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

[TAO]

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.

What are you talking of Krose. It's still an abomination. =P.

[Droopy]

I have to admit, I've never got the criticism. At all.

It can all be encompassed in one phrase:

Human sexuality.

Or, we in the Church can encompass it all in the "law of chastity" and related concerns.

BKP is as politically incorrect as it is possible to be, given accepted mortal limitations (which is why I like him so much, no doubt).

[Lightbearer]

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.

How the hell do you know anything about my family? Oh and yes I suppose Laman and Lemuel did have the same upbringing as Nephi and Sam but they had different outcomes. I was also not referring necessarily to parental upbringing, I had a friend who was molested as a child, and yes it was through no fault of his own, yet he resisted such "tendencies" so please you can turn off the propaganda machine.

[Droopy]

I'm sure social pressure didn't have anything to do with lifting the Priesthood ban and the stop of polygamy.... yea..... the Church will be as immovable in its position as in other times...

Its not particularly plausible. The civil rights movement (which in any case had, for all intents, deteriorated substantially since the MLK era) had achieved its most salient and socially conscionable victories by the mid-sixties, and American society had changed drastically from that time to 1978, when the ban was lifted. There was no particular social pressure to lift the ban at that time, and had such pressure been really instrumental, the ban would have been lifted sometime between the mid-sixties and early seventies, when "social pressure" was really pervasive and public.

[Droopy]

I would have a much easier time accepting President Packer than accepting some kind of "revelation" that normalizes homosexual relationships.

Now that could well produce a "mass exodus" of the kind long predicted for other "conservative" Prophets.

[Lightbearer]

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.

Oh I suppose you don't bother to read my entire posts, just the parts you want to make strawmen arguments out of but if you read my above quote from President Hinckley it plainly states:

(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."

So in case you did not get that Lesbians and homosexuals are both forms of immorallity and both are an abomination.

[Droopy]

AS a prophet of God? Ummmmmmmmmm, no!

Upon what criteria do you base this judgment?

[Droopy]

In my own opinion, it would be a disaster for the LDS Church and generally if BKP would become the president of the church. But to be clear, although that is my opinion, I still believe that BKP is a man of God, and I sustain him as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Nevertheless, one's status as a man of God, or even a prophet, in no way insulates his purported revelations from scrutiny, and a great many errors have been perpetuated by believers mistaking a leader's personal opinion for authentic revelation (even when the purported revelation is cloaked in officiality). So at this point, while I would "sustain" BKP in his official capacity, I would not swallow everything he says just because of his position. Though I believe BKP is sincere, I also strongly believe that he lacks critical thinking skills and is very closed minded and autocratic in his theological approach. Though I bear no ill-will to BKP personally, I honestly believe the LDS Church would be much better off if BKP never becomes president. I therefore selected the second choice in the poll.

Ahh yes...there's just nothing like a real, died-in-the-wool "moderate" or "centrist" to shake things up, fan the flames of testimony, and produce an excruciating hernia.

Sitting on a fence, especially when you move up the scale in poundage in later age, as I'm in the process of doing, to some degree, tends to do that.

I'm just wondering WJ, upon what criteria do you, personally, determine what of BKP's teachings are inspired, and which his own dogmatic, personal opinions and prejudices?

[mfbukowski]

How the hell do you know anything about my family? Oh and yes I suppose Laman and Lemuel did have the same upbringing as Nephi and Sam but they had different outcomes. I was also not referring necessarily to parental upbringing, I had a friend who was molested as a child, and yes it was through no fault of his own, yet he resisted such "tendencies" so please you can turn off the propaganda machine.

Yep.

This is what drives me nuts about all these attacks on the LDS position on sms- the presumption is always that we could never possibly understand having experienced such a thing as child molestation or same sex attraction, when many of us have indeed had direct experience one way or the other with dealing with these situations, and come away triumphant.

The presumption is that no one could possibly, or should possibly, overcome temptation of any sexual nature whatsoever.

Hey, if you fall in love, you fall in love right? Who can resist that? Of course you are going to act on every little impulse your hormones send you!

It is ironic to me that the same people who tell us that testimony is "just a feeling" to be ignored are the same ones who insist that feelings be followed when it includes sexual impulses.

You should "follow your gut" anywhere it leads, as long as it is not to church!

[Droopy]

It seems to be one more indicator that the schism in the LDS Church declared by Dr. Shades is simply not true.

One wonders.

Keep in mind too, that Shades' chapel/internet Mormon dichotomy was intended as a little piece of intellectual condescension, setting the "chapel" Mormons (the Forrest Gumps that make up the bulk of faithful Church membership) against the "internet" (the educated, liberal, enlightened, intellectually sophisticated Mormons who read Dialogue and Sunstone and who may even be "cultural Mormons" who have left the Church in all but psychological affiliation) Mormons in a war of class snobbery.

Credentialism and endless arguments over who is smarter than who and who went to what name university as a mark of whether or not one is qualified to debate a subject with them is a standard bottomless conflict one finds him/herself engaged in with such folks.

It parallels a great deal of what goes on out in Babylon the Great on a daily basis without the Church.

[Pahoran]

One wonders.

Keep in mind too, that Shades' chapel/internet Mormon dichotomy was intended as a little piece of intellectual condescension, setting the "chapel" Mormons (the Forrest Gumps that make up the bulk of faithful Church membership) against the "internet" (the educated, liberal, enlightened, intellectually sophisticated Mormons who read Dialogue and Sunstone and who may even be "cultural Mormons" who have left the Church in all but psychological affiliation) Mormons in a war of class snobbery.

Credentialism and endless arguments over who is smarter than who and who went to what name university as a mark of whether or not one is qualified to debate a subject with them is a standard bottomless conflict one finds him/herself engaged in with such folks.

It parallels a great deal of what goes on out in Babylon the Great on a daily basis without the Church.

No doubt.

It had another function, too.

It enables Shades to attack the Church based upon a two-dimensional caricature of Mormon folklore, such as was so ham-fistedly demonstrated by "EB" a few years ago; and if anyone responds by pointing to anything written by anyone with an education, Shades can dismiss it as being "internet Mormonism" and therefore irrelevant to what real "Chapel Mormons" believe.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Droopy]

What part of the Shades theory leads you to believe that Internet Mormons would be likely to oppose an anointed prophet?

Because they (the fictitious "internet" category) are far more likely to be "cultural" Mormons, in process of apostasy from the Church or having already completed that process.

I say this after long experience with them, collectively speaking.

[Bsix]

Because they (the fictitious "internet" category) are far more likely to be "cultural" Mormons, in process of apostasy from the Church or having already completed that process.

That observation certainly does not seem to bear out on this particular survey thread here in the heart of Internet Mormon Zion.

Six

[Droopy]

Oh I suppose you don't bother to read my entire posts, just the parts you want to make strawmen arguments out of but if you read my above quote from President Hinckley it plainly states:So in case you did not get that Lesbians and homosexuals are both forms of immorallity and both are an abomination.

Lesbianism is female homosexuality, and the term "Gay" corresponds to male homosexuality.

Both are forms of homosexuality.

Just so you're clear on this Krose.

[Droopy]

That observation certainly does not seem to bear out on this particular survey thread here in the heart of Internet Mormon Zion.

Six

Go over to the Trailerpark and give the same survey there, where most such people have their residence, and compare the results you get there with those received here.

The populations of the various message boards are self selected, after all.

Another possibility, that seems many times to be overlooked, is that in many cases, the "chapel" and "internet" Mormons are actually the same people, which washes out the whole TBM/liberal intellectual dichotomy and allows us the possibility that a large number of conservative, "orthodox", TBM members are also very well read, intellectual, highly educated (self, formally, or both) and active in the internet world.

And out of Shade's sails goes the wind.

[CQUIRK]

Call me crazy, but I haven't seen BKP being a significant figure of attack in the SSMlike movement. The OP is talking about LDS members and critics that focus on BKP because of other reasons, too, besides SSM.

Neither have I- until he made his speech, now he is.

hahaha!

As Han Solo said, "Laugh it up, fuzzball!".

mmm, I don't think how big a church is really matters, bro.

Then why doesn't the Homosexual movement mainly go after the SBC and other fundamentalist churches that are truly anti-gay and opposed to any kind of rights for LGT people? Why the main focus on us?

The answer is quite apparent.

I'm sure social pressure didn't have anything to do with lifting the Priesthood ban and the stop of polygamy.... yea..... the Church will be as immovable in its position as in other times...

If that was the case, the church would have stopped the priesthood ban in the late 1960's and also discontinued polygamy entirely after 1890, but it didn't. And unlike race or polygamy, the scriptures are quite clear on homosexuality, including in Leviticus, and the church doesn't compromise core doctrine.

[Katzpur]

I didn't vote because I don't like choices called "Other," and that's the only one that described my feelings. I'll sustain him just as a sustained Ezra Taft Benson. I won't bad-mouth him, just as I did not bad-mouth Ezra Taft Benson. I won't be particularly thrilled to see it happen, just as I won't be particularly thrilled when Ezra Taft Benson was sustained. My own personal feelings are that we all have favorite apostles and apostles whose messages and personalities just rub us the wrong way. Some members love pretending that they don't share this human flaw. Maybe there are such people, but it strikes me as a kind of a self-righteous attitude to have.

I would be absolutely delighted to see Tom Perry, Russell Nelson, Dallin Oaks or Russell Ballard be the Prophet. They're the next in line after Elder Packer, so I plan on having no problem for quite some time to come. If Elder Packer ends up in that position, I'll tell myself that it was the Lord's choice and that I'll survive. And I'm quite sure I will.

[Mark Beesley]

I'm sure social pressure didn't have anything to do with lifting the Priesthood ban and the stop of polygamy.... yea..... the Church will be as immovable in its position as in other times...

The cessation of the practice of polygamy came about because of legal pressure, not social pressure. The practice was outlawed, Church leaders were imprisoned, and the Church was threatened with the loss of its property, including the Temples.

The change in the Priesthood policy wass much more complicated and involved than simply succumbing to social pressure. But a person would actually have to study the issue in depth to understand that, rather than simply relying on sound bites.

[Droopy]

I didn't vote because I don't like choices called "Other," and that's the only one that described my feelings. I'll sustain him just as a sustained Ezra Taft Benson. I won't bad-mouth him, just as I did not bad-mouth Ezra Taft Benson. I won't be particularly thrilled to see it happen, just as I won't be particularly thrilled when Ezra Taft Benson was sustained. My own personal feelings are that we all have favorite apostles and apostles whose messages and personalities just rub us the wrong way. Some members love pretending that they don't share this human flaw. Maybe there are such people, but it strikes me as a kind of a self-righteous attitude to have.

I would be absolutely delighted to see Tom Perry, Russell Nelson, Dallin Oaks or Russell Ballard be the Prophet. They're the next in line after Elder Packer, so I plan on having no problem for quite some time to come. If Elder Packer ends up in that position, I'll tell myself that it was the Lord's choice and that I'll survive. And I'm quite sure I will.

This is interesting because I've never noticed any real change in the messages. Certain things have been emphasized over other things as the decades have passed, and a certain focus may appear now and then, but the messages, upon the same subjects, have remained constant.

What is different about Ezra Taft Benson or Boyd Packer that would alter the teachings and messages delivered in a way that would clearly differentiate them from Russell Nelson, Dallin Oaks or M. Russell Ballard?

If any of these men, as President of the Church gave talks on homosexual marriage, sexual morality, abortion, tithing, missionary work, the historicity of the BofM, the Word of Wisdom, etc., how would they differ such that you would feel more comfortable with one than with the other as President of the Church?

[krose]

What are you talking of Krose. It's still an abomination. =P.

Not according to scripture. That term is only applied to male homosexual behavior. But women are included in the bestiality condemnation, so that's something, I guess.

I suppose you don't bother to read my entire posts, just the parts you want to make strawmen arguments out of but if you read my above quote from President Hinckley it plainly states:So in case you did not get that Lesbians and homosexuals are both forms of immorallity and both are an abomination.

Oh, I don't doubt that recent LDS prophets consider sapphic love to be 'sinful' and 'immoral,' even though their scriptures don't really address it. I'm just wondering how you came to extend the Leviticus term of "abomination" to that practice as well. Of course, if you routinely think of all sins as abominations, that would explain it. It's a strong term I would only apply to a few things (war, genocide, slavery, child abuse, torture, murder...). But I don't speak for any deity, so that's just my personal opinion.

Lesbianism is female homosexuality, and the term "Gay" corresponds to male homosexuality. Both are forms of homosexuality. Just so you're clear on this Krose.

Not sure what your aim is with this little primer. I don't believe I've shown a lack of definitional clarity on this subject.

[krose]

How the hell do you know anything about my family?

No need to take offense. I didn't mention your family at all. The point was that those with gay or lesbian loved ones often acquire a different opinion regarding nature vs. nurture. If you have listened to KSL radio, you may have heard Doug Wright talk about his uncle's struggles, and how that makes it hard for him to believe orientation is anything other than born.

I had a childhood friend who eventually realized/admitted he was gay after his mission. I always knew, from early childhood, that he was different from the rest of the guys (including his brother). I just didn't know why at the time.

Oh and yes I suppose Laman and Lemuel did have the same upbringing as Nephi and Sam but they had different outcomes.

In a conversation with a nonbeliever, it's not really effective to quote scriptures or use examples of characters he considers fictional. Even so, that example seems to point more toward their essential nature being born rather than learned.

[SilverKnight]

I would prefer Boyd K Packer to not become president of the church.

In my opinion he does not radiate the same spirit of love, kindness and compassion as other apostles do.

[Jason]

Alcoholism likely has a "born that way" component. I don't see any possibility of a revelation relaxing the Word of Wisdom because of this.

[krose]

Alcoholism likely has a "born that way" component. I don't see any possibility of a revelation relaxing the Word of Wisdom because of this.

The purported original revelation was relaxed in the first place (remember the phrases "not by commandment or constraint" and "principle with promise"). Its practice became increasingly more restrictive over time.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would prefer Boyd K Packer to not become president of the church.

In my opinion he does not radiate the same spirit of love, kindness and compassion as other apostles do.

Sometimes talking straight is the kindest, most loving, and most compassionate thing you can do. I would prefer someone who tells it how it is over one who tickles my ears with pretty little poems and stories.