Packer Talk Corrected in Published Version

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

You seem here to be endorsing the fallacy expressed in the Latin saying vox populi, vox dei. In the 19th century, a politician rationalized mob sentiment against Mormons by using that expression.

How about you? Are you prepared to assert (consistent with your logic expressed above) that a mob must be right because it has so many members?

Added: For your edification, here link is a brief primer on the ad populum fallacy.

[semlogo]

Look it up.

T-Shirt

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex/gender."

I assure you, I was heterosexual even before I lost my virginity.

[Scott Lloyd]

Look it up.

T-Shirt

Um, I need to alert you, T-Shirt, to the fact that semlogo does not accept the pre-eminence of documentation over anecdotal evidence.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Here is what the church says: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?index=8&locale=0&sourceId=9c672f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

H.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Huh? YOu beleive it to be a sin to advocate in favor of gay rights? Why is that a sin?

I was about to ask another question but I don't want to derail this thread and we have been over it a million times before anyway.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I don't think there is any thing wrong with people that have SSA. Were the issue comes down is when they act on that.

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

ACtually, you assume wrongly. I don't want them to change who they are. I am not saying that a gay man should marry a women in hopes of straightening him out. I have no idea were you think I believe that.

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.

I am willing to bet that he accepts who he is. This is interesting, must a person act on their impulses to "be who they are"? That seems to be what you are saying.

[semlogo]

Um, I need to alert you, T-Shirt, to the fact that semlogo does not accept the pre-eminence of documentation over anecdotal evidence.

Can't let it go, huh?

[Ahab]

Can't let it go, huh?

Just tell him that anecdotal evidence can be documentation, too. That should help to settle the issue, I think.

[Deborah]

Geeesh! Talk about straining at gnats. Word parsing is a symptom of our sound bite society where context and truth aren't considered.

As to the Family Proclamation, other leaders have said it is revelation and doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Oh boy. Just because 10 people or even 1 million poeple all say the same things does not make it right, true or even factual. Your professor told you something that is simply not true.

I learned sometime ago that professors often tell the biggest falsehoods when teachings things in their class room. Particularly when it has nothing to do with the subject that they are supposed to be teaching.

There also seems to be a large part of people that are intentionally mis-representing what he is saying. And there are another body of people who are just ignorant and they just read the gay blogs and run with it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Um, I need to alert you, T-Shirt, to the fact that semlogo does not accept the pre-eminence of documentation over anecdotal evidence.

Pooned. That was awesome.

[Ahab]

Geeesh! Talk about straining at gnats. Word parsing is a symptom of our sound bite society where context and truth aren't considered.

As to the Family Proclamation, other leaders have said it is revelation and doctrine.

Word parsing can be useful in an attempt to get at what someone really means when they say something, or for talking about what you mean, too.

Until we come up with a fool-proof way to share our thoughts and feelings telepathically with each other, somehow, words are pretty much all we have to use to convey what we are feeling and thinking with each other when they don't read our "body language" or our "attitude" correctly, or when they simply "don't know" what we are thinking and feeling.

Big up for semantics!

... and a big up for learning how to be telepaths, too.

[semlogo]

Just tell him that anecdotal evidence can be documentation, too. That should help to settle the issue, I think.

Neither types of evidence proved the points in question in the other thread Scott Lloyd is referring to. I guess some people can't help dragging threads off topic, though.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh boy. Just because 10 people or even 1 million poeple all say the same things does not make it right, true or even factual. Your professor told something that is simply not true.

I leanred sometime ago that professors often tell the biggest falsehoods when teachings things in their class room. Particularly when it has nothing to do with the subject that they are supposed to be teaching.

There also seems to be a large part of people that are intentionally mis-representing what he is saying. And there are another body of people who are just ignorant and they just read the gay blogs and run with it.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who detected the ad populum fallacy in LDSToronto's post (and in the cherished quotation from his esteemed professor).

[semlogo]

Pooned. That was awesome.

Cool story, bro. Backing up your claims with relevant evidence is SOOO lame.

Nice job "ignoring" me, by the way.

[Deborah]

Word parsing can be useful in an attempt to get at what someone really means when they say something, or for talking about what you mean, too.

But context is more important. I still do not see how anyone can think that Pres. Packer was speaking demeaningly of gay people. His tone of voice nor his posture showed any such thing. Parsing words to find some meaning that wasn't intended serves only to stir up contention.

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither types of evidence proved the points in question in the other thread Scott Lloyd is referring to. I guess some people can't help dragging threads off topic, though.

In other words, semlogo failed to prove his wacky, secondhand notion that 40 years ago (before he was born) "mainstream" Mormons believed that blacks would never be candidates for exaltation.

[semlogo]

In other words, semlogo failed to prove his wacky, secondhand notion that 40 years ago (before he was born) "mainstream" Mormons believed that blacks would never be candidates for exaltation.

CFR that I claimed to be able to prove it.

The problem was that you made that claim, but with irrelevant, tangential evidence. And now you can't let it go. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt, but bringing it up over and over and over again in unrelated threads isn't going to help mend your fractured ego.

[Ahab]

But context is more important. I still do not see how anyone can think that Pres. Packer was speaking demeaningly of gay people.

See, here is where I would focus on your word "people" and point out that what he was talking about what was gay _______, filling in the blank with some word that reflects what gay people do which makes us refer to them as "gay people", in contrast to the people who we would not call gay people because they don't do whatever it is that makes gay people gay people.

His tone of voice nor his posture showed any such thing. Parsing words to find some meaning that wasn't intended serves only to stir up contention.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, then, and please make your message as clear as you know how to make it.

The way I see it, there is something some people do which we know is a sin and we speak out against what they are doing because we know that what they are doing is a sin. Go ahead and try to separate "gay people" from what they do which is a sin if you think that might be helpful, but just keep in mind that those who do it and see nothing wrong with it will think you are talking about them while giving them the impression that you think what they are doing is a sin.

[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.

Fine, but for you to make such a sweeping judgment on him just because he admits to a struggle in changing or modifying his desires, is equally disgusting and ridiculous. Why does this make him, "self loathing"? I, frequently, have desires that I struggle to change or modify, does that make me self loathing?

The fact that he does not fit your politically correct definition of what a gay person should be, you have to assume that he hates himself and is a sell-out to gay people everywhere. This is ridiculous and, yes, bigotry.

T-Shirt

[Jaybear]

I am willing to bet that he accepts who he is.

Perhaps, but that is not how I interpret what he wrote. He said:

I have been very open and honest on this board about my own struggle with same-gender attraction. I know as well as anybody about how hard it is to try and change or modify these desires. I did not interpret his talk as saying its okay to hate

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who detected the ad populum fallacy in LDSToronto's post (and in the cherished quotation from his esteemed professor).

I would like LDS Toronto to know something. Just because you live in Toronto were a vast majority of people do not share the LDS view of things does not mean you need to abandon your beliefs for them. Stay strong brother.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps, but that is not how I interpret what he wrote. He said:

He is not speaking of his inner struggle to be celibate (ie resist temptation), but of a struggle to change his sexual orientation.

Ok, you may have a point here. Only he can tell you.

We can agree to disagree. But I see no reason for you to believe that accepts who he is.

That is not what I am saying at all. When an attractive woman with cleavage walks by, I have to struggle to keep my tongue in my mouth. I am who I am, and I am fine with who I am, even if don't act on my heterosexual impulses.

Ok good to know.

[Ahab]

When an attractive woman with cleavage walks by, I have to struggle to keep my tongue in my mouth. I am who I am, and I am fine with who I am, even if don't act on my heterosexual impulses.

Interesting. When an attractive woman with cleavage (openly visible to me) walks by me, I have to struggle with my urge to want to throw some more modest clothing on her. I am who I am, and part of who I am is someone who wants to clothe the naked when they are not modest before me, even if I don't act on my heterosexual impulses.

[Jaybear]

Fine, but for you to make such a sweeping judgment on him just because he admits to a struggle in changing or modifying his desires, is equally disgusting and ridiculous. Why does this make him, "self loathing"?

I have already explained my reasoning several times. He is a homosexual who does not want to be a homosexual. He can't bring himself to call himself gay, saying instead he "struggles" with same gender attraction. He puts quotes around the word gay, as if were not even a real word.

If you choose to reach a different conclusion based on the same evidence, so be it.

If you think that make me a bigot, well you are entitled to your opinion. But is seem a tad bit hypocritical to make such a "sweeping judgment" of me, because I made a "sweeping judgment" of someone else.