One benefit from expressing my critique has been to have all of my friends responding as to what they personally took away from the talk. My criticisms are against the talk that I heard; it appears that few people heard the same talk that I did, which is a good thing, I think we’ll admit (and indicates that perhaps I needed to listen closer). And I certainly should have focused more on what I personally took away from the talk (it’s a bitter opinion that is based only on negatives): I need to do better in my responsibilities. There are indeed responsibilities that I have that are mine alone; whether or not that solitude is “correct” or “eternal” or not is irrelevant to the fact that here and now there are responsibilities that I hold as a father, husband, and member of the Church that need to be lived up to. I have many disagreements with the Church’s current patriarchal structure, but I also understand that our life on earth prevents our full view of God’s plan. “For now we are seeing through a mirror in obscurance, but then face to face; now I know by a part, but then I will know fully even as I was fully known.” (I’m still not comfortable cleaning up my translations; I know that sounded ugly.) It’s true that I could be plain wrong, and I need to always keep that in mind. I know that for some the ability to equally respect people is perfectly compatible with a patriarchal and gender-organized structure, but for myself that compatibility is difficult and I hope that someday we’ll move beyond it if only for my own mental benefit. I know that the body of Christ is composed of different members, each important in their own right and each differing from the others, but I’m not sure that requires a structure as we have it today (or especially as it used to be a half-century ago). I’m not saying that our current structure is unscriptural or unsupported; I just believe that there are better options and I personally see the Church culture moving slowly in that direction. At times I get upset that it doesn’t seem to move faster, but that’s probably for the benefit of all of the members (myself included). Still, the Church is a big tent, large enough to hold all of us.

Thanks for your honest thoughts and observations on it all. I need to be more charitable in all that I say. It’s true that I’ve disagreed with many of President Packer’s strong opinions and positions before and that has probably flavored how I approach his sermon this year; that’s certainly not a good thing and I need to work on how to love him more as one of my Priesthood leaders. I suppose it’s not expected that everyone is supposed to get along but in the Zion society that we’re all striving for we need to love each other. I’m not there yet, but I’m working on it.

Our family is doing well. Hope things are going okay for you guys. I heard that your daughter broke her foot recently: I hope she is recovering nicely. We’ll keep you in our prayers. It’s great to hear from you; I know you’re busy so it means a lot to me that you’d take the time to share. Hope being a prof is fun; I envy your position, except I’d never be able to do it. I’m still a baby when it comes to my Greek–never mind Coptic, Hebrew, and all the rest that you know. I wish I had access to those as-primary-as-possible (is there a word for that?) sources, but I should be content that I am a computer programmer (O that I were a classicist!). I guess the grass is always greener, eh? Still, life is good over here and my family is doing well. Echo is an amazing little person (strange how I knew that would happen but still never really expected it) and we have a lot of fun.

Well, I’ve typed a lot, so it’s time to stop my ramblings. Take care Avram. Thanks.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of President Packer’s talk, and to a more limited degree to your assessment of President Beck’s talk. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to think and consider what our leaders say, and I also think that is just as acceptable to engage in dialogue in the other direction. You, appropriately, made some observations based on your perspective and understanding. Below I offer something of a defense of President Packer, based on my own perspective and understanding. I think we are friends enough to allow the other his opinion, but I felt inspired by your notes to address a few points.

First, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never made, in any dispensation, any claims toward egalitarianism, nor do I think they ought to. Neither do I believe that every talk needs to have some kind of universal appeal across the entire Church (nor even do necessarily the scriptures require that kind of universal applicability). Talks and sermons are given to address specific needs at specific times. This is the whole point of continuing revelation. Unlike our Protestant friends we in the Church of Jesus Christ do not find it necessary to establish a sort of universal hermeneutic of applicability to inspired statements, although we are free to “liken” any such statments to ourselves, as Nephi of old. Thora brought up the regular talks on Pornography, which are, hopefully limited in target audience and application.

Additionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to do good in this world whether it continues to grow or not or whether its leaders, under the direction of revelation from Jesus Christ, choose to address those issues which “one would expect” they ought to address. I find it helpful to remember the warning of Isaiah that God’s thoughts and ways are not the same as our thoughts and ways. The good which the Church does is not dependent on growth, except insofar as it continues in its primary work, which is helping the children of God find salvation through Jesus Christ.

As for your specific concerns, I believe that Brother Packer accurately represented a number of important facts in relation to the Priesthood. The first is the priesthood does in fact confer with it a certain authority. This is made apparent by Doctrine and Covenants 107:8, 18-20; 84:21 and even 121:37. Of course, Priesthood functions differently in the family and in the home, as made clear by Elder Oaks talk on “Priesthood Authority in the Family and in the Church,” given in October Conference, 2005. Brother Oaks addressed many of the same issues that Brother Packer does, including presiding. President Packer’s statement (as quoted by you): “The father presides at the table, in family prayer, and in general instruction to the family. When he is present, he is presiding,” does represent some call to unrighteous dominion, but is instead a statement of fact.

Presiding does not confer some sort of special control over circumstances–it merely makes the presider responsible. An example of this may be seen from presiding in a Church meeting. When a member of a Stake Presidency visits a ward’s Sacrament Meeting, he presides over that meeting. He does not run the meeting, he does not change the program, in fact usually all he does is sit on the stand–yet he is still presiding. His office means that in Church functions: “When he is present, he is presiding.” Because of the virtue of his office he is unable to not preside. He cannot tell the Bishop, it is okay, you preside today, any more than the Bishop can say that to the Elder’s Quorum President. In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, we read: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” Thus, President Packer’s observation that the father is to preside is merely restating what was already well established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There are difficult circumstances, as in the case of single parent families, but the ability of the mother to preside in absence of the father should not be construed to imply that fathers do not preside, any more than the ability of a Bishop’s First Counselor to preside in the Bishop’s absence be construed to mean that the Bishop does not preside. It is important, I think, to remember that presiding authority does not necessarily equal unrigteous dominion, or else Doctrine and Covenants 121 would be unnecessary. I do believe, from my readings in the scriptures and modern revelation, that fathers do preside in the home. I do not believe that this gives some sort of undue power over my wife–whom you have met, and who is a fiercely independent woman. Yet we both agree that the roles of men and women described in the Family Proclamation derive from divine design.

Addressing another of your points, the scriptures are, I believe amply clear that in the ideal world Priesthood office and authority do in fact descend lineally from father to son, “else the whole earth be utterly wasted.” Your problem with President Packer’s illustration is not logically sound–you counter his story with a hypothetical “for all we know it could have ended just as easily that the young man felt that his reasons for not choosing his father were seen as pointless and, upon feeling that his input was completely ignored, descended into apathy in regards to his place within the Church.” This is not what happened, and so creates a negative situation, where there was none. You believe, as I do, that as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Brother Packer has access to the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord. I would like to suggest, just as hypothetically, that President Packer would not have been led to do as he had done if the young man’s reaction would have been as you suggest. Further, I disagree with the moral drawn from it. I do believe that “the decision was forced from love” and as the actual story (and not our theoreticals) bears out, President Packer’s action in fact led to an increased measure of love and understanding between the father and the son, suggesting to me that his action was in fact the correct action under the circumstances. Besides, is there anything wrong with respect for authority, merely because it is authority? One of my favourite quotes from Professor Tolkien addresses this point: “Tipping your hat the squire may be bad for the squire, but it is good for you.”

In sum, while President Packer’s talk may have been “limiting in its aspect, target audience, and application” as part of its target audience, I found myself edified and more dedicated to fulfilling my responsibilities, including offering an increased measure of love and support to my lovely wife and children. Remembering that I do not believe that individual talks need to address the needs of the entire membership of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I found President Packer’s talk informative and inspiring, as I did also with Sister Beck’s, although I was, in fact, outside of its stated intended audience. It may have, therefore, been more universally applicable, but I see that as a virtue in that talk, not a defect in Brother Packer’s.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments on this years Conference, Tom. As you say, there was a lot of great stuff for us to think about and apply to our lives.

I hope you and your family are well. I remain,

Your Loving Friend,

Avram R. Shannon

If need to search for the file see if locate has indexed the file:

locate uninstall.sh;

If it hasn’t indexed it and/or you can’t find it that way, try using find. This will probably take a while, but it’ll find it:

find / -iname 'uninstall.sh';

Once you’ve found it execute it and it should remove the NetBeans installations (make SURE that it is within the NetBeans installation folder when you find it – you don’t want to delete something else!)