President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[selek1]

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'.

Actually, President Packer's talk is the subject of this thread.

Not the Gospel According to Nackhadlow.

The topic is whether or not President Packer's comments and content are consistent with the Church teachings.

Your personal vision of grand and glorious sexual libertinism is utterly irrelevant to that conversation.

We don't care about your opinion or about your extra-Scriptural prognostication,

We care about President Packer's content and consistency.

Edited March 27, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

Really, Pahoran?

Really it's time to get back to the topic.

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

Of course you do; but your increasingly strident apostasy is not the topic either.

So we're not going to permit it to become the topic.

Clear?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I find it telling that when Elder Packer talks about chastity in general the special interests treat it as though he insulted their favorite sin specifically.

I saw a lot in that talk that I could apply to myself.

[Nemesis]

Is this becoming a sex thread? If so we will shut it down soon.

Nemesis

[Pahoran]

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'.

Not quite.

The topic is President Packer's talk, especially that portion thereof, and how it compares to other talks he has given on the same subject.

Especially those which have been most fervently discussed recently.

The fact that he quotes President Hinckley, and a portion of the remarks he quoted included a single reference to SSM does not give you leave or license to derail the thread into a discussion of the merits or otherwise of SSM.

I hope that is clear now.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Really it's time to get back to the topic.

Remind me again, then, what the topic is, and I'll engage. I posted this before I saw Hestia's warning to you.

Clear?

I love it when you're manly

H.

[LDSToronto]

Is this becoming a sex thread? If so we will shut it down soon.

Nemesis

No, but I think we can question KevinG's earlier assertion if we tread carefully.

H.

[Ares]

Remind me again, then, what the topic is, and I'll engage. I posted this before I saw Hestia's warning to you.

I love it when you're manly

H.

Once again you are doing nothing but trolling. You are excused from this thread.

[selek1]

In simple terms: this is the same as he has always taught. President Packer has not changed his position.

That's because the Church has not changed its position.

That's because the Lord, whose Church this is, has not changed His position; nor will He change it.

This is a principle of truth and righteousness; only the wicked would want to change it.

I find it particularly interesting how modern thinkers are always willing to suggest to the Lord that their carnal appetites and indulgences are "thoughtful" and "sophisticated" and are therefore exempt from his holy laws.

This has been a recurring theme- from the first time "Hey- am I my brother's keeper?" was uttered up to the modern "Hey- we're all consenting adults here".

It was the underlying theme in the "A flood, huh? Do your worst- we'll just build a really tall tower then."

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 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.

Even in this thread, noone 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.

Edited March 27, 2012 by selek1

[The Nehor]

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 palatable to the pomp of Babylon.

Uhhhh....his argument boils down to "God commanded this". How do you engage the merits of that argument? You can agree or disagree (I choose the former) but that is about it. I'm not sure President Packer would agree with you in characterizing his comments as an argument.

I find it particularly interesting how modern thinkers are always willing to suggest to the Lord that their carnal appetites and indulgences are "thoughtful" and "sophisticated" and are therefore exempt from his holy laws.

I have never seen this happen. I've seen many argue that they are "harmless" or "none of my business" or even "fun"

If someone thinks their sexual activities are "thoughtful" and "sophisticated" they are doing it wrong. Just saying.

And I hope I didn't just cause the thread to be locked. If so, I apologize.

[Avatar4321]

Sigh.

No, it's not.

Does anyone remember what the thread is about?

Regards,

Pahoran

President Packer's talk.

[selek1]

Uhhhh....his argument boils down to "God commanded this". How do you engage the merits of that argument?

Have you seen the Penn and Teller short regarding creationism? It's on YouTube.

I don't agree with their take, but I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

You can agree or disagree (I choose the former) but that is about it. I'm not sure President Packer would agree with you in characterizing his comments as an argument.

One could argue (as Jeremy-Orbe Smith implied) that the Scriptures are either silent or in flat disagreement with President Packer.

None of have been able to do so.

Heck- none have even made a serious attempt to do so- thus automagically ceding the ground to Packer.

I have never seen this happen. I've seen many argue that they are "harmless" or "none of my business" or even "fun"

I suggest you reread David T (Nackhadlow), Daniel2, and Jeremy Orbe-Smith's posts earlier in this thread.

Although they flatly refuse to engage Packer's statements from Scripture or reason, they nonetheless insist that their "take" on the morality of homosexuality is superior to Packers (and thus, the Lord's).

If someone thinks their sexual activities are "thoughtful" and "sophisticated" they are doing it wrong. Just saying.

Agreed.

I was, however, referring to the sophistry they posit, rather than to the mechanics of their preferred method of bump and grind.

[Avatar4321]

I find President Packer's talk completely consistant to what the Church has always taught on the matter. I highly doubt the Lord is going to change His standard now.

[The Nehor]

One could argue (as Jeremy-Orbe Smith implied) that the Scriptures are either silent or in flat disagreement with President Packer.

I can do that.

The scriptures are completely silent on female homosexuality (lesbianism). Game, set, match.

It does have a bit to say about homosexual male temple-based prostitution which I find sadly lacking in President Packer's talk as well.

[Pahoran]

I find President Packer's talk completely consistant to what the Church has always taught on the matter. I highly doubt the Lord is going to change His standard now.

Indeed.

And I actually expect that, once the immoralists realise that they're not going to get any change out of the Church on this matter, most of them will look for other targets for their agitation.

Some will try to punish us, of course; as J. K. Rowling astutely observed, people find it harder to forgive others for being right than for being wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

The scriptures are completely silent on female homosexuality (lesbianism). Game, set, match.

You only say that because otherwise HBO and Cinemax would lose most of their broadcast lineup.

[Damien the Leper]

This immoralist recognizes and respects Packers position and comments. I do find him to be consistent with the contemporary LDS teachings. Whether or not I agree with his comments is irrelevant to the subject of the thread and the proposed question by Pahoran. I wont engage the antagonisms, baiting or offensive comments about us immoralists. That should be brought up in another thread. Also, discussing scriptural silence or vocalism on the subject of homosexuality is also off topic. If we wish to dissect certain portions of the talk then we can do so in another thread.

Pahoran, I hope this response was appropriate as I didn't want to cause any further derailing of the thread.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Valentinus

[Pahoran]

I can do that.

The scriptures are completely silent on female homosexuality (lesbianism). Game, set, match.

If you were right on that point, it would simply show how important it is to have living apostles and prophets.

But it turns out that you are wrong. See Romans 1:24-27.

It does have a bit to say about homosexual male temple-based prostitution which I find sadly lacking in President Packer's talk as well.

How is that a lack? What relevance do defunct pagan religious practices have for us today?

The fact is that elsewhere, when dealing with such practices that were in themselves benign, such as eating meat that had previously been part of a pagan sacrifice, Paul basically said, "Don't worry about it, unless someone might misunderstand what you are doing."

But when it came to arsenokoitai and malakoi, he took a completely different approach.

Why, you may ask?

Because the homosexual acts in question were intrinsically immoral. Such acts are wrong in and of themselves, and not because of the context in which they are done.

It turns out, you see, that President Packer is right.

Not that that should really be a surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

How is that a lack? What relevance do defunct pagan religious practices have for us today?

Clearly, you're not a fan of major-league football.

It turns out, you see, that President Packer is right.

Not that that should really be a surprise.

It is not- especially when one considers that there has been no serious attempt made to prove otherwise.

[The Nehor]

If you were right on that point, it would simply show how important it is to have living apostles and prophets.

But it turns out that you are wrong. See Romans 1:24-27.

I disagree with your interpretation. It might allude to it at best.

How is that a lack? What relevance do defunct pagan religious practices have for us today?

Oh Christmas Tree! Oh Christmas Tree!

Thy leaves are so unchanging.

The fact is that elsewhere, when dealing with such practices that were in themselves benign, such as eating meat that had previously been part of a pagan sacrifice, Paul basically said, "Don't worry about it, unless someone might misunderstand what you are doing."

Yeah, I'm not very good at this. I like to make people misunderstand what I'm doing. The fallout is often hilarious.

But when it came to arsenokoitai and malakoi, he took a completely different approach.

Good luck defining those. Scholars still argue about them.

Because the homosexual acts in question were intrinsically immoral. Such acts are wrong in and of themselves, and not because of the context in which they are done.

Then why did Paul seem to focus on boy prostitutes and religious sodomy when he could have just said the whole thing was wrong? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that homosexuality is sinful. I just don't think you can make the verses in question say this.

It turns out, you see, that President Packer is right.

Woohoo! The Apostle shoots, he scores!

Not that that should really be a surprise.

He's right but I don't derive his rightness from agreeing biblical passages.

[Pahoran]

This immoralist recognizes and respects Packers position and comments. I do find him to be consistent with the contemporary LDS teachings. Whether or not I agree with his comments is irrelevant to the subject of the thread and the proposed question by Pahoran. I wont engage the antagonisms, baiting or offensive comments about us immoralists. That should be brought up in another thread. Also, discussing scriptural silence or vocalism on the subject of homosexuality is also off topic. If we wish to dissect certain portions of the talk then we can do so in another thread.

Pahoran, I hope this response was appropriate as I didn't want to cause any further detailing of the thread.

Your response was fine.

FYI, the term "immoralist" was coined by Friedrich Nietzsche and applied to himself, in his role as a campaigner against traditional (and especially Christian) morality. It therefore seems entirely appropriate in this context. Whether it applies to you is not something I have thought about.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I disagree with your interpretation. It might allude to it at best.

I think it's fairly clear. But if not, then it's just as well that we have current prophets to clarify it.

Good luck defining those. Scholars still argue about them.

I don't know about scholars; I'm aware of homosexualists playing biblical exegesis as a kind of parlour game.

Arsenos = male.

Koiten = Greek root for Latin coitus, i.e. sexual intercourse. Also, Arsenokoitai is a masculine plural noun. Thus, meaning "those [males] who have sex with [other] males."

Malakos: "Soft" or effeminate one; a catamite.

Note that Arsenokoitai and Malakoi are paired; they go together.

We don't really need to draw a diagram, do we?

Then why did Paul seem to focus on boy prostitutes and religious sodomy when he could have just said the whole thing was wrong?

What foundation do you have for the claim that he was focusing upon religious sodomy? He talked about pederasts and their catamites. Now I realise that homosexualists these days insist that their activities have always been the same, but the reality is that they have been subject to fads and fashions. Evidently, the old rich iguana and his young plaything represented the homosexual fashion of the Mediterranean world in late antiquity.

Incidentally, that may still be a popular manifestation of homosexuality these days, too. Paul was just talking about the dominant form it took in his day.

Regards,

Pahoran

[David T]

I haven't made any judgments against anyone here. I have not set myself up as any higher authority who considers himself 'better'. The topic was President Packer's views on sexual immorality.

I do agree that sex outside of a committed relationship is not wise, and is often very destructive, both emotionally, and spiritually. I myself made a commitment to live up to that standard. And now that I am married, I am grateful I did, and plan to be fully and completely faithful to my wife. I believe that this unselfish relationship dedicated to serving each other and looking after each others needs, and working together to build a family in whatever way that is possible is a manifestation and symbol of God's love, work, and glory.

I find warnings against sexual promiscuity, and especially infidelity, extremely important. Knowing lives that have been devastated by it, I also find the warnings against Pornography extremely relevant, and important.

President Packer is a very bold and strong warning voice on these principles, and I give him a great amount of credit, and respect for that.

Earlier, a comment was raised about the Law of Chastity, which was a key topic of this thread, and a definition of the Law of Chastity was broached, including what it means to be Legally and Lawfully wed. I gave my thoughts, even suggesting that it would be likely that the Church would change/add to the wording of the Law as presented to be given as covenant to clarify if they were committed to using heterosexual government sanctioned marriage as the measuring bar for what is considered "approved sex", and what is not. I then shared my opinion that it was not outside the realm of my imagining a shift in the Church's position over the years.

In response, it was suggested that I was therefore unfaithful and would approve of lawsuits and protests against the Church leaders, and additionaltirades came out of the woodwork, against not only myself, but others as well - insults, accusations of apostasy, pride, and insinuations that even certain heterosexually married couples mutually enjoying each others' bodies are really unholy and impure covenant breakers who are part of the reason the Wicked Gays are getting the foot into The Lord's Church (which, yes, I really couldn't seriously believe someone was going there).

When the accusations, assertions and insults were confronted, those throwing the insults cried out that those responding to their criticisms were getting off the subject.

It doesn't appear that there is any desire for discussion or sharing of views in this thread - the only welcome responses are "President Packers is TOTALLY RIGHT", and "Nothing makes one feel the spirit less than doing gay stuff". Anything else that doesn't agree with these views appears to be considered 'off topic', and must therefore come from disruptive, "intellectual" apostates who clearly hate the scriptures, and don't really believe in living apostles.

...at least, that's the impression you're giving off, guys.

Edited March 27, 2012 by David T

[The Nehor]

I think it's fairly clear. But if not, then it's just as well that we have current prophets to clarify it.

Agreed.

I don't know about scholars; I'm aware of homosexualists playing biblical exegesis as a kind of parlour game.

Arsenos = male.

Koiten = Greek root for Latin coitus, i.e. sexual intercourse. Also, Arsenokoitai is a masculine plural noun. Thus, meaning "those [males] who have sex with [other] males."

Malakos: "Soft" or effeminate one; a catamite.

Note that Arsenokoitai and Malakoi are paired; they go together.

Yes, but the use of the words are mostly limited to Christian sources quoting Paul. I think that interpretation is probably correct but not certain.

We don't really need to draw a diagram, do we?

Only if we want to liven up the thread and/or get it locked.

What foundation do you have for the claim that he was focusing upon religious sodomy? He talked about pederasts and their catamites. Now I realise that homosexualists these days insist that their activities have always been the same, but the reality is that they have been subject to fads and fashions. Evidently, the old rich iguana and his young plaything represented the homosexual fashion of the Mediterranean world in late antiquity.

Incidentally, that may still be a popular manifestation of homosexuality these days, too. Paul was just talking about the dominant form it took in his day.

Pretty much accurate. The stereotype of the old rich iguana and his young plaything also described much of the heterosexual fashion of the Mediterranean world.

Well, we still have the Old Testament teaching which is much clearer:

Prince Edmund: Tell me, Brother Baldrick, what exactly did God do to the Sodomites?

Baldrick: I dunno, my lord. But it can't have been worse than what they used to do to each other.

[wenglund]

It is threads like this that may provide indication, via the position we take, as to whence our respective moral compasses may be calibrated--whether centered towards pop culture, or towards Christ.

It also gives indication of the strength of our moral convictions, or our inclination to socially capitulate and appease and go with the flow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-