Packer Talk Corrected in Published Version

[LDSToronto]

Do the changes satisfy your disagreements with the live version?

Interesting question. I think the changed version makes an attempt at moving the gist of the message away from cause of homosexuality and more towards overpowering temptation. Posts I've made in other threads show better ways to say this, but I think the PR department only had so much to work with.

I have always agreed with the message that temptation and sin can be overcome. I just don't agree that was the message BKP was delivering. As it stands, I have doubts this was a simple slip of the tongue. Since everyone else feels free enough to interpret why the message was changed, I'll throw in my two cents - I think BKP was given a butt-kicking after conference by Pres. Monson, and was told that the print version was going to be changed. I'll bet we don't hear another message like this for a long while.

H.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The fact that you characterize your own God given sexual orientation as a "struggle" that needs to be changed or modified would lead me to conclude that you have already been indoctrinated to hate gays, or as you call them "gays".

Hey, every one, look how tolerant Jaybear is being.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not surprised to see the written version changed. Good thing we have the ability to archive what was really said, forever and forever. These statements are not equivalent; they carry different meanings. If they were equivalent, no change would be necessary, no clarification required.

H.

ACtually the reason they are changed is so that people like you won't twist the intent of the message.

[William Schryver]

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published version:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

I disagree that this slight wording change constitutes a "correction." A clarification, perhaps. Maybe even an elaboration. I don't see how it alters whatsoever the underlying concept President Packer was attempting to convey: homosexuality is sin; neither God nor the Church will ever sanction its normalization, whether in present-day society or within the earthly kingdom of God, or in the eternities. Those who impenitently persist in it will thereby disqualify themselves for the highest order of blessings available to the children of God in the resurrection and the eternal worlds.

I think one can confidently state that the concepts, doctrinal pronouncements, and institutional policies concerning same-gender attraction are authoritatively expressed in the following interview transcript: Same-Gender Attraction.

[LDSToronto]

ACtually the reason they are changed is so that people like you won't twist the intent of the message.

Mola, hard as this may seem to you, I don't like the fact that BKP said something that can be twisted to mean something different than what was intended. And I don't think any church member should be put in a position to defend what a leader has said, especially when that leader's comment is not plain. The plain fact is, BKP said something that can be understood many ways. None of us save BKP can know what was intended, but all of us have face the public on Monday morning and say dumb things like, "well, I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, here's what I think was really meant", with absolutely no way to backup our interpretation.

I'm completely fine saying, "Ya, BKP sure flubbed that up, but hear are some more recent statement from church leaders that show our true stance" because it's a heck of a lot more honest than backpedaling and a lot simpler than the apologist gymnastics I'd have to go through to explain what was said.

I don't defend stupid comments, even if they come from apostles.

H.

[LDSToronto]

homosexuality is sin;

Wrong. Violation of the Law of Chastity is a sin. One can be homosexual and never commit a sexual sin (hard as it may be to follow this course). That is the position the Church takes.

H.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola, hard as this may seem to you, I don't like the fact that BKP said something that can be twisted to mean something different than what was intended. And I don't think any church member should be put in a position to defend what a leader has said, especially when that leader's comment is not plain. The plain fact is, BKP said something that can be understood many ways. None of us save BKP can know what was intended, but all of us have face the public on Monday morning and say dumb things like, "well, I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, here's what I think was really meant", with absolutely no way to backup our interpretation.

I'm completely fine saying, "Ya, BKP sure flubbed that up, but hear are some more recent statement from church leaders that show our true stance" because it's a heck of a lot more honest than backpedaling and a lot simpler than the apologist gymnastics I'd have to go through to explain what was said.

I don't defend stupid comments, even if they come from apostles.

H.

That is just it the meaning is clear and only those with an agenda would find them a problem. I watched the news last night. The interviewed several people that had issue with BKP comments. Every one of them presented a straw man.

One Girl stated" There is nothing wrong with us, we are not sick. We are not bad people we just have made different choices". Which Ironiclly I agree with here. She did not present a straw man. Another kid said "I think it is wrong to discrimiate against gays. BKP should not have said what he did". I thought, were in did BKP discrimiate against gay people?

THen we come to you, you read his words and think he is talking about "Why would God make some one gay". I have no idea why you think he is talkin about that when the clear message is that we can over come anything irrespective if it is inborn or not. Then when the change is made you make a tissy fit about it. And the change only clarifies the message.

[T-Shirt]

Wrong. Violation of the Law of Chastity is a sin. One can be homosexual and never commit a sexual sin (hard as it may be to follow this course). That is the position the Church takes.

H.

Actually, the definition of, "homosexuality" includes the following:

"Sexual activity with another of the same sex."

So, in this sense, William was not wrong.

T-Shirt

[mtomm]

I don't know if this is helpful but I will add it here for all to ponder it's implications.

Back in the 1980s I had the privileged of being the one to tape and transcribe talks given by GAs at LDS Business College devotionals. I can't remember if it was the first time I did this or if I had done others but I transcribed the talk by James E. Faust and promptly printed it and began to distribute copies to those who asked for it.

WRONG!

My transcription had to be approved by Elder Faust before I was supposed to print and distribute it. I gathered up the copies that I could and waited for his approval of the transcription. I don't remember any changes being made.

So even though Elder Faust probably had written notes of the talk he gave he still wanted to fact-check all of what he said. I'd say that's a very wise thing and nothing to be ashamed about. It isn't about deception but about clarification.

Interesting change on the Proclamation, too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wrong. Violation of the Law of Chastity is a sin. One can be homosexual and never commit a sexual sin (hard as it may be to follow this course). That is the position the Church takes.

H.

Um, no one is arguing that if you have ssa that that is a sin. It is only in the act of that attraction that it is a sin.

[Jaybear]

Hey, every one, look how tolerant Jaybear is being.

I don't understand. How does pointing out that someone is a self loathing gay, make me intolerant? I am not advocating that he be arrested, denied the right to marry, preventing from being a boy scout leader, barred from adopting children, denied equal rights in employment.

If he wants to be a self-loathing gay, that his right.

BTW, I am thrilled to learn that you are now a vocal advocate for tolerance. But since you are new to concept, you really need to brush up on what it means.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't understand. How does pointing out that someone is a self loathing gay, make me intolerant? I am not advocating that he be arrested, denied the right to marry, preventing from being a boy scout leader, barred from adopting children, denied equal rights in employment.

If he wants to be a self-loathing gay, that his right.

BTW, I am thrilled to learn that you are now a vocal advocate for tolerance. But since you are new to concept, you really need to brush up on what it means.

Jaybear I was ribbing you. You basically think the dude is wrong (indoctrinated) soley because it goes against your world view.

[Jaybear]

Um, no one is arguing that if you have ssa that that is a sin. It is only in the act of that attraction that it is a sin.

Actually, I believe its also a sin to advocate in favor of gay rights. Yesterday, I was told I would be burning in hell for doing so.

[LDSToronto]

That is just it the meaning is clear and only those with an agenda would find them a problem. I watched the news last night. The interviewed several people that had issue with BKP comments. Every one of them presented a straw man.

One Girl stated" There is nothing wrong with us, we are not sick. We are not bad people we just have made different choices". Which Ironiclly I agree with here. She did not present a straw man. Another kid said "I think it is wrong to discrimiate against gays. BKP should not have said what he did". I thought, were in did BKP discrimiate against gay people?

THen we come to you, you read his words and think he is talking about "Why would God make some one gay". I have no idea why you think he is talkin about that when the clear message is that we can over come anything irrespective if it is inborn or not. Then when the change is made you make a tissy fit about it. And the change only clarifies the message.

Ok, so, last thing I'll say here on the matter of BKP's clarity...

A professor a long time ago taught a very simple lesson. He said, "Folks, if one person calls you an ***, that's just opinion. But if 10 people call you an ***, well, better get a saddle."

If it was just me that had a problem with what was said, I'd get it. But, there seems to be a large amount of people who have interpretation issues with BKP's statement...

Someone better saddle him up...

H.

[T-Shirt]

I don't understand. How does pointing out that someone is a self loathing gay, make me intolerant? I am not advocating that he be arrested, denied the right to marry, preventing from being a boy scout leader, barred from adopting children, denied equal rights in employment.

If he wants to be a self-loathing gay, that his right.

BTW, I am thrilled to learn that you are now a vocal advocate for tolerance. But since you are new to concept, you really need to brush up on what it means.

Jaybear, this is ridiculous. Why does it, necessarily, follow that a gay person who feels a desire to remain chaste, be "self loathing"? This is bigotry of the highest degree and, frankly, pathetic. I have disagreed with you often, but this is disgusting.

T-Shirt

[semlogo]

I don't understand. How does pointing out that someone is a self loathing gay, make me intolerant? I am not advocating that he be arrested, denied the right to marry, preventing from being a boy scout leader, barred from adopting children, denied equal rights in employment.

If he wants to be a self-loathing gay, that his right.

BTW, I am thrilled to learn that you are now a vocal advocate for tolerance. But since you are new to concept, you really need to brush up on what it means.

I wouldn't characterize someone who is celibate for religious reasons as a self loathing gay person. Now, someone who is gay, closeted and is constantly attacking gays, telling them that they're defective/sick/have a syndrome etc, obsessed with talking about how gross they supposedly think the act is or are oddly very specific in describing it ("bare backing" etc), that's a self-loathing gay person.

[Brenda]

I don't know if this is helpful but I will add it here for all to ponder it's implications.

Back in the 1980s I had the privileged of being the one to tape and transcribe talks given by GAs at LDS Business College devotionals. I can't remember if it was the first time I did this or if I had done others but I transcribed the talk by James E. Faust and promptly printed it and began to distribute copies to those who asked for it.

WRONG!

My transcription had to be approved by Elder Faust before I was supposed to print and distribute it. I gathered up the copies that I could and waited for his approval of the transcription. I don't remember any changes being made.

So even though Elder Faust probably had written notes of the talk he gave he still wanted to fact-check all of what he said. I'd say that's a very wise thing and nothing to be ashamed about. It isn't about deception but about clarification.

Interesting change on the Proclamation, too.

Of course!! It'd be careless to do otherwise. Especially with all the wolves lying in wait.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear I was ribbing you. You basically think the dude is wrong (indoctrinated) soley because it goes against your world view.

That is close to being true. We do see the world differently.

In my worldview there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay, and gays should be accepted for who they are.

In your/his world view, homosexuality is a sin, and gays should aspire to struggle to change who they are.

But, I don't think he is indoctrinated solely because it goes against my world view>. That would be petty. I think he is indoctrinated because his inability to accept who he is, is rooted in the doctrine that the homosexuality is a sin.

[Jaybear]

I wouldn't characterize someone who is celibate for religious reasons as a self loathing gay person.

Nor would I. Heterosexuals who are celibate for religious reasons, are certainly not self loathing heterosexuals.

Frankly, I don't know or even care if he is celibate.

[Ahab]

As given:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are in born tendancies towards the impure and the un-natural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone ?."

Published version:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

What I'd like to know is WHO is in charge of editing what the prophets, seers, and revelators of the Church have said?

If he changed his own words, I'd like him to tell us why, and if it was someone else who changed them, I think he darn sure better have more authority than the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of our Lord's Church !!!

[William Schryver]

Wrong. Violation of the Law of Chastity is a sin. One can be homosexual and never commit a sexual sin (hard as it may be to follow this course). That is the position the Church takes.

H.

No. Right. Same-gender attraction, per se, is not sin.

Homosexuality (the very definition of which ["erotic activity with another of the same sex"] incorporates the action consequent to the attraction) is sin--at least in the eyes of God and his authorized representatives on the earth.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear, this is ridiculous. Why does it, necessarily, follow that a gay person who feels a desire to remain chaste, be "self loathing"? This is bigotry of the highest degree and, frankly, pathetic. I have disagreed with you often, but this is disgusting.

T-Shirt

I didn't say he was self loathing because of his desire to remain chaste.

Had I done so, I would agree. That is rediculous position to take.

Though I had I done so, it wouldn't rise to the level of bigotry. That's just your misplaced anger speaking.

[semlogo]

No. Right. Same-gender attraction, per se, is not sin.

Homosexuality (the very definition of which ["erotic activity with another of the same sex"] incorporates the action consequent to the attraction) is sin--at least in the eyes of God and his authorized representatives on the earth.

Homosexuality does not imply homosexual acts, any more than heterosexuality does. Or can we not refer to virgins as heterosexuals until they have sex?

[Ahab]

Homosexuality (the very definition of which ["erotic activity with another of the same sex"] incorporates the action consequent to the attraction) is sin--at least in the eyes of God and his authorized representatives on the earth.

That may be technically true, but just to be clear I use the phrase "homosexual sexual relations" to make it clear about what is the sin.

The way I see it, all of us are homosexuals, because all of us are sexual beings of only one sex, and what is "bad" or "evil" or just plain wrong and idiotic is to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex because that does not do any good and there is nothing at all good about it.

I think most people who do it simply mistake lust for love, and what they really need is an education on what love is.

[T-Shirt]

Homosexuality does not imply homosexual acts, any more than heterosexuality does. Or can we not refer to virgins as heterosexuals until they have sex?

Look it up.

T-Shirt