President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Daniel2]

There will be no homosexual relationships in the hereafter. None.

The above is not doctrine of the LDS Faith.

There will be families with fathers and mothers.

Same-sex relationships do not negate the existence of opposite-sex families comprised of fathers and mothers.

I can see the day -- about five minutes after the same sex "marriage" jihad takes over in the United States -- when immoralists infiltrate the Church, lie in all their interviews, and then try to create a cause célèbre by demanding that the Church marry them in the Temple. And when the Church refuses, they will try to drag it into the courts.

When interracial marriage became the law of America, did any interracial couples try to "force" the LDS Faith to marry...? In the seven states where same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, has anyone attempted to force any church/clergy to marry same-sex couples contrary to their religious principles?

I expect that, come that day, the Church will have forestalled that attempt by making Temple Sealings separate from civil marriages. It will be a real shame, and a serious blow against religious freedom, but it will be necessary.

How is separating temple sealings from civil marriages "a blow against religious freedom"? (I understand that civil marriage and religious marriages are separate in both Europe and South America, even for Mormonism).

By the way, the video posted in my signature is a beautiful testimony that's related to this subject for any struggling with feelings of worthlessness or worthiness.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

So you think it is more acceptable to oppose the Lord's Servants on an unequivocal matter of faith and morals than to ask someone where their loyalty lies?

Prior to 1978, I wonder if you feel it would have been acceptable to "oppose the Lord's Servants" (many of whom were teaching from the pulpit and in official pronouncements that it was "doctrine" that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence) over the church's (apparently, now) "non-doctrinal" "policy" that resticted blacks from either holding the priesthood and allowing them the full fellowship of the temple, including temple marriage?

I wonder if the brittleness of your binary thinking on this subject drives more people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than towards it, Pahoran.

Daniel2

Edited March 26, 2012 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

I can see the day -- about five minutes after the same sex "marriage" jihad takes over in the United States -- when immoralists infiltrate the Church, lie in all their interviews, and then try to create a cause célèbre by demanding that the Church marry them in the Temple. And when the Church refuses, they will try to drag it into the courts.

And unless things have changed massively in the duration then the judge will laugh at them and dismiss the case. It's already been established in case law that you can't compel someone to marry you unless they are a government official whose job it is to perform that function. Even in that case all you can compel them to do is sign the marriage license.

Edit: I should be clear also that I am referring only to U.S. law. I don't know enough about other systems to comment intelligently.

As an example of how silly it is to worry about being compelled to marry homosexuals in the temple I would ask when is the last time a heterosexual couple denied access to the temple sued for that right? Surely that would be the first step. It hasn't happened.

Edited March 26, 2012 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

Well said, Nehor.

The words from the video in my signature:

I don’t want to be like this.

I don’t want to be who I am.

Every day that I don’t change, I blame myself.

I am not trying hard enough.

I am not trying hard enough.

I don’t what to be how I am.

When they find out, no one will love me.

I’ll lose my family and all of my friends.

I’m trapped like a fish with a hook in its mouth.

I am impersonating the person I show as me.

I’m an imposter. I am a spy behind enemy lines.

I pack my feelings so deep inside me, they turn to concrete.

I don’t want to be like this.

I don’t want to be who I/how I/what I am.

Every night I ask God to end my life.

I am an abomination.

God, take this away, or take me away…

I don’t want to be like this…

Today, I’m going to hang myself.

Today, I’m going to slit my wrist.

Today I’m going to jump of my building…

Take me away, take me away, take me away…

Hang in, hang on. Wait—just a little longer.

Hang in, hang on…

I know it now, I know it now.

If I had made myself not exist,

There is so much that I would have missed.

I would have missed so many travels and adventures.

More wonders than I knew could be.

So many friends with jokes and secrets

Not to mention, the joy of living in authenticity.

Sometimes I cry; life can still be hard.

But there’s no part of me still crying, "hide me.”

I would have missed the chance to sing out like this…

With people I love beside me.

I have been brave.

I grew, and so did those around me.

And now look what a life I’ve earned.

It gets

more

than better—it gets amazing and astounding!

If I could reach my past, I’d tell him what I’ve learned.

What I have learned:

I was more loved than I dared to know.

There were open arms I could not see.

And when I die, and when it’s my time to go

I want to come back… as me.

I want to come back… as

me

.

Testimony

By Stephen Schwartz

Edited March 26, 2012 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

I see a day when the Church will baptize, endow, and give callings to married homosexuals, but not seal them. And then perhaps years after that, they will authorize sealings. (Mormon theology certainly allows for that as a possibility)

It certainly is a possibility (probably remote, but still possible) but at the same time pretending that we are forecasting the future of the LDS faith doesn't change that it is sinful now. If I can't drink wine even though the Savior did because the law has changed I certainly can't violate God's law now hoping that he will change it (which he might) or that this change will retroactively exonerate me (it won't).

[Sky]

I think there is room for disagreement in the Church, and I don't believe that if one questions the current teachings and counsel that one is "irredeemably apostate."

I don’t believe they are “irredeemably apostate” either. I know of quite a few people who are more liberal in their views regarding homosexuality than the standard LDS thinking, and they are faithful members in every other way. I really would hate to see them leave the Church. But in the end, we have to make a choice of whether we are going to follow the current prophet and his counsel - or not. That’s what it all comes down to for me. If I err, I choose to err on the side of the prophets.

[stemelbow]

In addition to what has been said, I do not see the point of making this any sort of moral issue. Opposing same sex marriage is not hindering or stopping the actual homosexual practice. Its nothing of the sort, from what I see. Homosexuality will increase from this point on. To fight their legal right to marry is to fight an uphill battle. Additionally, I rather enjoy the idea of offering people freedoms, even if that freedom seems to contradict my own church's stance. That is as long as they ain't hurting anyone.

[Calm]

In the seven states where same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, has anyone attempted to force any church/clergy to marry same-sex couples contrary to their religious principles?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635192107/Gay-man-faces-LDS-excommunication-over-marriage.html

Not an attempt to force marriage, but was intent on putting pressure on the Church in another way.

[stemelbow]

But in the end, we have to make a choice of whether we are going to follow the current prophet and his counsel - or not. That’s what it all comes down to for me. If I err, I choose to err on the side of the prophets.

That I can respect. I guess its partly the "the Priesthood ban was not inspired" type of thing that keeps me from your position a little. Still alittle hurt by it. Still just seems wrong. I'm not really thinking homosexuality is fine in God's eyes. I just don't think the fighting their right to marry is a good thing.

[Pahoran]

The above is not doctrine of the LDS Faith.

Yes. It is.

1 Nephi 15:

34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.

Same-sex relationships do not negate the existence of opposite-sex families comprised of fathers and mothers.

Funnily enough, I didn't say they did.

When interracial marriage became the law of America, did any interracial couples try to "force" the LDS Faith to marry...?

That is, of course, a completely irrelevant analogy. Interracial couples didn't have to try to "force" the Church to do anything at all, since it has always permitted interracial marriages. Even while it was advising against them, it always permitted and performed them when the parties were eligible to marry and worthy to enter the Temple.

In the seven states where same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, has anyone attempted to force any church/clergy to marry same-sex couples contrary to their religious principles?

As I'm sure you know, Daniel, it is contrary to the Kirk-Madsen program to tip your hand too early. But, as I'm sure you also know, there have been attempts to nibble around the edges of religious freedom, and the results must look encouraging from an immoralist POV. I refer to the New Jersey case where a Church that made its property available for wedding receptions had to withdraw it from that use so that it would not be forced to allow same sex "marriage" celebrations there.

How is separating temple sealings from civil marriages "a blow against religious freedom"? (I understand that civil marriage and religious marriages are separate in both Europe and South America, even for Mormonism).

This is true. And it is generally accepted that the US currently has greater religious freedom than those places.

At least, for now.

And yes, I realise that you regard filth as beautiful. You don't have to labour the point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Prior to 1978, I wonder if you feel it would have been acceptable to "oppose the Lord's Servants" (many of whom were teaching from the pulpit and in official pronouncements that it was "doctrine" that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence)

No. They were not.

You made that up.

over the church's (apparently, now) "non-doctrinal" "policy" that resticted blacks from either holding the priesthood and allowing them the full fellowship of the temple, including temple marriage?

This is a complete derail. I must ask you to at least attempt to appear to be trying to stay on topic.

But since you asked: No, it would not have been.

You don't know this, but those who do know anything about the Church of Jesus Christ know that the Priesthood is delegated authority. You don't know this, but those who do know anything about the Church of Jesus Christ know that only the President of the Church has the necessary keys to determine who is or is not eligible to receive it. Therefore, regardless of the doctrinal basis of the Priesthood ban, any attempt to ordain someone who was not then eligible would have automatically been invalid.

But you, of course, don't know that.

I wonder if the brittleness of your binary thinking on this subject drives more people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than towards it, Pahoran.

Yes, I'm familiar with that particular mind game.

And now I really must ask you to make some effort to stay on topic.

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

"Sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage are wrong."

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."

The state has sanctioned nonmarital sexual relations by endorsing the concept of a common-law marriage. Several states have sanctioned marriage between parties other than a man and a woman. It seems as though those who wish to endorse the first of those principles by saying, "Fine. Let's let gays and lesbians marry," are forgetting the second of those principles. Uust because it's legal in the eyes of men doesn't make it right in the eyes of G-d.

Now, having said that, putting aside the brutishness of former ages, relationship-wise, humankind survived quite well when marriage was strictly a religious institution and the state had nothing to do with it. While it's probably unrealistic to turn back the clock that far or to try to put the cat back into the bag or the genie back into the bottle (is that enough cliches for ya? ) I wonder what would happen if we could remove the state from the marriage business altogether and turn it back into a strictly religous institution. At least then, we wouldn't have to worry about the tail wagging the dog and the state telling churches who they are required to perform ceremonies for. For all who would dismiss me as nothing but a "slippery-slope" alarmist, I could see that happening eventually in the case of gays and lesbians.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Mark Beesley]

I see a day when the Church will baptize, endow, and give callings to married homosexuals, but not seal them. And then perhaps years after that, they will authorize sealings. (Mormon theology certainly allows for that as a possibility)

No you don't. You may hope for such a day, but you have never seen that day. Nor will you.

There is nothing in a homosexual relationship, irrespective of how "loving" the partners are, that furthers the plan of Heavenly Father. His plan is for us to become as He is, i.e. a Heavenly Parent. That means learning to use and control the procreative power in a holy and authorized manner. Any other use detracts from the goal. Succumbing to homosexual tendencies is not godlike -- never has been and never will be. Indeed, I know of nothing that drives the Spirit away faster than engaging in homosexual behavior.

Now then, heterosexuals may be partly to blame for the current flood of opinions being voiced in support of tolerance for homosexual relationships, after all, homosexuals are not doing anything qualitiatively different than many heterosexuals, including heterosexuals who consider themselves to be good members of the Church. It seems to have become acceptable to use one's mouth for that which it was never intended, and to occupy one's genitals in ways that the Lord never ordained. Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid. But if the heterosexual community embraces that which is unholy and impure, it can hardly complain of the homosexual community acting in an similarly unholy and impure manner.

However, the Church has never countenanced any sexual act which is unholy and impure because it is in the business of guiding people to the Celestial Kingdom of God. It is not interested in helping people along the way to the Terrestrial Kingdom, or the Telestial Kingdom. There are a host of other religions perfectly capable of performing that function. And it is because homosexuality has no place in the Celestial Kingdom that the Church will never accept practicing homosexuals in any calling, ordination, or temple.

[ERMD]

I still don't understand why some members of the church struggle with this. Homosexual relationships and the concept of homosexual "marriage" are contrary to revealed truth and the Lord's commands. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to extend the boundaries the Lord has set, and that is a serious endeavor.

[David T]

Whose side will you be on then, David?

Pahoran, is such rhetoric really necessary and helpful in this discussion? Please dig through my posts, and indicate any time I have advocated for Church members disregarding standing church policy and demanding that a superior should grant that unauthorized dispensing of rites and ordinances, or even taking into one's hands to give them against Church policy.

I absolutely recognize the Authority of Church leaders in matters of the ordinances of the Church. There are times I wish their current thoughts and opinions were otherwise, but I do not advocate or consider that anyone breaking current policy should feel justified to remain in full standing, or that they have the right to personally change how things work. I think actual members legally suing the Church to change policy is a ridiculous, and disgusting notion.

I have stated my opinion as to how I think thinks could be. I did not, have not, nor do I ever plan to advocate anyone 'going rogue' when it comes to dispensing ordinances of the Church. I did not, have not, nor do I ever plan to advocate lying to one's Church leaders to "get what one wants'.

The insinuation that this is my way of thinking is uncalled for, Pahoran. I like to think you're better than that.

Edited March 26, 2012 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Any other use detracts from the goal."

The Church certainly allows the use of contraceptives, and sex as a way to strengthen relationships apart from the procreative aspect. And y'know, frankly, what consenting adults do with their mouths in their bedrooms is not anyone's business but theirs.

[Pahoran]

I think I've said a fair bit, personally.

Just nothing that's on topic.

I think there is room for disagreement in the Church, and I don't believe that if one questions the current teachings and counsel that one is "irredeemably apostate."

Which is not what I said.

I said that I've read the article, and the article is irredeemably apostate.

I stand by that view.

The arrogance of arguing for a "post-heterosexual Mormon theology" that requires abandoning the Church's entire teaching on the subject of chastity is beyond breathtaking.

Mister Petrey is entitled to his opinion. But it has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ.

On a personal note, my folks are divorced.

So are mine. It doesn't make your opinions, or mine, immune to scrutiny.

My dad never knew his dad. I know something of the damage that comes with a less than ideal home life, and I hope to break that particular cycle if I marry. But I am not convinced that there is no place for good homosexual relationships in the gospel.

Well, there isn't. Just like there's no place for "good" narcotic addictions. I put "good" in scare quotes because you seem to be using it as an attempt to enlist the fallacy of petitio principii, which is to say, you are begging the question. Naturally, if something is actually "good," the Gospel comprehends it; but for something intrinsically immoral and corrupt to present a smooth face to the world does not make it good.

While some people in the celestial kingdom will continue the seeds, there are some who won't. If there are an infinite number of Intelligences who will eventually be embodied, it's not like we'll run out of people to give birth if some choose not to do it the "natural" way.

Well, Eternal Life will happen either in the Lord's way or not at all. That is absolutely definitive LDS doctrine. We don't get to negotiate a more relaxed deal for ourselves. So there are those who don't want to even try to live a Celestial law? This isn't news; that's why there are lesser kingdoms.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

"Any other use detracts from the goal."

The Church certainly allows the use of contraceptives, [etc].

That's enough.

This is absolutely off-topic. If you don't want to address President Packer's talk, then kindly start a new thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

. . . .what consenting adults do with their mouths in their bedrooms is not anyone's business but theirs.

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

[Sky]

It seems to have become acceptable to use one's mouth for that which it was never intended, and to occupy one's genitals in ways that the Lord never ordained. Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid.

The Church does not take a position on how a married heterosexual couple expresses their love behind closed doors. That is essentially what I was told by a bishop.

[David T]

It seems to have become acceptable to use one's mouth for that which it was never intended, and to occupy one's genitals in ways that the Lord never ordained. Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid.

[Mark Beesley]

The Church does not take a position on how a married heterosexual couple expresses their love behind closed doors. That is essentially what I was told by a bishop.

Nor should it have to. We shouldn't have to be commanded in all things. The question isn't really whether the Church has taken a position on the topic of various sexual acts. The question is whether the Lord has taken a position. His position is that we are to avoid unholy and impure practices. A stake president once told me that oral sex was an unholy and impure practice. He didn't have to tell me that. I knew when I asked, and asking for permission to engage in an uholy and impure practice is rather risky.

[Mark Beesley]

Fools mock.

[Hestia]

Pahoran, quit the personal comments or you will be out of the thread. The topic is not SSM but Pres Packer's talk. Get back to that or this will be closed.

[Pahoran]

And unless things have changed massively in the duration then the judge will laugh at them and dismiss the case.

At which point the agitators will take it to the court of public opinion with already-prepared press releases and claims of how the evil Mormon Church "bought" the verdict.

Regards,

Pahoran