sunstoned wrote:Apples and Oranges. Commentary on office workers is only an opinion, not a fact.
Bear in mind that virtually anything and everything Mr. Packer ever said was nothing but an opinion and mere conjecture of his make believe religion.
sunstoned wrote:Apples and Oranges. Commentary on office workers is only an opinion, not a fact.
cinepro wrote:Here's the quote:"I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."
If it is the truth, then the problem would be actually saying that in public (or to those women). But he didn't. He expressed something that is true, but not nice, in private to make a point. What is wrong with that?
cinepro wrote:"I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."
Now, on what grounds could someone object to what he says?
You could argue that "most of the secretaries" in the COB at that time weren't actually ugly and fat, and therefore Packer was lying. I haven't heard anyone make that argument, so let me know if that's your argument.
If it is the truth, then the problem would be actually saying that in public (or to those women). But he didn't. He expressed something that is true, but not nice, in private to make a point. What is wrong with that?
His point was that the reason he doesn't say it is because he knows it is hurtful. He knows that the compassionate thing to do is not say it to them, or in public. And he doesn't. That is a good thing.
And furthermore, when people hear it and get upset when they hear that he said it, they're just proving his point about how some things shouldn't be said because they might upset some people.
The only way to prove him "wrong" would be to read what he says and rationally and calmly respond by acknowledging that it is probably the truth, and that your respect for the truth is greater than your desire to be "nice." Which is what Packer was arguing against. But no one has done that yet.
The rational response (and an awesome comeback for Quinn) would be to say "With all due respect, Elder Packer, if someone started a Church based on the claim that all the secretaries in the Church Office Building were pretty, then as a historian it would be my job to let people know if that it wasn't the case."
"I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."