President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Jaybear]

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.

My point was that your church demands far more than celibacy from gays. Much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to be rooted by an obsession with gay sex. Marriage is not just about sex. Adults can do that with marriage. Marriage transcend sex, its about a lifelong commitment.

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.

If you can empathize with pedophiles, you are greater man than I am.

If you can empathize with gays, then you should realize that comparing them to pedophiles is patently offensive.

[Daniel2]

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.

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?

OK. I see your point. I would have a hard time believing that the those responsible for the publication of the Ensign, the correlation committee, and Elder Packer himself wouldn't have noticed and questioned the difference... But I suppose it's possible.

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.

Sorry for my spelling error. Canonizing it is.

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

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

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

In this instance, I should think that extremely unlikely.

[wenglund]

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

Forgive me for stepping on your applause line, but your hypocrisy is showing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

In this instance, I should think that extremely unlikely.

From my experience, I'd say that many Latter-day Saints agree with you.

Daniel2

[blueadept]

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.

In the OP, President Packer stated

You always have a choice to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost and live a morally pure and chaste life, one filled with virtue.

With the family-driven LDS plan of salvation, how do you propose that LDS who have a SSA issue live 'a morally pure and chaste life, one filled with virtue?'

In the RCC, those with a SSA issue can live an honorable and recognized vocation in either a religious calling or single calling. What callings does the LDS church offer? (honestly inquiring) The only programs that I'm aware of are those that try to change their SSA issue, but I'm probably wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

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?".

I would discourage it.

[The Nehor]

If you can empathize with pedophiles, you are greater man than I am.

If you can empathize with gays, then you should realize that comparing them to pedophiles is patently offensive.

Would it help if I also compared fornicators, gossips, alcoholics, and liars with pedophiles in the same way? Because I try to and usually succeed.

And yes, I can empathize with them. I have sins I like. Some whose hold on me is very very powerful. I just happened to be fortunate that they don't harm anyone nearly as badly as pedophilia and aren't so personally self-destructive.

A recovering alcoholic friend of mine told me about AA. He said it was silly since they used the same program but they had to form Narcotics Anonymous and other organizations separately. Why? Because the alcoholics weren't drug-users and they prided themselves on this fact and wouldn't associate with them.

The Church luckily doesn't put up with that and their 12 step program includes drug-users, alcoholics, smokers, co-dependents, overeaters, and anyone who struggles with a compulsion. As he put it, murder is the number one sin. Adultery is close and God doesn't bother rating the rest. Probably for very good reasons.

Oh, and I have it on authority that pedophiles who resist their urges find it patently offensive that homosexuals consider themselves superior in some way. I think the only antidote is a bit of King Benjamin all around. If I don't get regular injections I start to try to figure out which sins stain their garments worse then mine do.

[The Nehor]

Forgive me for stepping on your applause line, but your hypocrisy is showing.

[Calm]

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.

Have not read the rest of the thread yet so perhaps you mean solely through an act of faith as opposed to how God usually heals people, but if not for your consideration:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56633-fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction–blake-smith/

[wenglund]

Here ya go

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Would it help if I also compared fornicators, gossips, alcoholics, and liars with pedophiles in the same way? Because I try to and usually succeed.

Not really. Some but not all sins are crimes. Some but not all crimes have victims.

If you feel the need to compare the urges and desires of homosexuals to another group, I would suggest you compare them to the urges and desires of heterosexuals. Much cleaner and apt comparison.

Oh, and I have it on authority that pedophiles who resist their urges find it patently offensive that homosexuals consider themselves superior in some way. I think the only antidote is a bit of King Benjamin all around. If I don't get regular injections I start to try to figure out which sins stain their garments worse then mine do.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that fornicators, gamblers, alcoholics and liars consider themselves superior in some way to pedophiles.

[Daniel2]

It is long past time for you to cease and desist from arrogantly presuming to tell us(!) what our(!!) doctrine is.

My apologies, Pahoran, if I am coming across as arrogant or presumptuous. That is honestly not my intention. I’m not attempting to argue the veracity of the concepts that are being discussed, or challenge that Latter-day Saints earnestly believe the things that many Latter-day Saints have proposed in this thread. The ONLY distinction I make is that such beliefs are currently non-canonical (singe “n” ). The distinction seems important, to me, to many non-Latter-day Saints, as the issue of “non-doctrinal” and “non-canonical” seem to be important today for many Latter-day Saints looking back at and explaning social “hot button” issues of the past.

It is our doctrine that everyone is resurrected whole and perfect. I can support that with numerous scriptural passages. If you suppose that homosexuality is some kind of special case, you need to support that assumption.

Yes, I agree that the belief that (with the singular exception of the wounds of Christ’s crucifixion, which is unrelated to the question we’re currently discussing), “everyone is resurrected whole and perfect.”

I don’t agree, however, that it follows that homosexuality must needs be “some kind of special case,” were gays and lesbians to remain same-sex-romantically-oriented in an afterlife.

Rather, I think you would need to support what I would view to be a non-canonical assumption that homosexuality is somehow intrinsically not “whole and perfect,” in-and-of-itself. In other words: that gays and lesbians aren’t or can’t be considered to be “whole and perfect” with their homosexuality intact. And while, again, I would say that many Latter-day Saints probably believe that’s the case, I don’t believe that’s something that is readily apparent from the Standard Works.

I have no idea what, if anything, you believe on this or any subject, Cinepro. But the Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that God could do whatever He wishes to do; and in so believing, we observe that He generally allows people who are born with harelips, cleft palates, Down's Syndrome, syndactyly, polydactyly, unsightly birthmarks, congenital heart problems and other birth defects, to go through life without directly intervening to change them.

That being the case, I ask you the same question I asked Daniel: why should homosexuality be different? Because homosexuals have an enormous sense of entitlement and a loud (and shrill) pressure group that the sufferers of other kinds of birth defects do not?

I think your question presumes a heteronormative baseline that I think is best illustrated by turning the question back on itself: What if Heavenly Father doesn’t believe that homosexuality is any less “whole and perfect” than heterosexuality? What of God believes that a homosexual’s orientation isn’t a sickness, disorder, or “in need of repairing/healing” any more than a heterosexual’s orientation should be?

I know many Mormons believe that Heavenly Father wants everyone to “become like Him.” And they presume that means “become a heterosexual God who begets spirit children through physical procreation with his opposite-sex spouse.” Personally, I saw too many problems with that assumption, which is one reason I could no longer maintain a belief in the LDS “Plan of Salvation,” in light of the tremendous diversity of humanity.

Daniel2

[The Nehor]

Not really. Some but not all sins are crimes. Some but not all crimes have victims.

If you feel the need to compare the urges and desires of homosexuals to another group, I would suggest you compare them to the urges and desires of heterosexuals. Much cleaner and apt comparison.

Except that one is classified as a sin and I believe the prophets who say it is one. I'm perfectly willing to compare them to fornicators and adulterers and add that adultery usually causes more heartbreak and has more serious consequences then homosexuality when both are acted on.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that fornicators, gamblers, alcoholics and liars consider themselves superior in some way to pedophiles.

I suspect so too. I also think they are horribly wrong (and the liar probably knows it too).

All are children of God and my orders from the book written for my day is to cease to think I am better then others. Would I do any better if I'd been dealt their hand in life? I have no idea so I should have compassion and charity.

This does not mean I need to pretend that they don't have the crippling problems they do. I know liars in life. I don't believe what they say. I certainly wouldn't encourage an abstaining pedophile to be around children and with an acting pedophile I would do what is needed to see them incarcerated. But I am not to compare the value of my soul to theirs or imagine that I am better.

"There but for the grace of God go I" is an admirable sentiment and one I find I need to pound into my skull more often.

[Pahoran]

In the OP, President Packer stated

With the family-driven LDS plan of salvation, how do you propose that LDS who have a SSA issue live 'a morally pure and chaste life, one filled with virtue?'

Ummm, maybe by resisting temptation and living according to Gospel principles?

In the RCC, those with a SSA issue can live an honorable and recognized vocation in either a religious calling or single calling. What callings does the LDS church offer? (honestly inquiring) The only programs that I'm aware of are those that try to change their SSA issue, but I'm probably wrong.

I'm not aware that the Church has ever had any programs "that try to change their SSA issue," although Latter-day Saints in various positions have encouraged and/or participated in such endeavours.

I'm aware that the RCC has a long tradition of celibacy and religious orders. I'm also aware that celibacy and chastity are not always as closely linked as the RCC would like them to be.

And as for religious orders: were it not for the traditional aspects of the thing, I don't think anyone would regard them as the most obviously wholesome option for someone struggling with (and trying to resist) same sex temptations. Especially considering that such a person would likely meet up with others struggling with similar temptations in such an environment.

The Church encourages people with same sex issues to live the law of Chastity (as it really is, not as "gay" agitators want to rewrite it) and all other Gospel principles, stay active in the Church, serve in the many callings that are appropriate for a single person, and trust that, in the world to come, the Lord will make perfect all that is now imperfect.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Despite your misrepresentation of his position, President Packer does not say, and never has said, that the recent cultural construct known as "sexual orientation" has to be "repented of." He has only ever said that conscious acts are sins to be repented of.

If you disagree, feel free to support your claims. Yes Cobalt, yet again, this is a CFR.

Boyd K. Packer, To the One, 1978:

"First: Is sexual perversion wrong?....The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction. When practiced, it is immoral. It is a transgression....The third question is a very logical extension of the other two: If it is wrong, and if it is not incurable, how can it be corrected? What can be done for someone who has had a few thoughts in this direction?...

Have you explored the possibility that the cause when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness - selfishness in a very subtle form? Now - and understand this - I do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with. I am sure it is quite the opposite. Selfishness can attach itself to an individual without his being aware that he is afflicted with it. It can become imbedded so deeply and disguised so artfully as to be almost indistinguishable

....

When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition....

If you cannot understand perversion--and I admit that I cannot understand it--you can understand unselfishness and selfishness. You can learn to cure perversion.

"

So, as a quick summary, Elder Packer claims that homosexuality (or "perversion," as he calls it) is in no uncertain terms "wrong," and that the root of the "perversion" is a subtle form of selfishness. Repenting of this selfishness will, he claims, eventually cure homosexuality.

As to Elder Packer's theory of homosexuality:

"

A male, in his feelings and emotions, can become less masculine and more feminine and confused. A female can become, in her emotions, less feminine and more masculine and confused. Because the body cannot change, the emotional part may struggle to transform itself into the opposite gender. Then an individual is on a hopeless, futile quest for identity where it can never be achieved.

There is even an extreme condition in which some individuals, in a futile search, will undergo so-called 'change' operations in an effort to restructure their identity and become whole.

"

So Basically, Elder Packer claims that homosexuality is a mild case of gender identity disorder. (Which any credible psychiatrist, Mormon or otherwise, will tell you is incorrect.)

[Jaybear]

Except that one is classified as a sin and I believe the prophets who say it is one. I'm perfectly willing to compare them to fornicators and adulterers and add that adultery usually causes more heartbreak and has more serious consequences then homosexuality when both are acted on.

Its been a while since I have been to church, but I seem to recall that sodomy is considered a sin, regardless of whether the couple is married or gay. Has that changed?

I suspect so too. I also think they are horribly wrong (and the liar probably knows it too). All are children of God and my orders from the book written for my day is to cease to think I am better then others. Would I do any better if I'd been dealt their hand in life? I have no idea so I should have compassion and charity.

I agree with you. I am simply noting that if pedophiles are patently offended because gays consider themselves superior, that is simply another cross they are going to have bear, because its not just gays that have such a belief.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jaybear

[Pahoran]

Boyd K. Packer, To the One, 1978:

"First: Is sexual perversion wrong?....The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction.

When

practiced

, it is immoral. It is a transgression

....The third question is a very logical extension of the other two: If it is wrong, and if it is not incurable, how can it be corrected? What can be done for someone who has had a few thoughts in this direction?...

Have you explored the possibility that the cause when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness - selfishness in a very subtle form? Now - and understand this - I do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with. I am sure it is quite the opposite. Selfishness can attach itself to an individual without his being aware that he is afflicted with it. It can become imbedded so deeply and disguised so artfully as to be almost indistinguishable

....

When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition....

If you cannot understand perversion--and I admit that I cannot understand it--you can understand unselfishness and selfishness. You can learn to cure perversion.

"

So, as a quick summary, Elder Packer claims that homosexuality (or "perversion," as he calls it) is in no uncertain terms "wrong," and that the root of the "perversion" is a subtle form of selfishness. Repenting of this selfishness will, he claims, eventually cure homosexuality.

As an even quicker summary: your prooftext contradicts your assertion. See the highlighted portion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

Its been a while since I have been to church, but I seem to recall that sodomy is considered a sin, regardless of whether the couple is married or gay. Has that changed?

If you mean heterosexual married sodomy then I have no idea. I have no interest in it and so haven't found out.

I agree with you. I am simply noting that if pedophiles are patently offended because gays consider themselves superior, that is simply another cross they are going to have bear, because its not just gays that have such a belief.

True, but in an ideal world they wouldn't. Of course in an ideal world they would have been perfected already and wouldn't have to worry about it. And I wouldn't be there anyways as putting me in an ideal world is a great way to screw it up for everyone else.

[frankenstein]

In the OP, President Packer stated

With the family-driven LDS plan of salvation, how do you propose that LDS who have a SSA issue live 'a morally pure and chaste life, one filled with virtue?'

In the RCC, those with a SSA issue can live an honorable and recognized vocation in either a religious calling or single calling. What callings does the LDS church offer? (honestly inquiring) The only programs that I'm aware of are those that try to change their SSA issue, but I'm probably wrong.

What does a Church calling have to do with living a life full of virtue?

Here ya go

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is a picture which depicts and mocked suicide appropriate for the discussion, especially given that the pic seems posted to taunt or mock another?

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not aware that the Church has ever had any programs "that try to change their SSA issue," although Latter-day Saints in various positions have encouraged and/or participated in such endeavours.

Unless you count BYU as an arm of the church, which frankly it is. In the 1970s, BYU conducted electroshock therapy experiments on gay men, trying to cure them. Needless to say, it didn't work.

[blueadept]

The Church encourages people with same sex issues to live the law of Chastity (as it really is, not as "gay" agitators want to rewrite it) and all other Gospel principles, stay active in the Church, serve in the many callings that are appropriate for a single person, and trust that, in the world to come, the Lord will make perfect all that is now imperfect.

This sounds good from a PR perspective for the LDS church. Do you actually know any faithful, gay LDS members that apply these principles that President Packer quoted?

[Cobalt-70]

As an even quicker summary: your prooftext contradicts your assertion. See the highlighted portion.

No, Elder Packer said "perversion" was wrong, first of all, and that if "perversion" was "practiced," it is not just wrong, but "immoral" and a "transgression." Packer leaves no doubt that "perversion" (homosexuality), regardless of whether it is "practiced," was wrong, and a form of selfishness.

[blueadept]

What does a Church calling have to do with living a life full of virtue?

A Church calling in the RCC is a vocational one. Either Marriage, Religious, or Single Life. IMHO, all LDS are called to Marriage but that's why I'm asking for a clarification in regards to the SSA issue.

[california boy]

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.

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?

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

If the proclamation is so important and is a revelation from God, don't you think that the church should or would be more clear on this revelation from God? When you have to nit pick sentences and suppositions to support a view so important as this, it all seems pretty weak don't you think? Does the church have such difficulty now in being clear something as important as a revelation from God? jeeeze.