President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[wenglund]

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.

Daniel is, to some extent, correct. The man-made language in which the scriptures are written, is not sufficiently definitive or unmistakable, and may, if so desired, be loosely interpreted as not preventing, and perhaps even as permitting, any an every act conceivable to man, whether for good or ill. Otherwise, the prophesy could not be fulfilled that says that some will call good bad, and bad good.

As such, it is a good thing that the Father, through his Son, has availed us of his guiding Spirit and enlightening revelations--that is, if we humbly seek after and in good faith follow him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

The equivocation of race and homosexuality is wrong. Being black (or of a lineage with black skin) was never considered a sin in any Testament or church teaching, ever.

Homosexuality is not a sin either.

It is acts of sexual immorality which are defined pretty clearly in the scriptures that are considered a sin. These sins are not restricted to homosexuals and temptation is not borne by them in any greater way than others struggling to live according to the laws of God.

I do understand why those who believe acting on their sexuality is not a sin choose not to be Mormons, Catholics, Muslims or Baptists - but it is not consistent to ask the church to change to accommodate them, when it is the duty of the church to warn, teach and preach repentance from sin.

[KevinG]

You are kidding Jaybear. You won't believe some of us have homosexual friends or know those who struggle to reconcile homosexual drives with being a Latter-day Saint because we disagree with you?!

[Jaybear]

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.

Why not? What is wrong with asking?

That said, I assume the reason you haven't asked is that you understand and agree that your weakness is one that ought to be controlled.

If that is the case, then its not the same.

[Jeff K.]

Ask Martin Harris how many times one should ask.

[Jaybear]

You are kidding Jaybear. You won't believe some of us have homosexual friends or know those who struggle to reconcile homosexual drives with being a Latter-day Saint because we disagree with you?!

I didn't say that. Please have the courtesy of addressing the statements that I make, rather than the ones you imagine.

My point is that I don't put any stock in such hearsay. People must be allowed to speak for themselves. Your inabilty or unwillingness to accurately recast my statement is exhibit one to support this concern.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jaybear

[KevinG]

I didn't say that. Please have the courtesy of addressing the statements that I make, rather than the ones you imagine.

My point is that I don't put any stock in such hearsay. People must be allowed to speak for themselves. Your inabilty or unwillingness to accurately recast my statement is exhibit one to support this concern.

Sorry I misunderstood your comments. May I have my head back now?

[wenglund]

May I have my head back now?

It may be awhile since he is so busy removing motes from other people's eyes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

I didn't say that. Please have the courtesy of addressing the statements that I make, rather than the ones you imagine.

My point is that I don't put any stock in such hearsay. People must be allowed to speak for themselves. Your inabilty or unwillingness to accurately recast my statement is exhibit one to support this concern.

Apparently witnesses have no bearing on the matter.

[KevinG]

Why not? What is wrong with asking?

That said, I assume the reason you haven't asked is that you understand and agree that your weakness is one that ought to be controlled.

If that is the case, then its not the same.

Completely aside from sexual issues: If we pick and choose which weaknesses we must control then we put our relatively weak judgement in the place of God's perfect judgement. It is not wise to excuse ourselves from God's counsel and direction. In fact a quick road to harming ourselves can be found in making ourselves the exception to the rules.

[blueadept]

I do understand why those who believe acting on their sexuality is not a sin choose not to be Mormons, Catholics, Muslims or Baptists - but it is not consistent to ask the church to change to accommodate them, when it is the duty of the church to warn, teach and preach repentance from sin.

A difference between the groups you listed is that the homosexual Catholics are not as 'underground' as in other faiths. I know quite a few homosexual priests who live honorable lives.

I'm not sure that's as easy to do in the other groups. Just saying.

[KevinG]

A difference between the groups you listed is that the homosexual Catholics are not as 'underground' as in other faiths. I know quite a few homosexual priests who live honorable lives.

I'm not sure that's as easy to do in the other groups. Just saying.

Good point - there is a sliding scale and I'm sure LDS falls somewhere between Catholic and Muslim.

[ERMD]

Those who claim that there has been no revelation regarding SSM are not familiar with or do not understand "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Two pages later, I've not seen a response to this CFR yet. Here's the statement Pahoran challenged:

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.

In fact I don't recall the Church or its leaders ever having the position that the tendency alone, absent its expression, is a sin.

[california boy]

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.

I think you are destorting what is being talked about here. We are talking about a revelation on gay marrriage. not sex outside of marriage for gay men. There is no revelation on how gay marriage is viewed by God. Perhaps some day a prophet of God will seek such a revelation like what happened in 1978. At this point, the scriptures and modern revelation has been silent on the issue.

[california boy]

Those who claim that there has been no revelation regarding SSM are not familiar with or do not understand "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

i am very familiar with the Proclamation to the World. Does the church claim this was received by revelation? Could you CFR that for me?

[wenglund]

At this point, the scriptures and modern revelation has been silent on the issue.

Silence is what the deaf will invariably hear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

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

Same concept. I don't think its a coincidence that those who claim to speak for God, invariably present a voice of God that seems to mirror their own voice.

If God thinks it important that I know something, he can tell me himself.

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.

You can make whatever claims you wish. I am under no obligation to accept at face value that you have accurately conveyed the thoughts and emotions of your alleged gay friend.

I could issue you a CFR, that your friend actually said what you claimed he said, but I am sure you wouldn't respond.

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.

I find the absense of gay voices lending support to your position telling.

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.

Which forum? I will go there and ask him what he thinks.

[wenglund]

I don't think its a coincidence that those who claim to speak for God, invariably present a voice of God that seems to mirror their own voice.

Correct. But this is to be expected when prophets and believers align their minds with God. "Whether by my own words, or the words of the prophets...."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 27, 2012 by wenglund

[David T]

In fact I don't recall the Church or its leaders ever having the position that the tendency alone, absent its expression, is a sin.

Spencer Kimball's 'Miracle of Forgiveness' (which is currently published by and sold directly by the Church) defines homosexuality, on page 78: "This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex".,(noting that desire as well as action is 'perverted',) followed by (p. 85) "Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, and not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." That is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be "that way"?

The desire and tendency towards those of the same Gender are presented as perverted, and a choice, with the idea that same sex attraction is inborn is "blasphemy" concocted by "perverts". The idea that one is not held responsible for the tendency is presented as "misinform[ation]".

This is the very concept that was redacted from the oft-discussed talk by President Packer:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, God He is our Heavenly Father.

The idea that tendencies were impure and unnatural could be overcome and the rhetorical question asking why God would make anyone with such tendencies was shifted to be more clearly in line with the present Church view that allows for non-sinful and natural inborn tendencies, but emphasizes that the temptation to act on them may be - and should be - overcome. Which sets it as being in line with all heterosexual temptations as well. Heterosexual 'tendencies' aren't a sin, but giving into sinful temptation is.

The key difference is in the understanding of the fulfilling of the end 'hope' in the afterlife when it comes to currently celibate homosexuals.

Edited March 27, 2012 by David T

[Jeff K.]

I think you are destorting what is being talked about here. We are talking about a revelation on gay marrriage. not sex outside of marriage for gay men. There is no revelation on how gay marriage is viewed by God. Perhaps some day a prophet of God will seek such a revelation like what happened in 1978. At this point, the scriptures and modern revelation has been silent on the issue.

No, I am in fact pointing to the truth while some obfuscate it. In other words, gay marriage is not marriage, the practice of homosexual acts between men is not sanctioned by God and shall not be. The attempts of a few to subvert what we know to be true reveals their true nature.

[Sky]

i am very familiar with the Proclamation to the World. Does the church claim this was received by revelation? Could you CFR that for me?

Here is a reference for you. This is the closest thing I've seen to saying that it was a revelation.

I personally would not be surprised if we saw the Family Proclamation in our scriptures some day, perhaps as Official Declaration 3.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sky

[Jeff K.]

Quote

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.

You can make whatever claims you wish. I am under no obligation to accept at face value that you have accurately conveyed the thoughts and emotions of your alleged gay friend.

I could issue you a CFR, that your friend actually said what you claimed he said, but I am sure you wouldn't respond.

One could issue a CFR as to whether or not you are a member, but we both know that is wrong and rather ridiculous on the face of it. I think it somewhat reflective of your dubious nature that you would even consider such a statement, but then, IT IS reflective of who you are.

Quote

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.

I find the absense of gay voices lending support to your position telling.

It certainly is. The gay community is not welcoming of a diversity of voices, they will bully and destroy those who disagree with their agenda, in effect eating their own. Very telling indeed.

Quote

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.

Which forum? I will go there and ask him what he thinks.

Why would I expose a good man to your ridicule and exposure on another forum. What kind of friend would that make me. I know you care little for him, after all, he doesn't think like you so he is less than you. But I value the friendship he and have.

Maybe you will mature and think on these things. Maybe not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Spencer Kimball's 'Miracle of Forgiveness' (which is currently published by and sold directly by the Church) defines homosexuality, on page 78: "This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex".,(noting that desire as well as action is 'perverted',) followed by (p. 85) "Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, and not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." That is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be "that way"?

The desire and tendency towards those of the same Gender are presented as perverted, and a choice, with the idea that same sex attraction is inborn is "blasphemy" concocted by "perverts". The idea that one is not held responsible for the tendency is presented as "misinform[ation]".

This is the very concept that was redacted from the oft-discussed talk by President Packer:

The idea that tendencies were impure and unnatural could be overcome and the rhetorical question asking why God would make anyone with such tendencies was shifted to be more clearly in line with the present Church view that allows for non-sinful and natural inborn tendencies, but emphasizes that the temptation to act on them may be - and should be - overcome. Which sets it as being in line with all heterosexual temptations as well. Heterosexual 'tendencies' aren't a sin, but giving into sinful temptation is.

The key difference is in the understanding of the fulfilling of the end 'hope' in the afterlife when it comes to currently celibate homosexuals.

If this is intended as a response to the CFR, it fails.

Same-gender sexual attraction is a perversion, a malady to be overcome if one can do so, but there is no sin to be repented of unless one acts upon that perverted tendency.

Like all other defects of mortality, it will be removed in the resurrection. But to my knowledge, there has never been a time in the history of the Church when mere latent homosexuality, unexpressed, has been regarded as a sin.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

Spencer Kimball's 'Miracle of Forgiveness' (which is currently published by and sold directly by the Church) defines homosexuality, on page 78: "This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex".,(noting that desire as well as action is 'perverted',) followed by (p. 85) "Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, and not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." That is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be "that way"?

The desire and tendency towards those of the same Gender are presented as perverted, and a choice, with the idea that same sex attraction is inborn is "blasphemy" concocted by "perverts". The idea that one is not held responsible for the tendency is presented as "misinform[ation]".

The Church's current approach to homosexuality can be found in the pamphlet, God Loveth His Children.

It is considerably softer in its tone compared to what Spencer W. Kimball wrote. Nowhere do we find the word "pervert."

It also puts a much greater emphasis on the fact that the temptation or feelings themselves are not a sin, but only in the acting on them.