Talk:Boyd K. Packer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV in Controversy Section[edit]

This section should be deleted:

Despite Packer saying "I am not recommending that course," Packer's comments constitute an endorsement of gay bashing, and the church itself endorses such behavior by continuing to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form.[15][16]

Because these claims are assumptions, they must be attributed to a person as an opinion. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it to it's original state, where the claims were attributed to specific critics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still represents a bias, and should be put in context. Something like, "Some people view this as an endorsement by the church as they continue to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." Ejnogarb (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it still represents bias. It says, "some critics have argued that Packer's comments constitute an endorsement of gay bashing, and that the church itself endorses such behavior by continuing to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." That statement is followed by two citations to the "critics" who have made these claims—Quinn and Hardy. I don't see how this is any different than saying, "Some people view this as an endorsement by the church [of gay bashing] as they continue to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." The two phrases mean virtually the identical thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because someone changed it recently. The text used to read (see 5 paragraphs up), but now it seems acceptable. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I changed it back to the original state, as I said above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Packer's views have been recently confirmed in a sermon he gave in April 2009. This is published on the official LDS website. They are highly relevant as they indicate this stance has not altered over time. It is a matter of fact that he said what he did. Why does somebody have a problem with this? You are deleting accurate factual information. Is this because it is "true but not useful"? You demonstarte bias by removing this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.22.62 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the disputed paragraph is that no reference is given for the statement that some (who are these "some"?) see his 2009 conference address as "being mysogynostic [sic] and demonstrating his continued endorsement of his controversial views on sexual restrictions." Citing just the conference address is insufficient and fails original synthesis, as the statement that the address is controversial is conjectural interpretation of that source. We can say that Packer said such and such, but in order to say that such comments are controversial in this manner requires a reliable source. At least that's why I've removed the paragraph, and I would imagine the other editors were similarly motivated. I'm sure they'll chime in if I've missed anything. Also, since this is a living person, policy is to remove unsourced, contentious material (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources). --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a good summary of the reason I also removed the paragraphs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WikiPedia. Home to all that is timid. Are we really supposed to pretend that there's no "controversy" over Packer's statement, just because nobody has posted it to their Blog yet? This is what's so infuriating about WikiPedia these days, and why it's become next to useless. You can find ten thousand words on fictional Light Sabre techniques, but if one of the leaders of a major American religion says something stupid and homophobic on national television, WikiPedia pretends that it couldn't possibly have caused any "controversy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame Wikipedia for the Biographies_of_living_persons rules, they only exist because Wikipedia was tired of getting sued (that article's out of date). Blame the people who sued the Foundation. Banaticus (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some things that are true are not very useful"[edit]

I am thinking that this statement attributed to Packer should be included in the 'controversy' section, but I am willing to insert it into another part of the article if other editors believe it would be a better fit elsewhere. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the quote was gutted the way it was ... 'undue weight' issues seem to be a matter of opinion. My belief is that Packer's quotes should include the following:

"That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs"!

that is the gist of Packer's message to these teachers, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently some editors are above discussing this important change here (like we are supposed to do); taking out that section is simply ignoring the entire purpose of this speech. I am adding it back until some consensus is reached, either here or at a broader WP forum. Please leave it in until we come to an agreement about this, one way or the other. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be direct - there is only you and I. I think the quote is too much, you think more is better. There is no concensus, just you adding it and me removing it. I'll leave it in for a while to see if anyone else chimes in, but I plan to still remove it if there is none, since there is no concensus either way. --Trödel 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) PS - I see you still will accuse me of not explaining changes, when your comments here clearly illustrate that you read my explanation in the edit summaries and responded to them above.[reply]
Terse edit summaries are no replacement for a discussion on an article's talk page (but you already knew that). I followed the proper procedure and asked for discussion here before I added it. (No responses were supplied) If you remove it again I will ask for help from other WP editors in reading the cited source and determining how important the entire quote is; as far as I am concerned you have gutted the main gist of Packer's speech (and the intent of his speech) when you delete that large part of the quote. I don't see how you feel that it is your right to delete it solely on your opinion. The 'undue weight' excuse is not enough; I cited proper sources for what I added; if you want a differing opinion in addition to that, find some sourced material. Duke53 | Talk 04:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no wonder that I avoid discussion with you, they are always contentious.
  1. You proposed including a specific quote,
  2. I didn't object - any comment I could make would probably start some kind of argument. I think - its a short quote, I can find references, no reason to respond and get into some kind of argument.
  3. You inserted a much larger quote with POV commentary
  4. Without pointing out the improper wikiformatting or the fact that you inserted much more than you proposed on the talk page, I fix, summarize, and tighten the language
  5. I include an explanation for the removal in my edit summary,
  6. You responded here and, true to all my interactions with you, begin the attacks,
I've found several news articles that refer to this quote that could be used as references, NONE identify the extended quote. Perhaps you could do the research for a secondary source for what you want to include, then I might be persuaded. --Trödel 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'second most senior apostle among the ranks of the church' urges church teachers to lie and you feel that including this info is not relevant? It is incredible to me that you take this stance. No matter how many strawmen you build and include here, the info is relevant. Unless consensus is reached to delete it (not a couple comments from a couple people) it will be included in this article. I sourced the material I added; it is not your right to delete things you don't agree with; if you feel that it is POV, then find sources with a differing POV to attain NPOV. I don't feel that what I added is POV, and it is not my job to research items to support your belief. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I am ignoring your 'argument' allegations on the grounds that they are simply ludicrous ... try a different tactic, please.
I agree that it would be a more interesting controversy if that were the case, unfortunately for you Packer was a junior apostle at the time and gave this talk 30 years ago. Finally, you still have not added any secondary source support for the claim that this is notable. You still have not provided any secondary source material in support of the quote. Thus it remains an attempt to put your view into the article with a quote from the original source material - the very definition of OR. --Trödel 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know how much of the quote to include if we had a reliable source that discusses the "controversy" surrounding the speech, but right now we don't have that. But anyway, I was a little bit familiar with the speech, but the only part I had ever heard discussed as being controversial was the part Trodel is leaving in. The other part could be seen as controversial, but it's not part of the speech I ever hear quoted. Not having a source to demonstrate otherwise, I would say from my point of view the part Trodel is including is the important part of the speech and is probably the only part that needs to be included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment here addressed whether my post should be included in the 'controversy' section or elsewhere in the article: "I am thinking that this statement attributed to Packer should be included in the 'controversy' section, but I am willing to insert it into another part of the article if other editors believe it would be a better fit elsewhere. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)". No responses so I just stuck it there. Duke53 | Talk 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem it being there. I think it's only a notable quote because it's been criticised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's only a notable quote because it's been criticised [sic]...". Wow. I think it's a notable quote because in it one of the top leaders of the lds church was encouraging church teachers to lie. Duke53 | Talk 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see how that view is "original research" - i.e. you are trying to insert something in an article not because it is independently notable but because you find it notable for a specific reason. Additionally, your interpretation of Packer's comments isn't the only interpretation, that is why we should stick to secondary sources that provide that interpretation and not the interpretation of the editors here. --Trödel 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't really care what I or any other WP editor thinks about the quote. What I care about is what reliable sources have said about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree partly with Trödel and Good Ol’factory. I'd go the more extreme and remove the quote entirely per WP:BLP until a reliable source is provided that calls the quote controversial or notable. Otherwise, it's our own opinion that the quote is controversial or notable, and conjectural interpretation of a source. The reliable source would then determine which parts of the quote to use. So, I'd say, per WP:BLP, remove the quote entirely to the talk page where the final form can be discussed, and once a consensus is reached the quote and secondary source can be put back. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two separate questions: (1) is Packer's overall point notable, well documented, and discussed by at least one reliable source that portrays it as controversial?, and (2) how much of Packer's speech needs to be quoted to fairly convey the point of the controversy? Clearly, the answer to #1 is yes. The answer to #2 is debatable. It is possible to quote more than has been specifically discussed by other sources, if having an expanded quote would add something, such as context or further explanation. In any event, I think some of the criticism of Packer's speech (e.g., D. Michael Quinn's 1981 speech to Phi Alpha Theta, later republished) were about Packer's entire speech, not just about one or two quoted passages. Quinn's speech critical of Packer's speech may be found here, and in D. Michael Quinn (1992) "On Being a Mormon Historian (and It's Aftermath), in Faithful History, George D. Smith, ed., Salt Lake City: Signature Books. He quotes different parts of Packer's speech than those currently cited in the article, but his discussion is generally about the speech as a whole. COGDEN 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same stuff, new context[edit]

So now some of the same quotes have been included in a new section called "Some of Packer's teachings". Now there is no mention of "controversy", but there are still no secondary sources referred to. Shouldn't we still have some reliable sources that discuss these teachings in particular, rather than just WP editors selecting what to include from the many primary sources that include Packer's teachings? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming very obvious that certain editors do not want this included in the article ... they are running through the menu of excuses for not including it. Now we have a secondary source (that discusses these teachings in particular); it was simply copied & pasted to avoid the dreaded 'original research' attack. Duke53 | Talk 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time is now here to have editors WP-wide discuss and decide whether this section should be included in the packer article. I am not sure how to go about doing that, so if an admin would assist me here I would be most appreciative. Duke53 | Talk 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of misinterpreting the actions of other users and assuming what we do and do not want—why don't you just focus on the concerns specific expressed? Many editors have a hard time believing that not every action of another editor is part of either a pro- or anti-Mormon conspiracy. I have no problem with the speech being referred to, as long as it's being referred to by a reliable source. But there is no excuse for adding a word-for-word copying of text and not indicating by quotes or indenting or otherwise that the material was a quote, as you did previously. If you need to brush up on how to format quotes, then do so, but don't jump to a conspiratorial conclusion if it's done improperly and gets removed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" ... but don't jump to a conspiratorial conclusion if it's done improperly and gets removed." So, the best way to improve an article is to simply remove sections, rather than help by re-formatting them ? Interesting concept ... one I will have to remember to use. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was necessarily the best way, though you may wish to refer to WP:COPYVIO. Some of us only have so much time and can't always do what would be "best" in every situation. For instance, it would probably be "best" if administrators could research and re-write every page that is 100% copyright violation rather than just deleting it, but that's not what we do because it is takes more time. In this case removing it was better than have it standing as a cut and paste copy, though, so I did improve the situation in the limited time I had. (Anyway, I had little doubt that you would format it properly and re-add it, as I suggested in my edit summary, since you seem to have been monitoring the page over the past few days.) It would be "best" if I could spend all day on WP, but of course I can't. But if you don't assume good faith, you're liable to misinterpret a lot of what other users do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current attempt is entirely the wrong approach. Like any good biographical article, there ought to be a Teachings or Positions section that outlines his most notable (as measured by the amount of secondary discussion or criticism) teachings or positions on various subjects. One of those positions should be his views on "faithful history", which should include both quotes from his speeches (not just the 1981 speech to CES), as well as critical commentary by Quinn and others. Another one of his positions should be his well-documented views on homosexuality, as well as critical discussion, again, by Quinn and others. The "arts" section can be inserted into this section as well. I don't think we even need to really say that Packer's views are "controversial", because that will be obvious given the context. COGDEN 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" ... there ought to be a Teachings or Positions section ...." Have at it ... I just recently discovered the part that I added but I will also add others as I learn of them. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Wasn't Packer also the leader who delivered the speech to missionaries about the 'evils' of masturbation ? It would seem like that should be included in sections like that which you describe. Duke53 | Talk 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just organized everything in the framework I think the article ought to follow. I didn't really change anything, just organized it in a way that there is a natural framework for discussion of his controversial (and notable non-controversial, as well) positions. COGDEN 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

I just added the OR notice to this section. I still see no secondary sources, but only a synthesis of the information by Wikipedia editors along with references to the source material which is the very definition of Original Research. I'm sure that there are some secondary sources that could be quoted, as I've said from the beginning, and with COgden verifying that there are such sources (as opposed to Duke53's unreliable profers), I am just putting the notice on until addiitonal secondary sources are added to the article. --Trödel 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The erroneous link in the following contrib has been struck thru.See my comment below. --Jerzy•t --Jerzy•t 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•"... as opposed to Duke53's unreliable profers." I offered a good, reliable secondary source (John Krakauer) which now has disappeared 'somehow'. Nice job of keeping up with the personal attacks, BTW. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the compliment - you make it fun - Sorry I missed the reliable source --Trödel 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    John Krakauer does not write in a relevant area. Jon Krakauer (mentioned further down this talk page) does.
--Jerzy•t 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of a large number of secondary sources does not constitute original research, so long as the text does not make any controversial interpretations about the existing sources. As far as I can tell, the text follows the sources pretty closely. Do you have any specific examples of an improper extrapolation based on a source? There is a footnote that says that Packer's reference to "milk before meat" was apparently a reference to 1 Cor. 3:2, but I think that's pretty obvious and not at all controversial. COGDEN 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading an old version of the text I had opened up and didn't notice your changes after I clicked edit and added the OR tag - I will remove. --Trödel 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the section as it stands now also looks fine from an OR perspective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Duke53's comment above, I was the one that removed the Jon Krakauer citation. We can still use Krakauer, but I couldn't see how to use his quoted commentary in the present text. In any event, I think Quinn is probably the most important source criticizing Packer on this point. I'll see if I can find some other good ones. COGDEN 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew where the citation went, but apparently that other editor can 'pretend' that no reliable source was supplied, if he maintains that he didn't see it. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the One[edit]

The reference to the talk "To the One" given in the References section (http://www.lds-mormon.com/tto.shtml) seems to contain broken links to the images that are supposed to be the pages of the talk. Does anyone know if this site is still operational or if there is another location where the text/image of the talk can be found? Gandalf (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it would be available on line, but I do have a hard copy that was published by the LDS Church in small pamphlet form in 1979. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just from looking around, I can only find the text of the speech on a few blogs, such as at this one, where "To Young Men Only" and "To the One" are reproduced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the document is on the lds.org website, it is likely that any online version would be a copyright violation so we cannot link to it. 72Dino (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It was removed from lds.org a number of years ago. The text is published in Packer's book That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982) on pp 186–200, so that's probably the best place to cite it to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boyd K. Packer.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Boyd K. Packer.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd K. Packer's military rank[edit]

It is stated in the article that Boyd K. Packer was a pilot in the Army Air Force. In the right sidebar it shows his rank as Senior Airman, with an image of the current U.S. Air Force rank of Senior Airman. This is incorrect because the rank of Senior Airman is an enlisted grade of the Air Force, and not the grade of a military pilot. Boyd was probably a Lieutenant, Captain, or Major when he was a pilot. The rank listed in the article, along with the symbol of that rank should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the rank entry from the infobox until his rank is concretely ascertained from a reliable source.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Packer's official biography on LDS.org just refers to him as a pilot without making mention of a rank. And the 2012 Church Almanac is even less informative than that. I don't know exactly where we'd find that information. But I'll look around and see what I can find. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Dedications[edit]

As Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Packer dedicated the Regina Saskatchewan Temple. As President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he dedicated the Brigham City Utah Temple. I feel this information is pertinent enough to add, but the question is, where should it be added? Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it makes much difference, as it is noted under his service in the Quorum of the Twelve. There is not much value added in distinguishing between dedicating a temple as Acting President versus President of the Twelve. It is of course unique that he did this not as a member of the First Presidency, and that is highlighted in the current article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that this information was already included in the article. Looked it over, and what is there satisfies me perfectly. Thanks, and sorry I didn't notice that before. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed while rereading this article that the mention of Packer's participation in temples was not chronological. So I turned that information into its own section and made it chronological. I would be fine if it was to be edited to be worded better. I just don't want to see this section eliminated without discussion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church Presidents: Appointed vs. Ordained.[edit]

Recently, in connection with Packer's call to the twelve, in referring to the new Church President, the word "ordained" replaced the word "appointed" because one editor felt it would violate WP:NPOV to imply that a Church President was appointed by God. My take on this issue: As an active member of the LDS Church, I believe that prophets truly are appointed by God. However, for WP purposes, the word "appointed" would still be accurate, as all Church Presidents since Brigham Young have been appointed by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. So I feel it would be beneficial to employ both terms. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm LDS too, but what we personally believe is irrelevant here (and on Wikipedia in general). The word "appointed" is never used in any reliable sources on the subject of new Church presidents that I've ever read. "Ordained" is a religious word that translates very well across both an LDS and non-LDS spectrum in terms of its connotations being fairly similar to readers from both groups, unlike terms like "set apart", which is highly LDS-specific, or "appointed", which is used more in political or business situations.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. However, since they are also "appointed," I still feel both terms should be employed. A short explanation as to how that comes to pass would explain the term quite nicely. But I am just one voice, and I see your point. Any other thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Too Much Tolerance Being a Sin...[edit]

Should an addition be made to the 'sexuality' section as an update? His recent talk (Spring 2013 General Conference) -- again encouraging intolerance strikes me as a necessary addition. The inclusion would support the other entries as not being occasional misstatements, but rather a recurring and favored theme. -sorry, I've forgotten my username, it's been so long since I made an entry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.163.201 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting Packer's words is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Packer did not encourage intolerance. Rather, he reiterated the Church's longstanding policy on homosexuality. The policy states that Church members are to reach out in love towards those struggling with homosexuality while at the same time not excusing what the LDS Church and most of Christianity views as a sin. I agree this talk could be added to the list of Packer's talks on controversial topics, but it should be added in a way that remains true to what Packer said without making judgments one way or the other about the rightness or wrongness of what he said. To do otherwise would go contrary to WP:NPOV. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Packer's talk should not be added to the controversy section until it is referenced as such by a reliable source. To do otherwise is essentially WP:Original research.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with White Whirlwind on this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bomber Pilot"[edit]

The existing version says Packer flew several bombing missions in WWII. That is not supported by any of the references. An Ensign article says this: "Young manhood came to Boyd Packer about the time World War II began. After graduation from high school, he worked for a time on construction of an army hospital in his hometown. Like many young LDS men of his generation, he was unable to serve a proselyting mission because of the war. In the spring of 1943, he enlisted in the Army Air Force, graduating as a pilot the following year, a few days before his twentieth birthday. He was then trained to fly bombers and ordered to the Pacific Theater. He was stationed in Japan for nearly a year after the end of the war." So he got his wings in September 1944, then went to bomber-training school. Another source says that he was on Okinawa when the war ended, then was stationed in Japan until 1946. I haven't found any official statement that he "flew in combat" as such. Therefore I am revising the text to agree. If someone can find certifiable details that the facts are otherwise, feel free to re-edit that section. Thanks ! --Spray787 (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it states he entered the forces in 1948, and then went on to qualify as a pilot in 1944... can someone correct. thanks. Deadstar (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boyd K. Packer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boyd K. Packer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boyd K. Packer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings and Legacy - split into two sections?[edit]

Would the paragraphs on his teachings on homosexuality and history be better placed in a different section called "criticism"? Smachable (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boyd_K._Packer&oldid=1209304047"