President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Pahoran]

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.

I just agreed with Mercy.

The age of miracles is not yet ended.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Packer is right (no surprise there). And those who seek to misattribute or paint it in extremes are wrong (again with the no surprises). It is unfortunate when people give in to their desires rather than doing what is right.

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.

I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex. In those things we control our desires, and those who choose to follow that path do not seem to be spiritually devestated. Are there desires outside of God's teachings? For an unmarried, widowed or divorced the answer of course is yes, since premarital sex is outside of God's teachings. If he never finds another mate, and remains faithful, how is it different from being gay? The answer is it isn't. There are many people in that exact situation, thousands. They know their desire for sex outside of marriage is wrong, do they commit suicide? Do they blame the church or God? No. Do they sometimes struggle? If you have a normal sex drive, it is normal to struggle. But a struggle doesn't excuse you to commit sin.

[Storm Rider]

Packer is right (no surprise there). And those who seek to misattribute or paint it in extremes are wrong (again with the no surprises). It is unfortunate when people give in to their desires rather than doing what is right.

I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex. In those things we control our desires, and those who choose to follow that path do not seem to be spiritually devastated. Are there desires outside of God's teachings? For an unmarried, widowed or divorced the answer of course is yes, since premarital sex is outside of God's teachings. If he never finds another mate, and remains faithful, how is it different from being gay? The answer is it isn't. There are many people in that exact situation, thousands. They know their desire for sex outside of marriage is wrong, do they commit suicide? Do they blame the church or God? No. Do they sometimes struggle? If you have a normal sex drive, it is normal to struggle. But a struggle doesn't excuse you to commit sin.

Jeff, this comes across as just a bit cavalier. Teens and other heterosexuals have to restrict their sexual drive for but a short while and then are encouraged to marry and enjoy a life time of sexual intimacy. Our gay members have no such hope or encouragement. They face a life time of celibacy at best or the request to change their sexual attraction to the opposite sex, which I think borders on the ridiculous. How would you respond if you had to change your interests and now were forced to date a man, marry a man, and have sex with a man? That visceral reaction you just felt is the exact same reaction our gay members have to being told to do the same thing in reverse.

People, this topic is too difficult for me to comprehend or understand. I will not speak as if it is easy to be a celibate because it is not. To live life without ever knowing an intimate touch, kiss, hug, or simply being close much less having a fully intimate relationship is too much to contemplate. I would not curse my worst enemy to such a condition and I believe our Father in Heaven would not want condemn one of his children to such a fate either.

I would hope we could be instruments of compassion and charity in this matter. These people need our love, our support, and our understanding. They do not need us standing at the door to condemn them for being human or being a sinner. If we did, let's just start with ourselves and yank that big beam out first before judging them.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Packer is right (no surprise there). And those who seek to misattribute or paint it in extremes are wrong (again with the no surprises). It is unfortunate when people give in to their desires rather than doing what is right.

I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex. In those things we control our desires, and those who choose to follow that path do not seem to be spiritually devastated. Are there desires outside of God's teachings? For an unmarried, widowed or divorced the answer of course is yes, since premarital sex is outside of God's teachings. If he never finds another mate, and remains faithful, how is it different from being gay? The answer is it isn't. There are many people in that exact situation, thousands. They know their desire for sex outside of marriage is wrong, do they commit suicide? Do they blame the church or God? No. Do they sometimes struggle? If you have a normal sex drive, it is normal to struggle. But a struggle doesn't excuse you to commit sin.

Jeff, this comes across as just a bit cavalier. Teens and other heterosexuals have to restrict their sexual drive for but a short while and then are encouraged to marry and enjoy a life time of sexual intimacy. Our gay members have no such hope or encouragement. They face a life time of celibacy at best or the request to change their sexual attraction to the opposite sex, which I think borders on the ridiculous. How would you respond if you had to change your interests and now were forced to date a man, marry a man, and have sex with a man? That visceral reaction you just felt is the exact same reaction our gay members have to being told to do the same thing in reverse.

People, this topic is too difficult for me to comprehend or understand. I will not speak as if it is easy to be a celibate because it is not. To live life without ever knowing an intimate touch, kiss, hug, or simply being close much less having a fully intimate relationship is too much to contemplate. I would not curse my worst enemy to such a condition and I believe our Father in Heaven would not want condemn one of his children to such a fate either.

I would hope we could be instruments of compassion and charity in this matter. These people need our love, our support, and our understanding. They do not need us standing at the door to condemn them for being human or being a sinner. If we did, let's just start with ourselves and yank that big beam out first before judging them.

Wrong. There are those with little hope for various reasons of finding a mate, this would include having a normal sex drive but some other inability. Your insinuation that somehow if we do not believe that homosexual acts are a moral issue is somewhat insulting, but I will grant you probably didn't understand the talk given by an apostle or my post. So your post is most probably presented in a level of ignorance in regards to your judging of others. Otherwise it is merely a debating ploy that while you judge others to be without compassion you yourself failed to see the beam in your own eye. Let us hope its not the latter.

In the church there are thousands who will not, in their lifetimes have sex. Some are widowed, some suffer from a handicap, most will have a normal sex drive with which they will struggle. Some will not have hope that in this life they will have the opportunity for intimacy. The only difference is they do not have a large cheering section that wishes to change the Lord's view of sex outside of marriage. Unless of course you believe that a gay man's sex drive is somehow uniquely different from a normal sex drive beyond the question or orientation.

The topic of homosexual behavior is not too difficult to understand. In fact it is fairly striaghtforward. There are things that we all have desires for that are not within the realm of what God wants us to do. Simultaneously committing suicide because we cannot do what God wants us to do is not the fault of the church. It is merely a personal act made for personal reasons. Some will of course use it in an attempt to change God's rules, or the church's.

How would you respond if you had to change your interests and now were forced to date a man, marry a man, and have sex with a man? That visceral reaction you just felt is the exact same reaction our gay members have to being told to do the same thing in reverse.

I have agency, I have faith, I would therefore choose not to. When I joined the church, I was not a virgin. I was a teen with raging hormones that knew what it was like to be intimate with a woman. I also lived alone. Suddenly I was within the rules of not having a woman, and then I served a mission, and then I dated. At no time did my desire for intimacy abate. As I have stated there are those who go through their entire lives with the same drive many without that hope of intimacy. Are they being forced? Of course not. They have a faith in the next life. Why should we hold a lesser standard for those whose orientation is different but drive the same?

[Jeff K.]

Allow me to add, I do have compassion for those who struggle, I have an idea what its like to desire what you should not do. In Palm Springs a good friend of mine came to the realization that he was attracted to men, not a member, a Jehovah's Witness. He did not leave his wife and children to follow a different lifestyle. His view was there are things more important than wanting to have sex. He struggles, and he struggles valiently. People sometimes fail in their struggles. I have compassion for them also.

Where I reserve my compassion or rather hold it back, are those who choose to blame God, or the church, or society for their failure in the struggle and who would force those elements to meet their own needs. It is selfish. It is wrong. The difference between a person who fails, and a person who blames others for failure is like a vast gulf. The latter will never understand the atonement, the fomer will appreciate Christ all the more.

[Jaybear]

I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex.

The difference is as wide as the difference between now and forever. If you can't see that, its because you have chosen to look the other way.

Wrong. There are those with little hope for various reasons of finding a mate, this would include having a normal sex drive but some other inability.

... In the church there are thousands who will not, in their lifetimes have sex. Some are widowed, some suffer from a handicap, most will have a normal sex drive with which they will struggle. Some will not have hope that in this life they will have the opportunity for intimacy. The only difference is they do not have a large cheering section that wishes to change the Lord's view of sex outside of marriage.

Now you have changed the analogy, but you are still wrong.

The difference with the new analogy is the difference between a hopeless desire and a forbidden desire.

In the former situation, if you had the power to bring love and intimacy into the lives of the hopeless, I am sure you would do so.

Jeff, I don't think you are trying very hard to empathize, if you can't see the difference.

The topic of homosexual behavior is not too difficult to understand. In fact it is fairly striaghtforward. There are things thatwe all have desires for that are not within the realm of what God wants us to do. Simultaneously committing suicide because we cannot do what God wants us to do is not the fault of the church. It is merely a personal act made for personal reasons. Some will of course use it in an attempt to change God's rules, or the church's.

So LDS teens and adults are chosing to commit suicide rather than live the a life expected/demanded of a gay mormon, and you say ..... meh.

It was an act of self immolation that gave rise to the Arab spring. How many gay teens have to die before you actually put some real thought into the issues, rather than relying on nonsensical analogies.

[Storm Rider]

Wrong. There are those with little hope for various reasons of finding a mate, this would include having a normal sex drive but some other inability. Your insinuation that somehow if we do not believe that homosexual acts are a moral issue is somewhat insulting, but I will grant you probably didn't understand the talk given by an apostle or my post. So your post is most probably presented in a level of ignorance in regards to your judging of others. Otherwise it is merely a debating ploy that while you judge others to be without compassion you yourself failed to see the beam in your own eye. Let us hope its not the latter.

In the church there are thousands who will not, in their lifetimes have sex. Some are widowed, some suffer from a handicap, most will have a normal sex drive with which they will struggle. Some will not have hope that in this life they will have the opportunity for intimacy. The only difference is they do not have a large cheering section that wishes to change the Lord's view of sex outside of marriage. Unless of course you believe that a gay man's sex drive is somehow uniquely different from a normal sex drive beyond the question or orientation.

The topic of homosexual behavior is not too difficult to understand. In fact it is fairly striaghtforward. There are things that we all have desires for that are not within the realm of what God wants us to do. Simultaneously committing suicide because we cannot do what God wants us to do is not the fault of the church. It is merely a personal act made for personal reasons. Some will of course use it in an attempt to change God's rules, or the church's.

I have agency, I have faith, I would therefore choose not to. When I joined the church, I was not a virgin. I was a teen with raging hormones that knew what it was like to be intimate with a woman. I also lived alone. Suddenly I was within the rules of not having a woman, and then I served a mission, and then I dated. At no time did my desire for intimacy abate. As I have stated there are those who go through their entire lives with the same drive many without that hope of intimacy. Are they being forced? Of course not. They have a faith in the next life. Why should we hold a lesser standard for those whose orientation is different but drive the same?

I wish you the very best in life. We must be talking past one another. I don't know where your first comments came from.

As far as an apostle of the Lord goes, I generally read their message before talking and the last time I checked I had a high degree of comprehension, but then I am human and could have easily thought I was reading about the Kepler Conjecture, who knows. I digress.

I appreciate your stridency and surety of knowledge. There was a time in my youth where I felt the same way and could paint the world in black and white. However, over time I have learned that the world is not black and white. What I thought I knew now has evolved into a position that I realize I know very little.

As a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ I am called to be a source of peace in the world; to care for those less fortunate than me; to visit the sick, the widowed, and the orphaned; to without judgment of others; and to seek out the Holy Spirit in a effort to be led to truth in all things.

I acknowledge fully that I often fall short of communicating properly my desired message. The main message that I tried to relay is that we be compassionate. I did not try to define immorality, but a call for understanding. If I said anything that influenced you to think I was saying more than that, forgive me. I was obviously falling short again.

I pray that for the rest of your life you may see as clearly as you do today. As for me and at my age, I see too much grey to want to take a stand of condemnation. I pray that our Father will be merciful with each of us on the day of judgment. I fall on the Atonement of our Savior in the sure knowledge that only through him will I see God and dwell in his presence. May we all be there together.

[Jaybear]

Allow me to add, I do have compassion for those who struggle, I have an idea what its like to desire what you should not do. In Palm Springs a good friend of mine came to the realization that he was attracted to men, not a member, a Jehovah's Witness. He did not leave his wife and children to follow a different lifestyle. His view was there are things more important than wanting to have sex. He struggles, and he struggles valiently. People sometimes fail in their struggles. I have compassion for them also.

Objection. Hearsay. You seem to think claiming to have a gay friend who shares your beliefs gives your thoughts and ideas added credibility. Nonsense. If you do indeed have a gay friend, then have them come here and speak for themselves. Funny thing, your ideas haven't seemed to gather much support from any self described homosexuals who actually posting here.

[Deborah]

President Packer has always told it like it is, which is why when I was young he was a favorite speaker of the youth.

I too am sorry for those who struggle with the Law of Chastity. I've been there too and I know how difficult it is. But imagine being married for many years and then all of a sudden not and what you were able to do freely while married you now have to cut off completely, even though those feelings are not lessened. Does anyone really think that is easier than what a gay person has to deal with?

[california boy]

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. 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

I am not saying being gay is the same as being black. I am saying the situation is the same. There has been no revelation from God concerning gay marrriage. Sexuality no matter gay or straight outside of marriage is condemned in the scriptures in exactly the same way. In fact there are way more times God condemns straight sex outside of marriage than is ever found on gay sex. God does not view sexuality within marriage the same way as He does outside of marriage.

So your post is completely irrelevant. The truth remains, God has never given a revelation concerning gay marriage. And what is similare is the situation with blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood. Both seem to be simply the prejudice of men living in their times.

[mercyngrace]

I pray that our Father will be merciful with each of us on the day of judgment. I fall on the Atonement of our Savior in the sure knowledge that only through him will I see God and dwell in his presence. May we all be there together.

This reminds me of what Joseph Smith expressed:

All the religious world is boasting of righteousness; it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. My talk is intended for all this society; if you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.

Or Nephi:

And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.

It's beautiful and truly Christ oriented perspective to desire all to receive. Any calls to repentance, IMO, should be motivated by the kind of compassion and charity exemplified in these quotes.

[california boy]

Packer is right (no surprise there). And those who seek to misattribute or paint it in extremes are wrong (again with the no surprises). It is unfortunate when people give in to their desires rather than doing what is right. I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex. In those things we control our desires, and those who choose to follow that path do not seem to be spiritually devestated. Are there desires outside of God's teachings? For an unmarried, widowed or divorced the answer of course is yes, since premarital sex is outside of God's teachings. If he never finds another mate, and remains faithful, how is it different from being gay? The answer is it isn't. There are many people in that exact situation, thousands. They know their desire for sex outside of marriage is wrong, do they commit suicide? Do they blame the church or God? No. Do they sometimes struggle? If you have a normal sex drive, it is normal to struggle. But a struggle doesn't excuse you to commit sin.

How is it different? There is a multitude of differences. The teenager controls his sexual appetite in hopes of something better, an eternal marriage within the temple. Talks are given constantly telling them the wait is worth it.

To some extent that is also true for the person who is still single. The hope in this life is just less. However the promise in the next is that they will find eternal happiness and a companion to spend eternity with in the next.

Gay men are promised the same thing with someone of the opposite sex. When the church starts teaching that you can live eternally with another man, then the situation will be comparible. No gay man wants to live eternally with a woman. If they don't want to do it in this life, and our same wants and desires rise up with us in the next, why would we want to spend eternity with a woman in the next?

Hope can be a strong emotion. For a gay person that is taken away.

[california boy]

I just want to thank Stormrider for his comments. Not often does a gay person find a member of the church who has thought about what it must be like to be gay and really try to relate to that situation. I certainly am not asking for acceptance by the church or its members for being gay. I have come to peace with my orientation. I am more than willing to accept that I will not be found in the hightest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. As stated, I have no desire to be with a woman for eternity. That said, I wish I could in this life still be counted as a saint. I wish that I too could share the gospel with the one I love. I wish I didn't have to choose between the fulfillment, happiness and yes peace with God over my orientation and fellowship with the saints.

So I remain outside the church looking in. I live a life with the feeling of Gods love and with a man whose love and understanding of this tortured Mormon is ok. If members only knew the feeling of peace a gay man receives once he comes to grips with his orientation they would understand why so much has been sacrificed and will continue to be sacrificed by those that are gay. In many parts of this world, a man will get executed for being gay. If that threat is not enough for them to change their desires, what else would?

[wenglund]

To be fair it did come across as patronizing and condescending.

Again, I think such a reaction says more about you than me. Since it was generic, there was no one to really patronize and condescend to, and no one to be patronizing and condescending. It made no judgments and simply pointed out a practical means for assessment--particularly of the self kind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sky]

No gay man wants to live eternally with a woman. If they don't want to do it in this life, and our same wants and desires rise up with us in the next, why would we want to spend eternity with a woman in the next?

If you never want to be with a woman, then you won’t be. But you won’t get to be with a man for eternity, either, as there are no same-sex sealings. So there is a good possibility that you might be single for eternity, which is something I don’t think you want, either. Believe me, I know all about the dilemma you face. I know it is not easy, and for what it's worth, I wish you well.

Hope can be a strong emotion. For a gay person that is taken away.

Nobody gets through this life without any challenges. This particular challenge seems harder than others.

But anybody who strives to be faithful and live the gospel should have hope - even the gay person. Perhaps we as a Church could do a better job of letting them know that. But I’m not sure how.

[KevinG]

This particular challenge seems harder than others.

Not having faced that particular challenge I cannot tell you if it really is harder than others. I do know that the solution to my weaknesses of the flesh has not been to ask God or His servants to change the rules or their consequences of my actions.

[TAO]

Teens and other heterosexuals have to restrict their sexual drive for but a short while and then are encouraged to marry and enjoy a life time of sexual intimacy. Our gay members have no such hope or encouragement.

If those 'teens and other heterosexuals' are just restricting their sexual drive before marriage, I think something is wrong. There is also a degree to which you have to restrict it during marriage, as well.

They face a life time of celibacy at best or the request to change their sexual attraction to the opposite sex, which I think borders on the ridiculous.

The second is not so ridiculous. It involves alot of manipulation of your own mind to change it to the path that it needs to be on. People can do it though. Oftentimes, I am guessing they just don't know how.

How would you respond if you had to change your interests and now were forced to date a man, marry a man, and have sex with a man? That visceral reaction you just felt is the exact same reaction our gay members have to being told to do the same thing in reverse.

Naturally, but there is a process for overcoming the reaction, and convincing your brain that it isn't wrong. Just as there is a process for the reverse.

People, this topic is too difficult for me to comprehend or understand. I will not speak as if it is easy to be a celibate because it is not. To live life without ever knowing an intimate touch, kiss, hug, or simply being close much less having a fully intimate relationship is too much to contemplate. I would not curse my worst enemy to such a condition and I believe our Father in Heaven would not want condemn one of his children to such a fate either.

There are many who are condemned to this fate. Some people with mental illnesses, for instance. What's important is that they aren't condemned eternally all of the time. The people will get their chance, and that is what really matters, imho.

I would hope we could be instruments of compassion and charity in this matter. These people need our love, our support, and our understanding. They do not need us standing at the door to condemn them for being human or being a sinner. If we did, let's just start with ourselves and yank that big beam out first before judging them.

Definitely. But also beware of saying things are impossible. A good and strong willpower can do many things a somewhat less strong willpower cannot. It takes some determination to change.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex.

The difference is as wide as the difference between now and forever. If you can't see that, its because you have chosen to look the other way.

Sigh, read the entire post next time before you comment. The issue was covered.

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Wrong. There are those with little hope for various reasons of finding a mate, this would include having a normal sex drive but some other inability.

... In the church there are thousands who will not, in their lifetimes have sex. Some are widowed, some suffer from a handicap, most will have a normal sex drive with which they will struggle. Some will not have hope that in this life they will have the opportunity for intimacy. The only difference is they do not have a large cheering section that wishes to change the Lord's view of sex outside of marriage.

Now you have changed the analogy, but you are still wrong.

The difference with the new analogy is the difference between a hopeless desire and a forbidden desire.

In the former situation, if you had the power to bring love and intimacy into the lives of the hopeless, I am sure you would do so.

Jeff, I don't think you are trying very hard to empathize, if you can't see the difference.

No Jaybear I haven't changed anything, the desire remains regardless of the circumstance.

Quote

The topic of homosexual behavior is not too difficult to understand. In fact it is fairly striaghtforward. There are things thatwe all have desires for that are not within the realm of what God wants us to do. Simultaneously committing suicide because we cannot do what God wants us to do is not the fault of the church. It is merely a personal act made for personal reasons. Some will of course use it in an attempt to change God's rules, or the church's.

So LDS teens and adults are chosing to commit suicide rather than live the a life expected/demanded of a gay mormon, and you say ..... meh.

It was an act of self immolation that gave rise to the Arab spring. How many gay teens have to die before you actually put some real thought into the issues, rather than relying on nonsensical analogies.

They certainly are choosing to commit suicide. Is a man who may never marry for various reasons forced to commit suicide or does he choose to? Your characterization of "meh" reflects more on your lack of understanding than just about anything else. The desire, however strong remains in many individuals even when they must tell themselves not to. And yet they don't commit suicide, they don't blame the church, they don't create psuedo martyrs out of others or change the story line to fit their preconceived notions of why someone dies. They struggle, and do so valiently. This includes gay men who choose to remain faithful to their wives and a father to their children rather than abandon everything so they can have sex with another man.

[Daniel2]

Yes. It is.

1 Nephi 15:

34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.

Your interpretation/application of that passage is not sufficient to prove that official LDS doctrine states that “There will be no homosexual relationships in the hereafter. None.” I am unaware of any LDS canonical authority that definitively promotes your interpretation/application of that passage. I'm not trying to split hairs, here--I'm just trying to make the point that LDS doctrine isn't as precise or clear on this matter as you seem to be attempting to promote. I personally don't see the need to attempt to make LDS doctrine more definitive than leaders have really chosen to make it. After all, if 'The Lord' truly wanted to add further defininition to the cannon, 'He' can always add more clarification by way of an additional cannonical revelation to the D&C on the matter--an act I believe that LDS leaders will likely someday undertake (though not in the way I'd anticipate you would agree with).

That is, of course, a completely irrelevant analogy. Interracial couples didn't have to try to "force" the Church to do anything at all, since it has always permitted interracial marriages. Even while it was advising against them, it always permitted and performed them when the parties were eligible to marry and worthy to enter the Temple.

My understanding was that black men could not become endowed in the temple prior to 1978, and were therefore barred from temple marriage, as well. Is that incorrect?

As I'm sure you know, Daniel, it is contrary to the Kirk-Madsen program to tip your hand too early.

I don’t know what the Kirk-Madsen program is, nor do I operate by concealing any type of metaphorical “hand” of cards, in the struggle for civil equality for LGBT citizens. I believe I am transparent and forthright concerning my views, methods, and ultimate goals.

But, as I'm sure you also know, there have been attempts to nibble around the edges of religious freedom, and the results must look encouraging from an immoralist POV. I refer to the New Jersey case where a Church that made its property available for wedding receptions had to withdraw it from that use so that it would not be forced to allow same sex "marriage" celebrations there.

Assuming your speaking about the Ocean Grove incident, I’m very familiar with the case. Your characterization of it is false, but you aren’t alone in sharing only the sketchiest details about the incident in order to try to make it appear to be some sort of attack on religious liberty. Every time the issue is raised, I continue to correct those who would misleadingly portray it. Here is a more accurate representation of the facts:

One of the favorite stories that anti-gays like to tell is that of a church in New Jersey that lost its tax exempt status because it wouldn’t conduct gay marriages.

Here’s the tale from the Manhattan Declaration:

In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi­marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.

And from the National Organization for Marriage’s infamous “gathering storm” ad:

“I am part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we cannot support same-sex marriage.”

In fact, you’ll hardly find a litany of imagined grievances that anti-gays chant that does not have some version of this tale. Of course, none of them tell the truth.

The facts are that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns a small beachside town in New Jersey. Although Ocean Grove has many areas that are restricted for religious use, for decades the beach, the boardwalk, and a pavilion have been open to the public.

As part of the state’s Green Acres program, those who make their land open to all residents get special property tax benefits denied to other property owners. And so those areas that were public use (but not the private religious property) had received exemptions.

However, when the Association decided that the pavilion was a religious building that could only be used for heterosexual ceremonies, and not gay ceremonies, they no longer qualified for the exemption and the pavilion lost its special status. While the beach and the boardwalk remained privileged and received preferential treatment, the pavilion was treated like the rest of the Association’s property.

But all of that could change.

An added provision to the proposed New Jersey marriage equality bill would exempt churches, and church-affiliated organizations like the Camp Meeting Association, from having to provide services to same-sex couples. And further, it bars the state from punishing those religious organizations that so discriminate.

Which means that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could return to making their pavilion open to wedding ceremonies for everyone – Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, and Methodists – everyone except gay folk.

The LA Times explained it this way:

Another “Yes on 8″ canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.

The facts of the story are these:

• The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, while a religious ministry, is not a church.
  
• The association lists two sites available for weddings on its website: Thornley Chapel and Bishop Janes Tabernacle, both of which are restricted to usage that is consistent with the United Methodist Church book of Discipline and both of which ban smoking or alcoholic beverages on the premises. The lawsuit did not involve either of these church buildings.
  
• SEE UPDATE BELOW – The structure where the lesbian couple requested rental was the Auditorium Pavilion. The Pavilion was not designed as a place of worship but rather was built in the 1880′s as a covering for “a scale model of 1st Century AD Jerusalem”. The Historical Society of Ocean Grove reports that the model was removed about 1950 and that “Today the Pavilion is used by the Camp Meeting Association, the Historical Society and various community groups.” It did offer its services as a wedding site until April 2007, shortly after the complaint.
  
• The Association owns all of the land in Ocean Grove (one square mile) but by no means is all of this property dedicated to religious use. There are a number of homes on the land who lease from the association, along with stores, restaurants, and hotels, in 99 year leases, and a beach boardwalk along the public beach.
  
• The Association rents out the religious meeting facilities to various groups, although it does maintain a ban on smoking and drinking on those properties. However, Ocean Grove was known as a location that was very gay-friendly and welcoming.
  
• The Association made the beach, the boardwalk, and the boardwalk pavilion public access property. A 1908 ruling referenced that they “had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway”. As privately-held public lands, the beach properties were available for a number of benefits including federal state and local funds for repairs and maintenance and exemption from local property taxes through participation in the state’s Green Acres Program.
  
• After a lesbian couple was rejected by the Association when they tried to rent the space for a civil union ceremony in March 2007, they contacted the State Division on Civil Rights to make a discrimination complaint.
  
• The State of New Jersey reinstated the Association’s exemption from property tax for the beach and the rest of the boardwalk, but stated that it could not continue to exempt the pavilion as it was not truly open to the public. (NY Times)
  
• 
  “When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said [Lisa Jackson, state commissioner of environmental protection]. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

This is true. And it is generally accepted that the US currently has greater religious freedom than those places.

At least, for now.

I’m not sure that it is “generally accepted that the US currently has greater religious freedom that [Europe and South America].” Even so, just because something is “generally accepted” does not mean it is “true.” What evidence do you have that “the US currently has greater religious freedom than Europe and South America”?

I won’t derail this threat by responding to your claims that I “made up” that “prior to 1978, many of ‘the Lord’s servants’ were teaching from the pulpit and in official pronouncements that it was "doctrine" that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence.” There are other threads addressing the issue, and I believe the evidence on that point speaks for itself.

And yes, I realise that you regard filth as beautiful. You don't have to labour the point.

I think you may have misunderstood my position. I haven’t attempted to make nor belabor the point that homosexual relationships have the potential to be beautiful. I assume you’re referring to the lyrics to “Testimony” (the song listed in my signature) that I quoted. This particular post has gotten long enough. With the aim of getting back on topic: In my next post, I’ll explain why I posted the lyrics, and how they are on topic with Elder Packer’s talk.

Daniel2

Edited March 27, 2012 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

May I say that I am inspired by the loving and well-intended expressions of empathy here. Wouldn't it be great if such expressions work to everyone's good rather than being viewed as an invitation to ramp up the victimology. Either way, I salute the kindness and consideration.

As for hope, I am encouraged by the realization that having or not having hope is, to some extent, a function of priorities. If having hope, particularly of the divine, is a higher priority than say one's sexual orientation or acting upon that sexual orientation, then one may well have hope, and through Christ, perhaps realize that hope. But, if acting on one's sexual desires is of utmost importance, then a lack of hope may be understandable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blueadept]

President Packer has always told it like it is, which is why when I was young he was a favorite speaker of the youth.

Even though I'm normally annoyed most of the time with President Packer's statements, this is an exception and I have no problems. Miracles do happen.

I too am sorry for those who struggle with the Law of Chastity. I've been there too and I know how difficult it is. But imagine being married for many years and then all of a sudden not and what you were able to do freely while married you now have to cut off completely, even though those feelings are not lessened.

We all have our crosses to bear and you nailed the one that I'm dealing with. While I miss the good stuff of being married, it doesn't outweigh the bad stuff necessarily. All one can do is to turn all the anger, hurt, remorse, good, bad, and indifferent things over to HF and honor our covenants regardless. This is my calling in life. I'm not sure that most would understand this.

Does anyone really think that is easier than what a gay person has to deal with?

I don't believe that 99% of gays believe it's their calling in life to be alone and struggle with this. So I'm not sure there is a comparison here IMHO.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Packer is right (no surprise there). And those who seek to misattribute or paint it in extremes are wrong (again with the no surprises). It is unfortunate when people give in to their desires rather than doing what is right. I have thought on that in the past. How different is it from telling a raging teen not to give in to their hormones, or a person who never finds someone to marry, not to have premarital sex. In those things we control our desires, and those who choose to follow that path do not seem to be spiritually devestated. Are there desires outside of God's teachings? For an unmarried, widowed or divorced the answer of course is yes, since premarital sex is outside of God's teachings. If he never finds another mate, and remains faithful, how is it different from being gay? The answer is it isn't. There are many people in that exact situation, thousands. They know their desire for sex outside of marriage is wrong, do they commit suicide? Do they blame the church or God? No. Do they sometimes struggle? If you have a normal sex drive, it is normal to struggle. But a struggle doesn't excuse you to commit sin.

How is it different? There is a multitude of differences. The teenager controls his sexual appetite in hopes of something better, an eternal marriage within the temple. Talks are given constantly telling them the wait is worth it.

To some extent that is also true for the person who is still single. The hope in this life is just less. However the promise in the next is that they will find eternal happiness and a companion to spend eternity with in the next.

Gay men are promised the same thing with someone of the opposite sex. When the church starts teaching that you can live eternally with another man, then the situation will be comparible. No gay man wants to live eternally with a woman. If they don't want to do it in this life, and our same wants and desires rise up with us in the next, why would we want to spend eternity with a woman in the next?

Hope can be a strong emotion. For a gay person that is taken away.

I suggest you read the entire post before commenting, gay or straight, both have one would presume, the same level of desire. In both there are instances when a person chooses what is right in obeying God's laws or rejects God's laws. Circumstances may change for all individuals, but the desire remains the same. It comes down to choice, and hope is not abandoned, it remains.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 March 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Allow me to add, I do have compassion for those who struggle, I have an idea what its like to desire what you should not do. In Palm Springs a good friend of mine came to the realization that he was attracted to men, not a member, a Jehovah's Witness. He did not leave his wife and children to follow a different lifestyle. His view was there are things more important than wanting to have sex. He struggles, and he struggles valiently. People sometimes fail in their struggles. I have compassion for them also.

Objection. Hearsay. You seem to think claiming to have a gay friend who shares your beliefs gives your thoughts and ideas added credibility. Nonsense. If you do indeed have a gay friend, then have them come here and speak for themselves. Funny thing, your ideas haven't seemed to gather much support from any self described homosexuals who actually posting here.

Bet you shout that every conference at the TV when the prophets and apostles speak.

I claim nothing but relate the facts. If those facts make you uncomfortable or don't fit neatly into your world view, that is an issue you have to deal with. The only self described homosexuals who post here are activists, and their allies. You don't expect them to give up their strident stance do you? Such would be nonsense indeed.

Why should a gay man want to post here only to be labeled a traitor by the activists? Its hard enough to be morally correct when your desire says otherwise. Why give fuel to those who would gladly seek your corruption. Besides he tends to reside in the Jehovah's Witnesses forums which are more to his liking.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Log]

That there has been no canonized revelation on the subject is irrelevant. There most certainly has been revelation received on this issue. Each member living up to his or her covenants to their fullest efforts in unfeigned sincerity and faith can know of themselves whether the prophets and apostles are teaching the will of God on this topic, even if they disagree with the stance the church has taken.

[Jeff K.]

Amazing how the claim that we are not specifically told to refrain from homosexuality means that we are somehow free to practice it. One presumes a rather "cavalier" retelling of the truth in the matter. We know it is false to believe it is not a sin, and we know those who push for the act are being dishonest in stating it is not a sin.