President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

Edited March 27, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

"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.)

Are you assuming that the definition of "consent" can't be blurred into relative meaninglessness by pop culture just like the words "marriage" and "love"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

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.

Jaybear,

You continue to misrepresent the discussion. The comparison was made between "orientations."

If those in your "movement" want to rely upon the recent cultural construct of "sexual orientation" to do all the work for you, then you're going to have to take the rough with the smooth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

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

You bring up some good questions, and quite honestly, I'm not sure how to answer them, other than to say it is up to the Brethren if the Family Proclamation ends up in the scriptures. But I agree with Pahoran that even if it did end up in the scriptures, it would not make much of a practical difference anyway.

[Daniel2]

There are times when something may not be explicitly stated in the scriptures, but nevertheless is still considered doctrine - or at least the way things are done. That is one of the reasons why we have living apostles - to correctly interpret and help clear up some of the vagueness in the scriptures.

An example that comes to mind is the Word of Wisdom. It doesn't actually say the words "coffee" and "tea", but the common understanding is that those are the beverages referred to when it said "hot drinks." It also never says in D&C 89 that you must to obey the WoW in order to get a temple recommend. Yet this is still a requirement.

I'm sure there are more examples out there, too. This is why I think people who argue that "well it's not in the scriptures and therefore not doctrine and therefore okay" are on a slippery slope.

I understand what you're saying, Sky. Really, I do. I've been there, and believed exactly what you're saying for decades.

However, the same things could have been said about past church leaders' extra-cannonical pronouncements on polygamy or the racial priesthood ban. Today, however, the church is insisting that such teachings "weren't doctrinal." That's where your statements about "doctrine" vs. "cannon" vs. "words of the living prophets" become problematically less certain.

D

[Pahoran]

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"?

Except you don't know that that was the trajectory of the change. It may well be that "a guide" was what he originally wrote, and "a revelation" was what he felt impressed to say when he delivered the talk.

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

Probably to increase its muzzle velocity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You know, I think I'll ban myself from this disgusting thread before some poor mod has to do it for me. It's been real, gents.

[The Nehor]

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.

I didn't make any statements about how just and fair what the LDS Church is asking is; I accepted it as what it actually is. I stated that the LDS commandments expect the same thing from both.....celibacy....and that complete obedience would probably be just as difficult for both. I acknowledged that the homosexual giving in would be less harmful as well.

I feel empathy for both but I can't defend sin no matter how bad the temptation is. I do know that when Jesus took upon himself the trials and sins of humanity that along with enduring childbirth, heartbreak, and torture he learned exactly what it was like to desire the same gender and know what it is to be deny himself that for a lifetime. Same with a lifetime of pedophilia or any other sexual desire that must be defied as both morally and socially repugnant and forbidden.

I'd quote C.S. Lewis about the pedophile:

"There is either a warning or an encouragement here for every one of us. If you are a nice person - if virtue comes easily to you-beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given. If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel: and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption more complicated, your bad example more disastrous. The Devil was an archangel once; his natural gifts were as far above yours as yours are above those of a chimpanzee.

But if you are a poor creature- poisoned by a wretched upbringing in some house full of vulgar jealousies and senseless quarrels saddled, by no choice of your own, with some loathsome sexual, perversion- nagged day in and day out by an inferiority complex that makes you snap at your best friends-do not despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far sooner than that) He will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one. And then you may astonish us all-not least yourself: for you have learned your driving in a hard school. (Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last.)"

[Daniel2]

But flowing from what is official doctrine, it is a compelling conclusion.

I'd agree that your idea (which I've acknowledged is likely shared by many Latter-day Saints) is likely a "compelling conclusion" for many Latter-day Saints, according to how doctrines of the church are currently understood and taught.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

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

Probably not, in most cases.

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

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

I don't question your motivation so much as your judgement in such matters. I could see you ever so politely pillorying the church using government power in an attempt to force it to meet your criteria. From your posts I believe, ever so politely, you would destroy the church if you could because the existence of the church and its doctrine is inimical to the lifestyle you have chosen to live. I think you believe that such an outcome might indeed be "the right thing" in your moral world, and therefore any tool available to you would be ethical. It is through that lens that I see your posts. Churches often come to an accomodation with each other, each believing their faith is right, but allowing for the existence of the other. I do not believe the faith you have allows for such sanction where our church is involved. Among Christian churches, while strong in spirit, we are the weakest in public acceptance, that makes us potential prey to many, and our members become potential converts to your cause due to their inherent desire to be "liked" by those who desposed to despise them.

[Daniel2]

Except you don't know that that was the trajectory of the change. It may well be that "a guide" was what he originally wrote, and "a revelation" was what he felt impressed to say when he delivered the talk.

Well--I disagree that I "don't know that that was the trajectory of the change"--that IS the "trajectory of the change" that is provable.

Even so, once again--your suggestion that the trajectory that we are able to prove might have simply been the correction of a mispronounciation to begin with doesn't alter the intent of my question--in fact, it highlights it even more:

Let's assume that Packer originally meant to say "guide" instead of "revelation." Why didn't Packer/the church/the correlation committee simply decide to leave it at "revelation," instead of changing it [--back, per your suggestion] to "guide"?

Probably to increase its muzzle velocity.

Sounds witty. Don't understand what you mean.

Daniel2

[Sky]

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?

While I wouldn't exactly encourage it, I wouldn't necessarily discourage it either. I would tell her to make that a matter of personal prayer. And perhaps get some pre-marital counseling from a professional - preferrably LDS. While rare, some LDS knowingly enter these types of marriages and manage to make it work for them. And it beats celibacy.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd agree that your idea (which I've acknowledged is likely shared by many Latter-day Saints) is likely a "compelling conclusion" for many Latter-day Saints, according to how doctrines of the church are currently understood and taught.

I don't know if you noticed it, but I answered Cinepro's CFR with a quotation from the Church-published pamphlet Sky linked us to, which pretty much states what I did. I'm confident I'm on solid ground here.

[Jeff K.]

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?

That would be an expression of hope in the next life. I would counsel that his faith is great, but he must also understand that such a change may not occur in this life, rather in the next. To presume that it "must" happen in this life is erroneous, just as to presume that the lame "must walk" in this life rather than upon the resurrection.

[Daniel2]

I don't question your motivation so much as your judgement in such matters. I could see you ever so politely pillorying the church using government power in an attempt to force it to meet your criteria. From your posts I believe, ever so politely, you would destroy the church if you could because the existence of the church and its doctrine is inimical to the lifestyle you have chosen to live. I think you believe that such an outcome might indeed be "the right thing" in your moral world, and therefore any tool available to you would be ethical. It is through that lens that I see your posts. Churches often come to an accomodation with each other, each believing their faith is right, but allowing for the existence of the other. I do not believe the faith you have allows for such sanction where our church is involved. Among Christian churches, while strong in spirit, we are the weakest in public acceptance, that makes us potential prey to many, and our members become potential converts to your cause due to their inherent desire to be "liked" by those who desposed to despise them.

This is probably the nicest thing you've ever said about me, Jeff.

Having said that, I think it's clear to me that you misunderstand my attitudes and beliefs about the role of government and it's ability to peacefully coexist with religions that have different views on homosexuality (among other things).

The faith (and UU Faith) that I have definitely allow accomodations for the existence of the LDS church and allows for such sanction where your church is involved.

I would not destroy the LDS church if I could. My family, neighbors, and many close friends are LDS, and they treat me with love and respect, and I feel welcome when I attend church in my local ward. I do not believe the existence of the church and the majority of its doctrine must be inimical to the life I have chose. If I felt that way, I would not choose to live in Utah County, nor fully support my children's membership in the Faith.

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I don't know if you noticed it, but I answered Cinepro's CFR with a quotation from the Church-published pamphlet Sky linked us to, which pretty much states what I did. I'm confident I'm on solid ground here.

I'm very familiar with the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children." I've given copies of it to all of my LDS family. I think it has a lot of great things in it that are light-years beyond what previous publications by the church have said. Again, Scott--I don't mean to be obtuse--but I think most would agree that speaking specifically, "church pamphlets" aren't necessarily cannonical, and may contain doctrinal errors.

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

Spare me.

Okay, I'll spare you. Consider yourself relieved of the responsibility of reading or responding to any of my posts, whether in this thread or otherwise.

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."

Oddly enough, I do know what they were, having written them myself.

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

You need to learn to read. I didn't link anything to the "Final Solution." I pointed out that Daniel was himself forecasting that his "gay" jihad would achieve a final solution to its religious problem.

And since you have arbitrarily decided that the phrase "Final Solution" can only refer to the Holocaust, I point out that historically the Nazis sought a number of different avenues to their "Final Solution" before resorting to genocide.

But, for the record, I was not referring to any of them.

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

My views are at all times up for discussion; just as long as we are discussing the views I actually hold, and not those that are maliciously misattributed to me.

For instance, the statement you are mockingly paraphrasing did not refer to my own views; I applied it specifically, and only, to what President Packer said.

You know, I think I'll ban myself from this disgusting thread before some poor mod has to do it for me. It's been real, gents.

Whatever the problems of this thread may be, I'm not certain that your non-participation will make it worse.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

When someone wants to paint you as the devil, no matter what color you want, they will always choose red.

When the metion of the many different desires and orientations come to light (treating all equally) some simply choose to light upon the idea that the worst is the one you imply with your arguments versus the understanding that orientations not confirmed by God as righteous would indeed be changed for the righteous who struggle against the wrong orientations.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jaybear]

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

I didn't accuse Jeff of lying. In fact, he may very well believe that he has a gay friend, and that he has accurately conveying his friends thoughts and words.

I would ask that your refrain from implying that I did, but I realize that would be pointless request.

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

Not surprising, but you are missing a few logical steps between your premise and your conclusion.

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.

Ah, there is the Pahoran that I know and loathe.

Welcome back.

[wenglund]

You are very un-self-aware then.

I don't see how that follows (see below).

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.

You are misreading this into what I actually said. The comment was intentionally said generically so that no one could reasonably draw that assumption. Yet, somehow you managed it. As Dr. Phil might say, "own it...you can't fix what you don't acknowledge."

If an apostle or a bishop said it I'd be okay with it as he has the keys to make such declarations.

Keys may be required to make assessment of others. They aren't required to simply outline the means for assessment--especially the self kind. I did the latter, and not the former. What will it take for you to get this?

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.

I am fairly aware of how I come across to others. I just don't necessarily genuflect to their judgments of me. It is perfectly reasonable for me to question people's perception of me particularly when those perceptions may be based on their misreading things into what I said--things I purposely omitted so that they would have no good cause to read them in.

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 not judgements.

Agreed.

...See what I did there?

Yes, you made a generic statement that I agreed with. Your point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Well--I disagree that I "don't know that that was the trajectory of the change"--that IS the "trajectory of the change" that is provable.

Only if "provable" means "assumed." When we look at the actual differences between the two versions, we find at least one that looks like an error in reading, and at least one other that looks like an "ad lib" amendment. IOW, there is ample reason to believe that what he said differed in at least some respects from what he wrote on the page from which he was reading.

Even so, once again--your suggestion that the trajectory that we are able to prove might have simply been the correction of a mispronounciation to begin with doesn't alter the intent of my question--in fact, it highlights it even more:

Let's assume that Packer originally meant to say "guide" instead of "revelation." Why didn't Packer/the church/the correlation committee simply decide to leave it at "revelation," instead of changing it [--back, per your suggestion] to "guide"?

You're assuming that someone actually decided to change something. How do you know that he didn't simply hand over, unamended, his original written version?

Sounds witty. Don't understand what you mean.

It's a joke, based upon pedantry. The process by which a text becomes part of the canon of officially binding scripture is called "canonizing." I don't know what "cannonizing" something would be, unless it means shooting it out of a large gun.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

You know, I think I'll ban myself from this disgusting thread before some poor mod has to do it for me. It's been real, gents.

You know good and well that you're probably going to keep reading it, whether you choose to post anymore or not.

[The Nehor]

Yes, you made a generic statement that I agreed with. Your point?

Naivete (possibly deliberate?) wins!!!!!!!!

[Pahoran]

Ah, there is the Pahoran that I know and loathe.

Welcome back.

Jaybear,

since you can't possibly enjoy participating in a thread started by someone you loathe, feel free not to bother any more.

Can everyone else please make an effort to talk about the actual topic? Feel free to review the OP if you need to. For the last few pages, the topic has wandered rather freely. That always happens to some extent, but it seems to me that there is still scope for discussion of Elder Packer's talk. I appreciate the fact that Daniel seems to have managed to stay on topic, even if I disagree with almost everything he says about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

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.

I can understand how you might have originally interpreted his statement the way you did. However, to not accept his reasonable clarification, and to press your continued misunderstanding, is bad form.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-