President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Jeff K.]

It isn't my first language, it is however one of several. In any language though the reflection you present would be the same.

While I acknowledge the spectrum of sexual orientation that ranges from "full homosexual" to "full heterosexual" (with "full bisexual" in the middle), and the ability for people not on the far edges of the spectrum to choose their lifestyle to some degree, I've never seen or heard of any situations that lead me to believe that God can (or would) make a "full homosexual" into a "full heterosexual".

And, as I've mentioned, I've known several people who were "full homosexual" and did everything they could over decades to avail themselves of any spiritual power to help them find happiness in a heterosexual relationship (even to the slightest degree), with no success.

So while I acknowledge that God could change a full-homosexual into a full (or partial) heterosexual in the theoretical "God can do anything" sense, I place the likelihood of that happening near zero. I think it's about as likely as an amputee regrowing a limb from a priesthood blessing.

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

It seems you deem homosexual acts to be a desireable outcome because the orientation is, one presumes on your terms, organic and natural in its development and therefore in no need of change. For the natural man, this is true. But then the natural man is an enemy of God. But it does beg the question, if homosexuality and its acts, which is condemned by God, is somehow something you don't believe can or should be changed, what of other sexual attractions? To children for example? With sadomasochism? Are they not also equally natural constructs and therefore should not be changed by God? Orientation does not simply go along the lines of singular one way or another. The ramifications you offer are disturbing.

Replace that (the bold section) with any number of other orientations and you would find the conclusion I reached inevitable.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jeff K.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent! There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. (Of course, seeing as how Pahoran is seriously comparing homosexuals to jihadi terrorists and Hitler, I suppose the time for nuanced conversation is done.)

[cinepro]

Replace that (the bold section) with any number of other orientations and you would find the conclusion I reached inevitable.

For one, I don't equate "organic" or "natural' things as being "desirable", since cancer is "organic" and "natural". So is pooping in your pants.

And so are rainbows, sunsets, and heterosexual sex. So I don't see how one is related to the other, or how either speak to the subject at hand.

Regardless of where homosexuality comes from, I just haven't seen any good reason to believe that God is using His power to change full-homosexual desires into full-heterosexual ones. And I've seen too many instances where He could have but didn't. That would be great, but I'm just not seeing it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent! There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. (Of course, seeing as how Pahoran is seriously comparing homosexuals to jihadi terrorists and Hitler, I suppose the time for nuanced conversation is done.)

Try to avoid taking the quote out of context. Read the entire post and understand that all attractions/orientations can occur organically, and therefore the question regarding the attraction remains valid, whether acting upon that attraction because it is natural or organic is the question that cinepro put out there. Yours is merely a simplistic derail of the point made. Not surprising given you edited out the context.

[Jeff K.]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent! There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. (Of course, seeing as how Pahoran is seriously comparing homosexuals to jihadi terrorists and Hitler, I suppose the time for nuanced conversation is done.)

Let us know when you are nuanced, we await with anticipation.

[Jaybear]

This is nonsense, Jaybear. We're not in court. Not all "gays" are so rabidly anti-Mormon as to refuse to be friends with a Latter-day Saint, therefore Jeff's claim to have a "gay" friend is a reasonable one. Likewise, not all "gays" are necessarily selfish hedonists unable to subordinate their carnal desires to genuine religious conviction.

That is not what I said, nor was it the point of my post. My point is that Jeff's purporting to speak for someone else is rank hearsay.

You are welcome to believe that Jeff has a gay friend, and he has accurately conveyed what his friends says and thinks.

I choose to retain a healthy skepticism. Having read some of the things Jeff has said about gays and the gay agenda, I think my skepticism is warranted and reasonable.

And it is unreasonable to assume that Jeff's friend is somehow at your beck and call.

Never made such an assumption. Frankly, to the contrary, I assumed that we would never hear a word from Jeff's "friend."

It's been my observation that Jeff has been honest with us throughout his posting history. Even if he did not have a posting history of nearly ten thousand posts, he would still have more credibility than those who are badgering him right now. I recommend you don't start inviting comparisons by which you can only suffer.

You have never been shy or reluctant to insult me before without cause or provocation. What's up? You feeling okay?

[LeSellers]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

... The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent!

Their age or maturity has nothing at all to do with whether a second party is attracted, sexually, to the child in question.

We're not, at this point, discussing an act, but an attraction. I might be attracted to daiquiris, but as long as I don't imbibe, the attraction is not a sin. If I start drinking, it becomes one (for me, since I have covenanted not to do so). That attraction, however, and my denying myself "release" by drinking, may actually make me despondent. I would hope that Father would purge me of this attraction in the Kingdom, because eternity without a drink to which I am attracted would be painful. I read the scriptures in such a way that this will be the outcome: I will no longer be attracted to daiquiris.

Why, then, is it not reasonable to assume He'd do the same for people with other debilitating, non-celestial attractions, including same-sex attractions?

On the other hand, I do accept that He will not force a homosexual to undergo such a purging against his will. But He can cleanse them, and He will, for those who desire it.

Lehi

Edited March 27, 2012 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

The purpose of the Gospel and Atonement is to help us to return to God and to attain exaltation. Exaltation requires sealing to a spouse of the opposite sex for time and eternity. If two people of the same sex do not fit this criteria then by assumption they will not be able to reach what God wants for them. So one of two things must happen. There must be a healing process where all such unnatural feelings are erased or the person must be confined to a lesser degree of glory where it won't matter because there will be no intimate activity in any case. I choose to think that all mortal imperfections will be erased and we will be able to become perfected through the Atonement.

The argument that we go into the spirit world with the same feelings and desires we have here doesn't fly for it is during that stay before resurrection that such things will be overcome and all will be made whole. An alcoholic or a person who craves tobacco will have to overcome those desires just as someone with SSA will have to overcome theirs. I know they don't like to hear this but I don't see how with what the scriptures reveal it can be otherwise. I do think the Lord has great compassion for such difficulties and will take such things into consideration. But you can't expect those who don't control what has been deemed unchaste to be on the same level as those who overcome such desires in this life, whatever their sexual orientation.

I do understand the struggle and loneliness of someone with SSA. My heart aches for them to have such a challenge. But I also know that with God all things are possible; it's a matter of choosing what is more important: to live the lifestyle you feel you are relegated to or to choose to follow God and turn your life over to him.

Someone mentioned the Catholic priests who are gay and serve faithfully. There is no reason for an LDS person not to also live chastely and serve faithfully; being free of family restraints they can do far more than they might otherwise.

[Daniel2]

Can anyone name any time or place where they Lord has defined what is "morale" as "So long as everyone else is okay with it....."?

I understand the Mormons believe that at least one view of "morality" is defined simply as "whatever [their understanding of] God requires."

I also find the reaction of critics and libertines to Packer to be fascinating.

While they hiss and foam at the mere mention of his name (like vampires to sunlight or thinking readers to anything with Stephanie Meyers name on it)- they have never been able to prove him wrong.

Really? You’d characterize those of us reacting to Packer as “hissing”? “Foaming”? Akin to “vampires to sunlight”…? I haven’t observed any examples of such hyperbole in this thread.

Even in this thread, no one has tried to argue that his interpretation is incorrect- only that it is old-fashioned or passe.

No one here has tried (let alone succeeded) in engaging Packer on the merits of his arguments.

They've just insisted that their private "cuz-I-know-better" gospel is "more sophisticated", "more nuanced", "more compassionate" or- to be blunt- more palatable to the pomp of Babylon.

So far as the article written by Packer in the OP is concerned, it’s impossible to “engage Packer on the merits of his arguments” because his “arguments” are merely expressions of his religious testimony. As was often repeated to me in the MTC while I was preparing for my mission, “people will try to argue over facts, but no one can argue with a testimony.”

It is not my goal to prove Packer’s personal testimony about same-sex attraction is wrong. I don’t doubt that many Latter-day Saints sincerely and genuinely share his religious convictions on the subject. All of those that do are perfectly entitled to their testimonies and feelings of religious conviction on the subject.

So far as my intent is concerned, as an “atheist” (not an entirely accurate term for myself, but probably the best choice of word in this particular instance, in so far that I don’t believe in the LDS version of deity), engaging or attempting to rebut Packer’s religiously-based rationale for opposing and condemning same-sex relationships and behaviors is nonsensical. It would be futile to try to refute Packer’s article with reason, because his argument doesn’t attempt to rely on reason for it’s justification—it relies on religious beliefs about things. His argument basically boils down to “God forbids homosexual relationships because they don’t fulfill/fit God’s plan.” Though I don’t mind occasionally engaging in speculation on how LDS doctrine could someday be adapted to allow for loving same-sex relationships, it’s ultimately not my objective or desire to refute Packer’s testimony to the contrary.

The reason, then, I felt it was important to share the words of Stephen Schwartz’s song, “Testimony” is simply because it represents testimony of gay men that serve in some ways as a counterpoint to Boyd Packer’s “testimony.” In response to listening to others “bear testimony,” which cannot really be rebutted, by definition, the best course any of us would have would simply be to bear our own testimony, in return.

I know that the divine spirit within me bears testimony to the inherent goodness and worthiness of love—whether the object of one’s affections be of the same or the opposite gender.

I know that love moves to compassion and beauty, regardless of our physical gender, or the physical genders of those we love.

I know that love is praise-worthy, and of good report, and something I seek after.

I know that the love I am capable of feeling for another man has been more profoundly moving, for me, than the love I have been capable of feeling for a woman.

And I know that the love I have felt has been one of the most ennobling and enriching and self-sacrificing aspects of my experiences here on earth.

I bear testimony of these things. I have felt them more keenly and spiritually than other ‘truths’ I had previously tried to live.

I understand and am unthreatened by the notion that Boyd Packer’s and others’ experiences, feelings, and beliefs have caused them to gain different testimonies than the experiences that lead me to share what I now know and feel.

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

For one, I don't equate "organic" or "natural' things as being "desirable", since cancer is "organic" and "natural". So is pooping in your pants.

And so are rainbows, sunsets, and heterosexual sex. So I don't see how one is related to the other, or how either speak to the subject at hand.

Regardless of where homosexuality comes from, I just haven't seen any good reason to believe that God is using His power to change full-homosexual desires into full-heterosexual ones. And I've seen too many instances where He could have but didn't. That would be great, but I'm just not seeing it.

Quote

While I acknowledge the spectrum of sexual orientation that ranges from "full homosexual" to "full heterosexual" (with "full bisexual" in the middle), and the ability for people not on the far edges of the spectrum to choose their lifestyle to some degree, I've never seen or heard of any situations that lead me to believe that God can (or would) make a "full homosexual" into a "full heterosexual".

And, as I've mentioned, I've known several people who were "full homosexual" and did everything they could over decades to avail themselves of any spiritual power to help them find happiness in a heterosexual relationship (even to the slightest degree), with no success.

So while I acknowledge that God could change a full-homosexual into a full (or partial) heterosexual in the theoretical "God can do anything" sense, I place the likelihood of that happening near zero. I think it's about as likely as an amputee regrowing a limb from a priesthood blessing.

Quote

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

It seems you deem homosexual acts to be a desireable outcome because the orientation is, one presumes on your terms, organic and natural in its development and therefore in no need of change. For the natural man, this is true. But then the natural man is an enemy of God. But it does beg the question, if homosexuality and its acts, which is condemned by God, is somehow something you don't believe can or should be changed, what of other sexual attractions? To children for example? With sadomasochism? Are they not also equally natural constructs and therefore should not be changed by God? Orientation does not simply go along the lines of singular one way or another. The ramifications you offer are disturbing.

For one, I don't equate "organic" or "natural' things as being "desirable", since cancer is "organic" and "natural". So is pooping in your pants.

And so are rainbows, sunsets, and heterosexual sex. So I don't see how one is related to the other, or how either speak to the subject at hand.

Regardless of where homosexuality comes from, I just haven't seen any good reason to believe that God is using His power to change full-homosexual desires into full-heterosexual ones. And I've seen too many instances where He could have but didn't. That would be great, but I'm just not seeing it.

Apparently you see God as probably not being able to change orientation, now why wouldn't God do that when the results are wrong after the trial of this mortal life? While you may back pedal and go to "homosexual" orientation, the fact is that all orientations are within the same purview you have presented. So you see no good reason to change orientations? Perhaps someone who is slightly attracted to children, fully attracted to children etc.... in other words orientation. Why wouldn't God do that? And what makes a homosexual orientation different from all others except the one expressly permitted and endorsed by God? Especially upon the resurrection?

[The Nehor]

Again, I think such a reaction says more about you than me. Since it was generic, there was no one to really patronize and condescend to, and no one to be patronizing and condescending. It made no judgments and simply pointed out a practical means for assessment--particularly of the self kind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are very un-self-aware then. The implicit assumption is that you are in harmony with God and everyone else is not or you would not feel so assured in making this declaration.

If an apostle or a bishop said it I'd be okay with it as he has the keys to make such declarations. You do not. Either you are naive and don't realize how you come across or you are arrogant and hiding behind the pretense of ignorance. Either way it is obnoxious to others.

In either case I think we can all tell how humble we are by how often we use such tactics. It is of course up to the individual to determine this and I make no judgments.

See what I did there?

[Jeff K.]

Some people mistake carnal desires for "the divine spirit". Does love induce one to leave one's family for an adulterous affair? Does love induce one to give in to physical desires? And yet such an endorsement exists through the actions of those proclaiming "love" when in fact it is merely carnal desire. A flamingo is a beautiful bird, the artificial ones, not so much.

[Daniel2]

Here is a reference for you. This is the closest thing I've seen to saying that it was a revelation.

I personally would not be surprised if we saw the Family Proclamation in our scriptures some day, perhaps as Official Declaration 3.

In his conference talk spoken from the pulpit, Packer referred to the Family Proclamation as "a revelation that will help families..." When printed online and in the Ensign, the word "revelation" was altered to state that the Family Proclamation is "a guide that will help families..." Why do you think the church decided to make that change in it's official printed version of Packer's talk?

If you feel the Family Proclamation is truly a revelation that should be adopted as Declaration 3, why do you think it's hasn't been proposed as such, before the body of the church? (it's been over 10 years since the Proclamation was issued).

Do you believe that all Proclamations issued by LDS leaders have been "revelations"? Do you believe all of them should be included as "Declarations" in the D & C?

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Pahoran]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent! There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. (Of course, seeing as how Pahoran is seriously comparing homosexuals to jihadi terrorists and Hitler, I suppose the time for nuanced conversation is done.)

Seeing as how you are willfully misrepresenting what I posted, your committment to nuanced conversation is highly suspect.

If you knew anything about what you spout about, you'd know that the relationship between Jihad and terrorism is tenuous at best. Most jihadists are not terrorists and very few terrorists even claim to be jihadists. I compared nobody to any terrorists. You have no basis to believe what you assert, but you went ahead and asserted it anyway.

I use "jihad" in this context as shorthand for "an irresistible and inevitably victorious campaign." If you did not understand that before, understand it now.

Likewise, I have not compared anyone to Hitler. I have not even mentioned Hitler. I invite you to refrain from attributing to me statements I did not make.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent! There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. (Of course, seeing as how Pahoran is seriously comparing homosexuals to jihadi terrorists and Hitler, I suppose the time for nuanced conversation is done.)

Actually there is a meaningful correlation (though not comparison) to be made. True, pedophilia is much worse in that it is predatory but I've known an LDS person for whom it is as big a temptation to the point where sexual relations with an adult are repugnant. I think everyone would unite behind me in telling this person NEVER to act on this desire because it is sinful and barbaric. I have nothing buy sympathy (mixed with caution) for this man. He has never acted on these impulses. Is what this person must do to remain a faithful LDS member any different then what we ask of a homosexual? Not really. Admittedly if he falls it would be much worse for both himself and his victim but the virtuous life would be outwardly similar. I don't know if God will fix this problem in this life and neither does he.

[cinepro]

Apparently you see God as probably not being able to change orientation, now why wouldn't God do that when the results are wrong after the trial of this mortal life?

I don't know why. I'm just saying that from what I can tell, He doesn't. Just like He doesn't regrow amputated limbs or heal any of the deaf or blind Church members that I've known. I also believe that God could change people so every Tuesday, they wake up being totally albino, and then the next day, they're back to normal again. I just don't think He does.

While you may back pedal and go to "homosexual" orientation, the fact is that all orientations are within the same purview you have presented. So you see no good reason to change orientations?

I don't know why you think I don't see any good reason to change orientations. I can see tons of good reasons for gay men (and women) to change orientations. I've known people who wished for nothing more.

Perhaps someone who is slightly attracted to children, fully attracted to children etc.... in other words orientation. Why wouldn't God do that? And what makes a homosexual orientation different from all others except the one expressly permitted and endorsed by God? Especially upon the resurrection?

I don't know what you are saying. I think it would be great if God would change pedophiles so they didn't "desire" children. In fact, if I were making a list of awesome things for God to do with His power, that would be right up at the top. But again, as far as I can tell, He doesn't.

Back to my original question to Scott, I was referring to the things that we believe God does. For example, based on the Bible and other anecdotal evidence, I believe that "healing the blind" and "raising the dead" are in God's playbook. But I've never heard anyone claim that "changing homosexuals into heterosexuals" is also something that God does. I've heard of "reparative therapy" and other psychological methods of attempting it, but I've never heard it as a gift of the Spirit.

[cinepro]

Here's another way to put it:

If you had a female friend at BYU who told you that she was in love with a worthy man, but this man had told her that he was "full-homosexual" but still wanted to get married and have children (because of his understanding of marriage and families in the gospel), and that while he didn't currently have an "attraction" to the woman he had faith that God would change him, and this woman also had faith that God would change his desires, and the woman was asking your advice on whether she should marry him, what would you say?

[Scott Lloyd]

"What of other sexual attractions? To children for example?"

Is this a non-rhetorical question? The difference is that children are not of an age to give legal consent!

Legality, at the end of the day, is a reflection of what society will tolerate in any given age.

There is simply no meaningful comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The difference is that the one has gained gradual and incremental acceptance in society, while the other has yet to do so.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

In his conference talk from the pulpit, Packer referred to the Family Proclamation as "a revelation." When printed online and in the Ensign, the word "revelation" was altered to "a guide." Why do you think the church decided to make that change in it's official printed version of Packer's talk?

Who is "the church?" Who is it that "decided to make that change?"

I realise it is convenient for those of your ideological stripe to see the Church as a big faceless "they," but it is made up of people. There is nobody in the Church who can censor President Packer, and only three people in the Church who have any authority to even advise him on what to say or how to say it. It was President Packer who "decided" that his talk should be printed in the form that it was, which was probably closer to its original written form than his spoken delivery was anyway.

If you feel the Family Proclamation is truly a revelation that should be adopted as Declaration 3, why do you think it's hasn't been proposed as such, before the body of the church? (it's been over 10 years since the Proclamation was issued).

Do you believe that all Proclamations issued by LDS leaders have been "revelations"?

I'm not presumptuous enough to second-guess anyone. It seems clear to me that faithful Latter-day Saints accept and follow the Proclamation in its present status. I strongly suspect that the less-faithful (or outright faithless) would remain entirely unmoved if it was canonised. While I would derive a certain personal satisfaction from seeing it canonised, I'm not sure what practical difference it would make.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

Some people mistake carnal desires for "the divine spirit".

Indeed, some do. Just as others mistake misguided judgement and condemnation as "righteousness."

Does love induce one to leave one's family for an adulterous affair?

Probably not, in most cases.

Does love induce one to give in to physical desires?

Quite often, yes. For example, I certainly hope that is true for most married couples.

And yet such an endorsement exists through the actions of those proclaiming "love" when in fact it is merely carnal desire.

Jeff, you seem quick to judge my motiviations and endorsements. You do not know much of my story. I advocate that spouses should remain committed to one another, so far as appropriate and possible--even though there are sometimes circumstances in which divorce may be the best option for all concerned (abusive relationships come to mind first, for example).

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Jaybear]

Actually there is a meaningful correlation (though not comparison) to be made. True, pedophilia is much worse in that it is predatory but I've known an LDS person for whom it is as big a temptation to the point where sexual relations with an adult are repugnant. I think everyone would unite behind me in telling this person NEVER to act on this desire because it is sinful and barbaric. I have nothing buy sympathy (mixed with caution) for this man. He has never acted on these impulses. Is what this person must do to remain a faithful LDS member any different then what we ask of a homosexual? Not really. Admittedly if he falls it would be much worse for both himself and his victim but the virtuous life would be outwardly similar. I don't know if God will fix this problem in this life and neither does he.

Yes. There is vast difference between asking someone to refrain from engaging in consensual sex, and from pursing a healthy and emotionally satisfying lifelong commitment with another adult as compared to asking them not to rape a child.

[Nominee]

You are very un-self-aware then. The implicit assumption is that you are in harmony with God and everyone else is not or you would not feel so assured in making this declaration.

If an apostle or a bishop said it I'd be okay with it as he has the keys to make such declarations. You do not. Either you are naive and don't realize how you come across or you are arrogant and hiding behind the pretense of ignorance. Either way it is obnoxious to others.

In either case I think we can all tell how humble we are by how often we use such tactics. It is of course up to the individual to determine this and I make no judgments.

See what I did there?

I see what you did! and I want to say, "Well done!"

Bad habit but executed with precision!

[Daniel2]

Who is "the church?" Who is it that "decided to make that change?"

I realise it is convenient for those of your ideological stripe to see the Church as a big faceless "they," but it is made up of people. There is nobody in the Church who can censor President Packer, and only three people in the Church who have any authority to even advise him on what to say or how to say it. It was President Packer who "decided" that his talk should be printed in the form that it was, which was probably closer to its original written form than his spoken delivery was anyway.

Whether it was "the church" or Packer himself or the First Presidency or the Correlation Committee doesn't change the intent of my question:

Whomever was responsible for the change, why would the words "a revelation" have been changed to "a guide"?

I'm not presumptuous enough to second-guess anyone. It seems clear to me that faithful Latter-day Saints accept and follow the Proclamation in its present status. I strongly suspect that the less-faithful (or outright faithless) would remain entirely unmoved if it was canonised. While I would derive a certain personal satisfaction from seeing it canonised, I'm not sure what practical difference it would make.

So... in your view, what is the point of cannonizing anything...?

Daniel2

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Pahoran:

Spare me. Here are your exact words:

"The "gay" jihad is convinced of the inevitability of Der Tag. But again I point out that you are supposed to be pretending that once you have subverted the civil marriage system you'll be leaving churches alone. Thank you for that uncharacteristically frank admission that a "Final Solution" to your religious problem is part of your agenda."

You specifically linked the "gay jihad" with the "Final Solution." The "Final Solution" was Hitler's endorsement of the systematic genocide of Jews.

But oh, right, I forgot, you're just propounding the principles of truth and righteousness; only the wicked would want to change your views.

Edited March 27, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Pahoran]

That is not what I said, nor was it the point of my post. My point is that Jeff's purporting to speak for someone else is rank hearsay.

Which is irrelevant. The hearsay rule only applies in court.

In evidential situations outside of court, the fact that a statement is hearsay simply means that it has lesser status than direct testimony. It doesn't get merely dismissed out of hand.

And in any event, this is neither a courtroom nor indeed any other formal investigation of evidence. It is a conversation among friends.

You are welcome to believe that Jeff has a gay friend, and he has accurately conveyed what his friends says and thinks.

I choose to retain a healthy skepticism.

Accusing someone of lying when you have no evidence at all to support your accusation is not "healthy skepticism," it is baseless suspicion.

Having read some of the things Jeff has said about gays and the gay agenda, I think my skepticism is warranted and reasonable.

On that basis, any "skepticism" anyone chooses to exercise towards absolutely anything you say must necessarily be far more "warranted and reasonable."

Never made such an assumption. Frankly, to the contrary, I assumed that we would never hear a word from Jeff's "friend."

I don't expect him to come running in here at your whim either.

You have never been shy or reluctant to insult me before without cause or provocation. What's up? You feeling okay?

I'm sorry Jaybear, wasn't I clear enough?

Then permit me to spell it out for you.

On his worst day, Jeff has more credibilty than you do on your best day. To those who know your posting history, your "skepticism" towards Jeff counts as a vote in his favour.

There, will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran