packer’s home ward and not the rest of us. A few years ago L. Tom Perry spoke in my stake and established goals for reactivation of “low hanging fruit” in our area. Clearly he spoke to the specific needs of our stake so his comments in that instance should not be taken as council to the broader membership where activation/missionary efforts are uniquely tied to a separate set of circumstances. If Pres. Packer’s comments were a prescient warning against frivolity and miss-prioritized values, which could bring about biblically proportioned calamities, then again, how could that only apply arbitrarily to a single Ward in SLC.

The Church through President Packer’s office released a statement suggesting that the talk which has been put into circulation does not properly reflect President Packer’s comments or intentions. I guess it is up to each individual to determine what to read into this. I can’t help but notice that President Packer seems to have a track record of “having” to recant statements of his which have been “misinterpreted”. Frankly, this can only be the true area of debate. Is the talk circulated on the internet truly misquoted, or is there some reason that either President Packer, or the other General Authorities, does not want this talk part of the general Church discourse. Again, we could draw a several conclusions from here, but it is not tenable that the talk was quoted correctly but only intended for President Packers ward, unless perhaps he’s Enoch.

I then stepped it up a level. If my brother’s stake president gave guidance to my brother’s stake in Indiana, is it binding upon our stake in Utah? Of course not–the same rule applies. The spirit moved that stake president to give guidance suitable for his stake, not for others.

Move it up another level. If a general authority (say, Elder Packer) visits a ward and is moved upon by the spirit to give guidance to that ward, is the guidance binding upon my ward? No, it is not. The same principle applies–the spirit is moving the general authority to speak to a specific portion of the Lord’s flock, and the guidance is applicable to them only.

This is why the Church has a policy of not recording and disseminating information given locally by general authorities, beyond the bounds of the locality in which it was given.

As for the viral talk by Elder Packer, it may be interesting, but it is no more applicable to the Church as a whole (to which it was *not* given) than is my brother’s talk to his ward in Indiana.

-Allen

back in scripture days, weren’t all special witnesses of the lord instructed to spread the word to all creatures? didn’t king benjamin build and give a “talk” from a tower built specifically so that everyone could hear his message? back when the internet was first developed, wasn’t it said that the spirit inspired its invention so that God’s work could be spread even further? now that these instructions and prophesies have come to pass, we’re all jumpy about a talk that is verifiable and is in fact apt for our time?

so what was wrong with the talk? and why is E. Packer issuing a disclaimer?

i’ve received many “Christian” types of email forwards over the years. some are verifiable, other are not. the importance of these messages lay in the hope and love it brought to the receipient. whether given by E. Packer or some street corner preacher, doesn’t matter. the message rings true today. [getting off my soapbox now].

Interesting – the same could basically be said for nearly all of the material in the Old & New Testaments where Christ is quoted. I suppose that text should all be treated in a similar manner…