What if President Boyd K Packer becomes the next President of the Church?

[bluebell]

I can't say for sure what BKP's personal opinion on the matter is, but his original (spoken version) talk implied that people are not born with an inclination to homosexuality,

When i heard it, i understood him to be saying that people were not born with weaknesses they could not resist or overcome. I think the worst part of his talk is that it seems like it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. That's probably why they clarified it in the written copy.

[Lightbearer]

Another question: I love Pres Monson and hope he is Prophet for a long long time, but should he pass away sooner than expected in his mission as Prophet, and Elder Packer take over sooner, would it be taken as a statement from the Lord that we should take a more conservative course?

I suppose it would make no difference (as far as I am concerned) but the enemies of the truth would see it that way. I mean after all President Packer is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve right now... and I do not see a lessing of a "conservative course" currently. But each prophet as I have noticed usually is called for His specific contributions as President of the Church. For example President Kimball came at a time when the Church needed to lengthen their stride and there was a great increase in Missionary work, President Benson's Presidency came at a time when the Soviet Union was about to collapse and his emphasis on the Book of Mormon was the best way to champion the principles of freedom that he is noted for, President Hunter had a short administration yet he showed us an overwhelming charity for others, President Hinckley was very media savvy and he became president in the explosion of the communication age, President Monson is very connected to charity and helping the poor and needed something that our time desperately needs... so who knows, President Packer offers an unbending support of traditional values and a way of speaking where there cannot be much mistake... this may be needed in the next Presidency, or he might serve right where he is in emphasizing the principles which need to be reemphasized in our day. The thing to remember is God is at the helm of this work, and thus the reason for this thread, there are no "loose canons" in the leadership of the Church. Our enemies would have us think so, and Satan does his best to undermine whoever God calls to preside in an effort to destroy the Church and take captive whoever will not harken to the Lord's voice.

[DH]

I find it absolutely amazing that any member of this Church would consider his remarks (either the spoken or written) as controversial! I guess it comes in fullfillment of Isaiah's words:

Okaaaayyy....

I find it absolutely amazing that someone could read so much into what I said, and be unable to disagree without resorting to personal insult. You seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Just to clarify my meaning: There have been times when I was tempted to have sex with another person. My tendency is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex (i.e., I'm heterosexual). I cannot overcome my tendency/orientation towards members of the opposite sex--members of my own sex simply do not appeal to me that way. However, I can (and have) overcome temptations to have sex with people. BKP's spoken version, therefore, seems to imply that homosexual people can overcome their orientation such that they will no longer be attracted to members of the same sex. I say that's hogwash. If you disagree and think that a person can change his/her sexual orientation, I challenge you to change yours and become homosexual (assuming you aren't already). After all, you could always change back, right? The changed, published version of BKP's talk, however, simply says that whatever our tendencies are, we have the ability to overcome temptation and do what's right. I agree with that. It's ok if you interpret things differently, but please, lay off the "I find it absolutely amazing... " crap. It is possible to disagree without being an "apostate," you know.

DH

[DH]

When i heard it, i understood him to be saying that people were not born with weaknesses they could not resist or overcome. I think the worst part of his talk is that it seems like it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. That's probably why they clarified it in the written copy.

That makes sense. It's possible they didn't realize how it sounded until after the talk was delivered, and upon having it pointed out, decided to change it for the sake of clarity.

[Lightbearer]

Okaaaayyy....

I find it absolutely amazing that someone could read so much into what I said, and be unable to disagree without resorting to personal insult. You seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Sorry if you took my comment as a personal insult, it was not intended. However I do not think I missed your point. I think I got it and that is why my comments offended you so much.

Just to clarify my meaning: There have been times when I was tempted to have sex with another person. My tendency is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex (i.e., I'm heterosexual). I cannot overcome my tendency/orientation towards members of the opposite sex--members of my own sex simply do not appeal to me that way. However, I can (and have) overcome temptations to have sex with people. BKP's spoken version, therefore, seems to imply that homosexual people can overcome their orientation such that they will no longer be attracted to members of the same sex. I say that's hogwash.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges, attraction to the opposite sex is a God give desire and is not sinful or abnormal. Same sex attraction is. There is no valid use of "same sex attraction" whereas hetersexual attraction can be kept within the bounds the Lord has set (legal marriage) but even if a nation were to make same sex marriage legal it would still be an abomination in the Lord's sight.

If you disagree and think that a person can change his/her sexual orientation, I challenge you to change yours and become homosexual (assuming you aren't already). After all, you could always change back, right?

This absolutely ridiculous and insulting as well. I do not believe people are born with same sex attraction (orientation)it is a learned behavior just as alcholism, drug use, and even child molesters. This "tendency" or "attraction" I believe is more due to nurture rather than nature. I think the reason this false idea has been hearlded (the idea that they are born that way)is so that the world will accept it as an alternate lifestyle that is normal and natural and not to be condemned as "sinful" and engenders the idea that one day the Church will accept such relationships. I think Elder Packer's entire talk denies this idea.

The changed, published version of BKP's talk, however, simply says that whatever our tendencies are, we have the ability to overcome temptation and do what's right. I agree with that. It's ok if you interpret things differently, but please, lay off the "I find it absolutely amazing... " crap. It is possible to disagree without being an "apostate," you know.

The entire talk is about repentance and it also emphasizes that none of these moral transgressions are inborn or impossible to overcome. It seems the Proclaimation on the Family and the vote against SSM was a central focus of his talk. So that is why I find it "amazing" that anyone (member or not) could mistake his meaning. I tend to be a "hard liner" like President Packer so often I come across as judgmental and some find my comments on these boards offensive and arrogant, but I suppose I have just as much a right to state my beliefs as anyone else here. I started this thread to prove a point and I think I have done so. I often feel like the outcast here and get weary of the "protected topics" here that if you dare to challenge them you are considered an arrogant, judgmental, overbearing TBM zealot... That is why I try to shun such topics (SSM, evolution, global flood...) but when they are brought up in my own threads it is hard to forebear. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[David T]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges, attraction to the opposite sex is a God give desire and is not sinful or abnormal. Same sex attraction is.

The Church disagrees with you. From Handbook 2:

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

And here's the kicker:

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

The Church invites us to respect individuals who are attracted to those of the same Gender. Think about that.

The only places where anything related to homosexuality is condemned, is in the actions presented, including 'unrighteous thoughts' - which are equivalent to heterosexual unrighteous thoughts. While it is a sensitive line, the policy statement is very clear that being attracted to the same gender is no more a sin than being attracted to the same gender is.

I do not believe people are born with same sex attraction (orientation)it is a learned behavior just as alcholism, drug use, and even child molesters.

So you believe that many who hate themselves over this, try to 'fix themselves', and end up committing suicide over it specifically chose to have these feelings?

Such an attitude can be extraordinarily offensive - and discouraging - towards many faithful, honorable, valiant and celibate gay latter-day saints who are faithfully and successfully overcoming temptations to act on their natural attractions, yet continue to be just as attracted to those of the same gender as you are to the opposite.

[why me]

I've heard it said that the elevation of an apostle to the

First Presidency is generally a mellowing and humbling event.

Whatever criticisms were directed against Apostle Packer in the past,

he would probably cease to be a magnet for hostility after his

ordination as Prophet.

At least that's what I suppose is most likely.

Should he come into the office with a sweeping agenda of

reform, change, punishment, retrenchment, or some other set

of controversial developments, then perhaps problems would arise.

UD

I can agree with this. Much was the same when President Benson was an apostle. There would have been many a thread about sustaining him if he became prophet. But when he became prophet, he mellowed out and did well. The same could probably be said if Packer became prophet.

[Bsix]

I think it is rather amazing that President Packer is seen as having the need to 'mellow' out.

From what I can tell, he is conservative and somewhat no-nonsense in his speaking approach. His biggest sin (it seems) isn't so much what he believes as much as it that he is not viewed as a collegial, warm father figure.

Even in his bluntness...he is not all that radical and offensive.

Six

[DH]

We are born with a natural tendency to poop in our pants--it is not a learned behavior. It is not inherently sinful, but it is considered inappropriate to keep pooping in your pants when you grow older. Fortunately, we have the ability to learn to control our bowel movements and use the potty instead of pooping in our pants.

Sexuality, whatever the object of our sexuality (those we are attracted to), is also a natural tendency. Like toilet training, we can learn to control our sexuality so that we don't offend or hurt others. That's the Church's teaching--our sexual urges, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not sinful in and of themselves. What's sinful is inappropriate expression of our sexuality that hurts people (like having an extramarital affair). It's as simple as that.

[Deborah]

...our sexual urges, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not sinful in and of themselves. What's sinful is inappropriate expression of our sexuality that hurts people (like having an extramarital affair). It's as simple as that.

I agree, except that those with SSA will say they aren't hurting anyone by having a partner. That is assuming they didn't leave a spouse and children to indulge in such a relationship. But even a heterosexual person who is promiscuous is hurting him/herself, whether they feel they are or not. And in hurting ourselves we hurt parents and others who care about us.

[DH]

I agree, except that those with SSA will say they aren't hurting anyone by having a partner. That is assuming they didn't leave a spouse and children to indulge in such a relationship. But even a heterosexual person who is promiscuous is hurting him/herself, whether they feel they are or not. And in hurting ourselves we hurt parents and others who care about us.

That is, indeed, the Church's stance.

[mercyngrace]

... a warm father figure....

Six

What do you think God is?

If you saw the regional conference in Utah just a few months back, you'll know that Elder Packer knows. One of the central themes of his remarks was that we need to get to know God as our Father. If we have God's image in our countenance, shouldn't that be reflected in the way we love and speak to his children?

edit: A favorite phrase from JS about God describes Him as "The Great Parent of the Universe".

[blueadept]

I think it is rather amazing that President Packer is seen as having the need to 'mellow' out.

From what I can tell, he is conservative and somewhat no-nonsense in his speaking approach. His biggest sin (it seems) isn't so much what he believes as much as it that he is not viewed as a collegial, warm father figure.

It would be interesting to see BKP do a Larry King-type interview. I don't believe it would help his image though.

Even in his bluntness...he is not all that radical and offensive.

He's not radical or offensive........but he's not ecumenical either IMO which can be viewed as a potential issue for nonmembers. LDS tend not to see this as an issue from my observances.

[cdowis]

It would be interesting to see BKP do a Larry King-type interview. I don't believe it would help his image though.

He had a short interview on the Frontline special on the Mormons, where he talked about some of the controversy surrounding some of his statements. It was very positive.

[cdowis]

I think it is rather amazing that President Packer is seen as having the need to 'mellow' out.

This is indicative of our own spiritual immaturity.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I voted other because as a non-member it is not my business to sustain him as the LDS President or not. I would, however, say- He would probably be the best thing to happen to the LDS Church since ETB.

[ERayR]

I would, however, say- He would probably be the best thing to happen to the LDS Church since ETB.

I would agree with this. So many now unable to stand sound doctrine.

[mrmendoza]

The criticism of him is nothing but politically motivated and inspired by The Adversary.

Not only would I approve of him becoming our next Prophet; I pray that he does become our next Prophet and President of the Church.

Inasmuch as that would require the death of President Monson, I don't think that I would be willing to be in complete agreement with you on that! That said, I would heartely sustain BKP as president if it came to that!

Mike

[Lightbearer]

So you believe that many who hate themselves over this, try to 'fix themselves', and end up committing suicide over it specifically chose to have these feelings

No I am not necessarily saying this, I am saying that these tendencies are not normal, and are not given from God. We are born into a sinful world, there are a lot of variables that could contribute to same sex attraction (which I did not mean to say the temptations were sinful in and of themselves.) Abuse, both sexual and emotional could be contributing factors, I am not a psychologist, there could be many unknown factors that can contribute to this weakness, many of which are not brought on by personal choice, but I do not believe anyone's spirit has these tendencies "preset" before birth into mortal life. It is a product of this mortal existence, and is one of the meany weaknesses that are a result of our being on this earth. In some instances it is a choice, in fact the actions are a choice and hard as it may seem to the one who is trapped into this sin, it is avoidable (the actions). But to state that these feelings are normal or natural to me is to encourage surrender to these unworthy impules. I also do not believe the CHI states that SSA is inborn, or natural, rather that it is a weakness that can be overcome, like any other.

Such an attitude can be extraordinarily offensive - and discouraging - towards many faithful, honorable, valiant and celibate gay latter-day saints who are faithfully and successfully overcoming temptations to act on their natural attractions, yet continue to be just as attracted to those of the same gender as you are to the opposite

I do not state these things to be offensive or to doubt anyone's repentance. But I do find the idea of being "born that way" as having a tendency to discourage those who are struggling with such feelings. Also trying to overcome such feelings on their own is probably not possible, it can only be done through the grace and mercy of Christ. In fact you could say I agree with the following statement:

(President Gordon B. Hinckley, What Are People Asking about Us?, Ensign (CR), November 1998, p.70)"In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families."

This I fully agree with, and hope it clarifies my comments.

Another point, if these feelings cannot be overcome, how will they ever have the types of relationships that Heavenly Father desires for His children? If one says "I am what I am" where is the repentance? Where is the going forward in faith and seeking to become as God is? Where is the hope of a better world? Of a better existence? I believe the agenda of those who began this idea that SSA is inborn is a purposeful ploy to discourage those who suffer from such feelings to abandon themselves to such temptations and embrace it rather than to follow the Lord and to seek peace through the restored Gospel.

[TAO]

No I am not necessarily saying this, I am saying that these tendencies are not normal, and are not given from God.

Erm... Lighbearer... God gives unto us weakness (Ether 12:27). However, it doesn't make a difference, because it's for our own good.

Although you are right, some I think are exaggerated a wee bit (on the other hand, some people really DO struggle with it).

Sorry, just didn't want someone else bashing you for the statement.

[Lightbearer]

Erm... Lighbearer... God gives unto us weakness (Ether 12:27). However, it doesn't make a difference, because it's for our own good.

Although you are right, some I think are exaggerated a wee bit (on the other hand, some people really DO struggle with it).

Sorry, just didn't want someone else bashing you for the statement.

That is correct, we are given weaknesses from God so that we might become humble and also if we come unto Christ we can make weaknesses become strengths to us. However the way this idea (SSA) seems to be pushed at us is that it is somehow in their spiritual makeup that they are of an alternate gender... this I do not believe and cannot accept. I think there is a difference between having a weakness and being born the wrong gender. Attraction to the opposite sex is not a weakness... and that is the context I meant when saying that SSA is not God given.

[TAO]

That is correct, we are given weaknesses from God so that we might become humble and also if we come unto Christ we can make weaknesses become strengths to us. However the way this idea (SSA) seems to be pushed at us is that it is somehow in their spiritual makeup that they are of an alternate gender... this I do not believe and cannot accept. I think there is a difference between having a weakness and being born the wrong gender. Attraction to the opposite sex is not a weakness... and that is the context I meant when saying that SSA is not God given.

I totally agree, it is being pushed in that way.

And the thing people need to realize is God doesn't make mistakes. He gives you the weaknesses on purpose. To make you better. To allow you to learn, so you can become strong, so that way, exaltation is possible.

[krose]

This absolutely ridiculous and insulting as well. I do not believe people are born with same sex attraction (orientation)it is a learned behavior just as alcholism, drug use, and even child molesters. This "tendency" or "attraction" I believe is more due to nurture rather than nature.

If you personally know LDS families who have a gay child, you can probably point out what they specifically did (or failed to do) that made their child turn out 'that way.' That would be enlightening.

What I find interesting is that even very conservative LDS tend to gain a different viewpoint when the person in question is a friend or family member rather than a stranger. They know that it happened to their friend or relative in spite of being raised the same way and in the same environment as their straight siblings.

[krose]

... but even if a nation were to make same sex marriage legal it would still be an abomination in the Lord's sight.

Lucky for the lesbians that the "abomination" label does not apply to them. The "Lord" (much like the men who run religious and political organizations today) appears to have been mostly concerned about how a certain male organ is used.

[USU78]

Lucky for the lesbians that the "abomination" label does not apply to them. The "Lord" (much like the men who run religious and political organizations today) appears to have been mostly concerned about how a certain male organ is used.

Nice, krose. Very nice.