President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, quit the personal comments or you will be out of the thread. The topic is not SSM but Pres Packer's talk. Get back to that or this will be closed.

Why, thank you so very much. I have been trying (in vain) to point this out to others. I didn't bring SSM into this thread.

But I guess it wouldn't do to upset those who did, would it?

[BCSpace]

There will be no homosexual relationships in the hereafter. None.

The above is not doctrine of the LDS Faith.

I'm pretty sure one can say that it is the doctrine with marriages, no homosexual ones, though of course this has been broadened out into relationships. Looking further into it, I think one might also be able to say the same for relationships in terms of doctrine. One would have to establish:

1) If one is purified from sin to reach any degree of glory. So the question is will those in the Telestial Kingdom still be living a Telestial law in the sense of commiting those sins etc.?

2) If homosexuality is inborn, will that be a defect fixed in the resurrection?

I think it is highly likely after doing the doctrinal research one indeed could possibly make the case for no homosexual relationships after the Judgement according to LDS doctrine. Perhaps also for the immediate hereafter as well (Spirit World) depending on what is meant by "relationship" vis a vis the fact of having no physical body upon which to act.

[selek1]

This is at least the second time in a week that the moderators have dinged a faithful poster for 'derailing' or 'promoting speculation' while letting left-leaning, politically correct opinions slide.

Pahoran has been perfectly consistent with President Packer's counsel and has repeatedly tried to steer this thread back to that topic.

Where this thread has gone off the rails, it has done so because of Nachadlow (David T), Jeremy Orbe-Smith, and Daniel2 announcing their personal gospels on sexual morality and what the Church is doing wrong.

If the moderators wish to intervene, they might at least have the courtesy to correct the actual OFFENDERS- no matter how politically correct or fashionable their cri de coeur may be.

"Moderation"- by definition- implies a fairness and evenhandedness, rather than an environment in which "trendy" posters and ideas are sheltered by a protecting hand.

Editted for spelling.

Edited March 26, 2012 by selek1

[The Nehor]

At which point the agitators will take it to the court of public opinion with already-prepared press releases and claims of how the evil Mormon Church "bought" the verdict.

And said press releases, assuming they even made the press (which I doubt), would be laughed at as well.

As for them claiming we are bigots they do that already. I hardly think a thrown out court case would change much. As for someone claiming we had to bribe someone to get that result....that is so laughable I wouldn't know how to respond except with laughter. It would be believed only by idiots and rabid anti-Mormons who don't mind looking like idiots and I don't care much what either group thinks. If either group gets enough power to be influential then there is nothing we will be able to do about it in any case.

[Sky]

Nor should it have to. We shouldn't have to be commanded in all things. The question isn't really whether the Church has taken a position on the topic of various sexual acts. The question is whether the Lord has taken a position. His position is that we are to avoid unholy and impure practices. A stake president once told me that oral sex was an unholy and impure practice. He didn't have to tell me that. I knew when I asked, and asking for permission to engage in an uholy and impure practice is rather risky.

You act as though I’m a borderline apostate.

I got married last August, and both my spouse and I specifically asked our bishops about this prior to getting married. The answer we got is that the Church stays out of the bedroom. There was no further discussion. We were then wished well and sent on our way.

Your insistence that this is a doctrine of the Church or the Lord’s will is mistaken…it’s only your personal interpretation and nothing more.

[Calm]

If the moderators wish to intervene, they might at least have the courtesy to correct the actual OFFENDERS- no matter how politically correct or fashionable their crie de coure may be.

selek, I read the correct as a two-fer, I think the mod's meaning would have been clearer to put some spacing between the first comment to Pahoran and the second comment about the derail which seemed to me to be applied by her to all doing so...which includes me as I succumbed for a moment.

[Pahoran]

You act as though I’m a borderline apostate.

I got married last August, and both my spouse and I specifically asked our bishops about this prior to getting married. The answer we got is that the Church stays out of the bedroom. There was no further discussion. We were then wished well and sent on our way.

Your insistence that this is a doctrine of the Church or the Lord’s will is mistaken…it’s only your personal interpretation and nothing more.

No-one's calling anyone an apostate.

Sky, Mark and David: I don't see any connection between this discussion and President Packer's talk. Can we get back to that, please?

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Sky]

No-one's calling anyone an apostate.

Sky, Mark and David: I don't see any connection between this discussion and President Packer's talk. Can we get back to that, please?

Thanks,

Pahoran

Okay...sorry.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the moderators wish to intervene, they might at least have the courtesy to correct the actual OFFENDERS- no matter how politically correct or fashionable their cri de coeur may be.

"Moderation"- by definition- implies a fairness and evenhandedness, rather than an environment in which "trendy" posters and ideas are sheltered by a protecting hand.

I too was puzzled why Pahoran was upbraided after trying to get the thread back on topic, which is the very thing that was ordered. I wondered whether his name was used by mistake.

[selek1]

selek, I read the correct as a two-fer, I think the mod's meaning would have been clearer to put some spacing between the first comment to Pahoran and the second comment about the derail which seemed to me to be applied by her to all doing so...which includes me as I succumbed for a moment.

I too was puzzled why Pahoran was upbraided after trying to get the thread back on topic, which is the very thing that was ordered. I wondered whether his name was used by mistake.

I suppose that either of these interpretations is possible (and I readily admit that they are more charitable than my own take on the matter).

Nonetheless, my comment reflects what I (and others) have perceived as a growing trend among some of the moderators.

It is not fair (and patently unwise) to jump too quickly.

I believe they do an excellent job overall, and several have proven to be remarkably responsive and thoughtful.

In the interim, then- I will bide my peace and let time reveal all.

Edited March 26, 2012 by selek1

[Mark Beesley]

You act as though I’m a borderline apostate.

I got married last August, and both my spouse and I specifically asked our bishops about this prior to getting married. The answer we got is that the Church stays out of the bedroom. There was no further discussion. We were then wished well and sent on our way.

Your insistence that this is a doctrine of the Church or the Lord’s will is mistaken…it’s only your personal interpretation and nothing more.

A couple of things.

1. I did not intend to imply that you were an apostate. Sorry if it came over that way.

2. I have never said my opnion is doctrine. I know I am on the conservative side (gasp) of interpreting what is impure and unholy.

My original post was intended to illustrate why President Packer's words would not represent change in either his position or the Church's in light of the Lord's plan for His children. That point was lost because when talking about things of this nature, people come to the table with some pretty strong ideas and tend to be rather myopic.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Pahoran's assessment of President Packer's talk and suggest that anyone trying to read a shift in the Church's position on any sexual moral issue is out of tune with the Spirit.

Again, I apologize if you believe I was suggesting you are an apostate.

[Hestia]

selek, I read the correct as a two-fer, I think the mod's meaning would have been clearer to put some spacing between the first comment to Pahoran and the second comment about the derail which seemed to me to be applied by her to all doing so...which includes me as I succumbed for a moment.

This is correct. I had two complaints about Pahoran's personal remarks so he should be happy I just gave a warning.

The other is to those who tried to switch the topic. This is not about SSM.

[Pahoran]

The insinuation that this is my way of thinking is uncalled for, Pahoran. I like to think you're better than that.

There was no "insinuation." I asked a question. The answer could have simply been "I'll be sustaining the brethren, of course."

So, what's your view on President Packer's talk? Do you agree that it shows a consistent stand on the subject? Do you feel that the uproar about his recent Conference talk, and the conspiracy theories around the edits to the published version, had any merit, or were they a storm in a teacup?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Pahoran's assessment of President Packer's talk and suggest that anyone trying to read a shift in the Church's position on any sexual moral issue is out of tune with the Spirit.

On this point we agree.

Again, I apologize if you believe I was suggesting you are an apostate.

Apology accepted. That is not what you meant, but that was how I interpreted your comments. So I apologize for interpreting you wrong. I also apologize for being off topic and perhaps for sharing too much information.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Sky

[Pahoran]

This is correct. I had two complaints about Pahoran's personal remarks so he should be happy I just gave a warning.

I stand in awe of your unexcelled magnanimity.

The other is to those who tried to switch the topic. This is not about SSM.

So it isn't.

And it's amazing how a couple of <Enter> keypresses can add clarity. Suddenly one paragraph becomes two.

[Calm]

And it's amazing how a couple of <Enter> keypresses can add clarity. Suddenly one paragraph becomes two.

Sometimes when one is in the middle of tending the hearth, one forgets the finer details of typing. Edited March 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Nor should it have to. We shouldn't have to be commanded in all things.

True, but I find that this quote is most often used as a roundabout way to say that we have been commanded not to do something just not as explicitly as the person speaking would like.

The question isn't really whether the Church has taken a position on the topic of various sexual acts.

Agreed, because it pretty much never has.

The question is whether the Lord has taken a position.

Which, except in individual exceptions and cases, the Lord takes a position through his church. For example, the Lord might personally command me to avoid playing Hearts because I have a problem with gambling and being around cards leads to temptation. He might tell me to do something because it will aid me even though it is not a specific commandment. He may tell me to stop doing something that is not specifically a sin because my progression no longer requires it or it is holding me back in some way.

His position is that we are to avoid unholy and impure practices.

True.

A stake president once told me that oral sex was an unholy and impure practice. He didn't have to tell me that. I knew when I asked, and asking for permission to engage in an uholy and impure practice is rather risky.

If you think of that way then YOU should avoid it. The Lord has given me no such inspiration or disposition about it. I don't think it is unholy and impure.

I'll tell you what I think is unholy and impure:

When you (censored) and then (censored) and then you get some (censored) and (censored).

There, glad we could clear that up.

[Calm]

When you (censored) and then (censored) and then you get some (censored) and (censored).

TMI!!!!!

[Mark Beesley]

True, but I find that this quote is most often used as a roundabout way to say that we have been commanded not to do something just not as explicitly as the person speaking would like.

Agreed, because it pretty much never has.

Which, except in individual exceptions and cases, the Lord takes a position through his church. For example, the Lord might personally command me to avoid playing Hearts because I have a problem with gambling and being around cards leads to temptation. He might tell me to do something because it will aid me even though it is not a specific commandment. He may tell me to stop doing something that is not specifically a sin because my progression no longer requires it or it is holding me back in some way.

True.

If you think of that way then YOU should avoid it. The Lord has given me no such inspiration or disposition about it. I don't think it is unholy and impure.

I'll tell you what I think is unholy and impure:

When you (censored) and then (censored) and then you get some (censored) and (censored).

There, glad we could clear that up.

That's not what this thread is about.

[Pahoran]

That's not what this thread is about.

Sigh.

No, it's not.

Does anyone remember what the thread is about?

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

That's not what this thread is about.

Yes, but it should be.

[The Nehor]

Sigh.

No, it's not.

Does anyone remember what the thread is about?

Regards,

Pahoran

Based on the thread title I assumed it was about how President Packer doesn't speak with a gay lisp and has never used the word, "Fabulous". I am open to correction on this point as long as you can show references to prove your point.

Edited March 27, 2012 by The Nehor

[David T]

Why, thank you so very much. I have been trying (in vain) to point this out to others. I didn't bring SSM into this thread.

But I guess it wouldn't do to upset those who did, would it?

Umm...the OP has the quote, "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. "

SSM is in the OP. It's part of Pres. Packer's talk. It's by definition 'on topic'.

[LDSToronto]

I can see the day -- about five minutes after the same sex "marriage" jihad takes over in the United States -- when immoralists infiltrate the Church, lie in all their interviews, and then try to create a cause célèbre by demanding that the Church marry them in the Temple. And when the Church refuses, they will try to drag it into the courts.

Really, Pahoran? Is that what has happened in countries where there are temples and same-sex-marriage is legal? If not, then I'm afraid you are just hoping.

I expect that, come that day, the Church will have forestalled that attempt by making Temple Sealings separate from civil marriages. It will be a real shame, and a serious blow against religious freedom, but it will be necessary.

If separating civil marriage from temple sealings is the outcome, I see that as a plus.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid.

Jimminy Crickets! I don't *ever* recall making any covenant that mentioned THAT!

H.