President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Calm]

Oh, I thought that meant it was super popular.

Nope, that shows up (at least for me) by the HOT label next to the number of views.

[mercyngrace]

Yes, it is: http://dictionary.re...wse/mousing?s=t

mous·ing

   [mou-zing] Show IPA

noun Nautical .

a wrapping of several turns of small stuff around the shankend of a hook.

So Nehor wrapped several turns of small stuff around the shankend of a hook and discovered stars?

Odd, the things that happen on this board.

[Sky]

Anybody hear about the recent suicide of a gay Mormon gentleman named Chris Wayne Beers? The usual suspects are already out blaming the Church for his death and demanding that the Church change its doctrine. Is this fair?

[The Nehor]

So Nehor wrapped several turns of small stuff around the shankend of a hook and discovered stars?

Odd, the things that happen on this board.

I have odd hobbys.

I'm a Somali pirate/shark-wrestler in my spare time.

[mercyngrace]

Anybody hear about the recent suicide of a gay Mormon gentleman named Chris Wayne Beers? The usual suspects are already out blaming the Church for his death and demanding that the Church change its doctrine. Is this fair?

Is it fair? Who cares.

Suicide is a tragedy and people in this man's family and sphere of influence are hurting. If ideologues want to hurl his corpse around like a political football, the classiest thing we can do is refuse to play the game and show some sympathy and respect to those who are grieving.

[Calm]

Since there is no indication for the cause of the suicide, anyone is guessing.

And I agree with mercy that it is unkind to the family to play that game.

Edited March 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

I'm a Somali pirate/shark-wrestler in my spare time.

I had a sneaking suspicion...

[Buzzard]

Well, that was an interesting read. All I feel inclined or qualified to add is that for many years, even when I couldn't catch conference live due to work or other circumstances, I always made a point when I recieved the conference edition of the Ensign to look for President Packers talk. His talks were not as smooth or polished as some of the others, but I always knew that he would tell it like it was. I'd use the phrase "straight shooter, but considering the paths this thread has wandered, that might not be wise.

It's obvious he won't be with us too many more years, I wonder who the new voice of loving bluntness will be when he is gone.

[The Nehor]

It's obvious he won't be with us too many more years, I wonder who the new voice of loving bluntness will be when he is gone.

I volunteer if they need someone.

[mercyngrace]

Is loving bluntness the same as pointed charity?

[mercyngrace]

I volunteer if they need someone.

[Buzzard]

Is loving bluntness the same as pointed charity?

Well, as the saying goes, close enough for government work.

[cinepro]

Anybody hear about the recent suicide of a gay Mormon gentleman named Chris Wayne Beers? The usual suspects are already out blaming the Church for his death and demanding that the Church change its doctrine. Is this fair?

Having lived in a ward with a large gay population in its boundaries, I met my fair share of gay LDS (with many varying degrees of church activity and celibacy). A few became good friends, and shared with me their struggles trying to reconcile their homosexual desires with their desire to be faithful to their covenants.

While I wouldn't "blame" the Church, I could see firsthand how that struggle could lead to a suicide. One of these men had done all the "right" things (graduated from BYU, served a mission, served in the Church for 10+ years) until finally deciding to leave the Church (even though he still believed) and live a life of monogomous homosexuality. That was 10 years ago, and from every indication I've seen, he has found the happiness and peace that previously eluded him.

Edited March 27, 2012 by cinepro

[MorningStar]

Nope, that shows up (at least for me) by the HOT label next to the number of views.

I want all the threads to have stars!

[The Nehor]

I want all the threads to have stars!

Go post "bump" in every thread in the forum.

[KevinG]

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.

Bravo for the Black Adder quote...

Edited March 27, 2012 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

Having lived in a ward with a large gay population in its boundaries, I met my fair share of gay LDS (with many varying degrees of church activity and celibacy). A few became good friends, and shared with me their struggles trying to reconcile their homosexual desires with their desire to be faithful to their covenants.

While I wouldn't "blame" the Church, I could see firsthand how that struggle could lead to a suicide. One of these men had done all the "right" things (graduated from BYU, served a mission, served in the Church for 10+ years) until finally deciding to leave the Church (even though he still believed) and live a life of monogomous homosexuality. That was 10 years ago, and from every indication I've seen, he has found the happiness and peace that previously eluded him.

I've seen this as well. It is heartbreaking to watch.

The teachings of the Church are clear at this time and you watch people who want to obey but can't. I get a little bit of it because I've been searching for a relationship that I want to make permanent for about a decade now. I imagine the annoyance, the pain, the anger, the despair, and the lack of anything ever seeming to change is similar though I have a supreme advantage: hope that it will change. Their hopes are at best founded on the next life and receiving something they want to want but don't actually desire. That seems like little to live the gospel for.

Edited March 27, 2012 by The Nehor

[california boy]

I've seen this as well. It is heartbreaking to watch.

The teachings of the Church are clear at this time and you watch people who want to obey but can't. I get a little bit of it because I've been searching for a relationship that I want to make permanent for about a decade now. I imagine the annoyance, the pain, the anger, the despair, and the lack of anything ever seeming to change is similar though I have a supreme advantage: hope that it will change. Their hopes are at best founded on the next life and receiving something they want to want but don't actually desire. That seems like little to live the gospel for.

There is no hope in the next life for someone who is gay. We are clearly taught that our thoughts and desires in this life will rise up with us in the next. Gay men have no desire to be married in the next life eternally to a woman. So where is the hope?

[california boy]

The fact of the matter is, there has been no revelation concerning gay marrige. While sex outside of marriage is a law of God, homosexuality within the bonds of marriage has not been revealed. This issues is no different that looking back on the "tradition" of blacks not allowed to hold the priesthood. Now everyone is asking where the revelation is on that subject. The same can be said concerning sex within the bonds of gay marriage. Perhaps some day the prophet will actually ask God for his opinion on the subject. Until then, church doctrine is just based on opinions of the leaders of the church who like Brigham Young are a product of their time.

[The Nehor]

There is no hope in the next life for someone who is gay. We are clearly taught that our thoughts and desires in this life will rise up with us in the next. Gay men have no desire to be married in the next life eternally to a woman. So where is the hope?

And if they desire the desire? I don't particularly want to consecrate everything I have and am to God. I always want to hold something back. But I want the desire to turn everything over to God. Is that not enough?

I would say it is.

[Storm Rider]

I know of few topics that can engender more confusion and heartache than the topic Elder Packer has addressed. Without fail, I have always concluded that anyone that is heterosexual has almost no comprehension of the situation that a gay man or woman must live through daily.

For us we live life without any question about where are sexual attraction is directed and any deviation from that position is viewed as abhorrent. For a gay person they also live their lives without any question of their sexual attraction and society tells them from childhood that they are wrong, deviant, and cursed to damnation. I wonder how well we would deal with this type of treatment if the situation was reversed.

What if we woke up tomorrow and were told that being heterosexual was completely wrong and that we each needed to learn to love a person of the same sex. How well would we respond to that command? How effective would such a command be? Would we all just say, sorry and then live a celibate life? I doubt it.

Spiritually, how devastating would it is to be taught that we are outside of God’s teachings; that there is no place in his Kingdom for such a person as ourselves? The problem is that no one asked to be gay. They did not wake up one day, look at themselves in the mirror and then decided to be gay.

Whether it is nature or nurture I could not care less, what I am concerned about is that we don’t know why a person is gay; they simply are and most knew they were attracted to the same sex from childhood.

I have stated before that the sexual acts of homosexuality are perversion. However, I ask myself what choice do they have to express themselves? Celibacy is a non-starter and self-discipline for a hopeless reason is just cruel.

Each of these individuals is a child of God. They came to this world and very young realized they were gay. If God has sent them here and they are gay I have a difficult time condemning them or teaching that they are outside the Celestial Kingdom or salvation. I will withhold judgment and allow our Father to care for them just as much as I hope he cares for me.

When I hear a story of a gay person who has committed suicide after years of service to the Church, of fighting to “fit” into a heterosexual world and doctrine, I believe we have failed him as our brother. We have failed to love them and accept them.

Fundamentally, it may very be that homosexuality intrinsically is not a question of morality. I believe that homosexuals must live under the same moral teachings that all individuals must follow, but the fact that they find someone, commit to them, and then live within that relationship fully is no different for me than the one that I live within.

Lastly, of all the things we must live with in this life, of all the trials that exist, I cannot think of anything more grueling, more painful, and more heartbreaking then when a child realizes he/she is gay. They will live a life of pain; pain that society will create for them. These are people that need our love and support without any question or judgment of their so-called “preference”. Their preference is as much a choice as our choice to love the opposite sex. There was no choice; there was no agency; there was only their being who they are.

[Pahoran]

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,

No.

No such thing was "suggested."

A question was asked.

Sorry if asking a question offends you.

I suggest you build a bridge and get over it.

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).

Yes, this was seriously off-topic. However, it's not as if you were completely innocent about introducing off-topic material into the thread.

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.

Well, you were.

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.

That's false.

The subject of this thread, for approximately the umpteenth time, is President Packer's talk, as published in the April 2012 New Era. Especially the quoted portion. This was quoted primarily to demonstrate that his position has not changed, and that the spiteful remarks about his recent Conference talk, and the minor edits thereto, were false.

A post is not off-topic if it disagrees with that POV; it is off-topic if it talks about something else. Like the truly righteous nature of sodomy, just for instance, or the Church's inevitable surrender to ultimate moral decadence. It just so happens that a lot of posts have been made that had essentially nothing to do with the topic.

So David: would you like to post something about the topic of the OP?

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

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

You're right that Elder Packer hasn't changed his views, which is surprising, given how much medical information has been disseminated to the general public since Elder Packer first started teaching on this subject in the 1970s. He still confuses gender with sexual orientation like he did in the 1970s. Medically, gender is quite a different thing than sexual orientation. Men aren't gay because they they confuse themselves with women. Men who think they are women are suffering from gender identity disorder--they do not necessarily have the completely different trait of homosexuality. This is a medical fact, and is true regardless of whether or not you think that homosexuality is a sin. I think some of the other general authorities have a better grasp on this.

And on that point of whether homosexuality is a sin, it appears that the church as moved on past Elder Packer's 1970s views. In Mormonism today, homosexuality is no longer a sin. You can be gay or lesbian, and even transgendered, and still get a temple recommend. Despite what Elder Packer has taught, your sexual orientation and gender identity are not sins, and do not need to be repented of.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Pahoran]

The fact of the matter is, there has been no revelation concerning gay marrige. While sex outside of marriage is a law of God, homosexuality within the bonds of marriage has not been revealed. This issues is no different that looking back on the "tradition" of blacks not allowed to hold the priesthood.

This is a notorious canard. It is different in every possible way.

Homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and, contrary to much "gay" propaganda, are freely chosen. Belonging to any given lineage is not a choice, and Priesthood ordinances are not immoral. There is no comparison.

The immorality of unchaste acts is an eternal moral principle. The Priesthood has been granted to and/or withheld from different groups of people at different periods in history. No Priesthood restriction that I am aware of has ever been seen as being eternal.

Now everyone is asking where the revelation is on that subject. The same can be said concerning sex within the bonds of gay marriage. Perhaps some day the prophet will actually ask God for his opinion on the subject. Until then, church doctrine is just based on opinions of the leaders of the church who like Brigham Young are a product of their time.

Given that the so-called "sexual revolution" has been under way for the better part of half a century, if they were really just "a product of their time," Church leaders would be embracing every kind of sexual immorality.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You're right that Elder Packer hasn't changed his views, which is surprising, given how much medical information has been disseminated to the general public since Elder Packer first started teaching on this subject in the 1970s. He still confuses gender with sexual orientation like he did in the 1970s. Medically, gender is quite a different thing than sexual orientation. Men aren't gay because they they confuse themselves with women. Men who think they are women are suffering from gender identity disorder, not homosexuality. This is a medical fact, and is true regardless of whether or not you think that homosexuality is a sin. I think some of the other general authorities have a better grasp on this.

I think President Packer has a better grasp on this than what you misattribute to him.

And on that point of whether homosexuality is a sin, it appears that the church as moved on past Elder Packer's 1970s views. In Mormonism today, homosexuality is no longer a sin. You can be gay or lesbian, and even transgendered, and still get a temple recommend. Despite what Elder Packer has taught, your sexual orientation and gender identity are not sins, and do not need to be repented of.

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.

Regards,

Pahoran