President Boyd K. Packer Talks Straight

[Jaybear]

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.

Is that what Packer believes? Is that the position of the LDS Church? Is that God's position?

Or this Scott Lloyd speaking for himself.

[Sky]

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.

Scott, what you are saying might be true, but I still think we ought to do away with the words "pervert" and "perversion" or any other varient of this word. They can be extremely hurtful and demeaning. They draw people away more than anything else. IMHO.

[Jaybear]

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.

You are moving the goal post. Earlier you spoke critically of those who would .... "ask God or His servants to change the rules...."

I asked you what is wrong with making such a request. After all, didn't such a request lead to further revelation permitting blacks to hold the priesthood?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, what you are saying might be true, but I still think we ought to do away with the words "pervert" and "perversion" or any other varient of this word. They can be extremely hurtful and demeaning. They draw people away more than anything else. IMHO.

You may be right. But my context was a response to a post quoting Spencer W. Kimball's book, and the point I was making is that, though there may have been a softening of the rhetoric over the years, there is no practical difference in application. That is to say, even in the days of President Kimball and prior thereto, the mere tendency was not regarded as a sin, only the expression thereof. And hence, it does not sustain Cobalt's erroneous assertion that was the subject of Pahoran's CFR.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that what Packer believes? Is that the position of the LDS Church? Is that God's position?

Or this Scott Lloyd speaking for himself.

I alone am responsible for anything I might say on this board, though I do endeavor to write knowledgeably.

For the Church's position, the link that Sky provided is a very good information source.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Like all other defects of mortality, [same-gender sexual attraction] will be removed in the resurrection.

Once again, in consideration of what potential LDS apologestic efforts in the future concerning attitudes towards gay and lesbian families, I think it's worth noting that while the above statement is likely currently believed by many Latter-day Saints, the above statement is not contained in the standard works of the LDS church and is not official doctrine.

Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Once again, in consideration of what potential LDS apologestic efforts in the future concerning attitudes towards gay and lesbian families, I think it's worth noting that while the above statement is likely currently believed by many Latter-day Saints, the above statement is not contained in the standard works of the LDS church and is not official doctrine.

Daniel2

But flowing from what is official doctrine, it is a compelling conclusion.

[cinepro]

Like all other defects of mortality, it will be removed in the resurrection.

CFR.

And more relevantly, is it your belief that God could remove this defect for homosexuals in this life (but chooses not to)?

Edited March 27, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

What is the criteria for placing or removing a defect such as homosexual desire? We don't entirely know, but that does not excuse giving into such a thing. And yes, thow who choose not to practice it, will have mastered it and will be made whole after this life.

[Sky]

Once again, in consideration of what potential LDS apologestic efforts in the future concerning attitudes towards gay and lesbian families, I think it's worth noting that while the above statement is likely currently believed by many Latter-day Saints, the above statement is not contained in the standard works of the LDS church and is not official doctrine.

Daniel2

There are times when something may not be explicitly stated in the scriptures, but nevertheless is still considered doctrine - or at least the way things are done. That is one of the reasons why we have living apostles - to correctly interpret and help clear up some of the vagueness in the scriptures.

An example that comes to mind is the Word of Wisdom. It doesn't actually say the words "coffee" and "tea", but the common understanding is that those are the beverages referred to when it said "hot drinks." It also never says in D&C 89 that you must to obey the WoW in order to get a temple recommend. Yet this is still a requirement.

I'm sure there are more examples out there, too. This is why I think people who argue that "well it's not in the scriptures and therefore not doctrine and therefore okay" are on a slippery slope.

[Jeff K.]

Scott Lloyd, on 27 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Like all other defects of mortality, [same-gender sexual attraction] will be removed in the resurrection.

Once again, in consideration of what potential LDS apologestic efforts in the future concerning attitudes towards gay and lesbian families, I think it's worth noting that while the above statement is likely currently believed by many Latter-day Saints, the above statement is not contained in the standard works of the LDS church and is not official doctrine.

Daniel2

Not only believed, it is a true staement. Unless of course one chooses a lesser kingdom, then it remains true, and one achieves the desire of sexual practice over righteousness

[california boy]

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.

Thanks, I appreciate the reference. It is probably the closest we will get to some kind of understanding. At least Boyd K. Packard seems to think it was by revelation. I just wish the church was more clear on this subject. I certainly can see at some future time someone saying that it was just Boyd K. Packards opinion that it was a revelation and never was considered doctrine. We seem to have that discussion about a number of issues that I aways was thought was taught as doctrine. It certainly does not have the same weight that say president Kimball's 1978 declaration.

[Log]

And more relevantly, is it your belief that God could remove this defect for homosexuals in this life (but chooses not to)?

Perhaps more relevantly, is it your belief that God does not remove this defect for any homosexuals in this life?

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR.

From Sky's link:

God has provided the plan of salvation, or plan of happiness, to help you receive the blessings of eternal life. This plan is set forth in the scriptures; men and women cannot rewrite it to accommodate their desires. God alone gives the reward of eternal life. Some of the greatest blessings promised by the plan, including eternal life, are not intended for immediate enjoyment. Eternity is long, and mortality is short. As you base your decisions on eternal principles rather than on earthly challenges or desires, you can have “peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come” (D&C 59:23).

These blessings are based on obedience to eternal principles. The importance of families is one of these principles. Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

And more relevantly, is it your belief that God could remove this defect for homosexuals in this life (but chooses not to)?

There are many, many topics upon which I am incapable of second-guessing God, this among the rest.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Once again, in consideration of what potential LDS apologestic efforts in the future concerning attitudes towards gay and lesbian families, I think it's worth noting that while the above statement is likely currently believed by many Latter-day Saints, the above statement is not contained in the standard works of the LDS church and is not official doctrine.

Daniel2

It is long past time for you to cease and desist from arrogantly presuming to tell us(!) what our(!!) doctrine is.

It is our doctrine that everyone is resurrected whole and perfect. I can support that with numerous scriptural passages. If you suppose that homosexuality is some kind of special case, you need to support that assumption.

And more relevantly, is it your belief that God could remove this defect for homosexuals in this life (but chooses not to)?

I have no idea what, if anything, you believe on this or any subject, Cinepro. But the Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that God could do whatever He wishes to do; and in so believing, we observe that He generally allows people who are born with harelips, cleft palates, Down's Syndrome, syndactyly, polydactyly, unsightly birthmarks, congenital heart problems and other birth defects, to go through life without directly intervening to change them.

That being the case, I ask you the same question I asked Daniel: why should homosexuality be different? Because homosexuals have an enormous sense of entitlement and a loud (and shrill) pressure group that the sufferers of other kinds of birth defects do not?

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Perhaps more relevantly, is it your belief that God does not remove this defect for any homosexuals in this life?

yes

[Log]

yes

I already know you deny a God of miracles. The question was specifically intended for Cinepro, who self-identifies as LDS.

I note that ex-homosexuals exist, and that at least some of them attribute the change in status to the active intervention of God. That seems to substantially undermine the grounds for the posture of moral superiority that the accusers of the brethren adopt with respect to this issue.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

Perhaps more relevantly, is it your belief that God does not remove this defect for any homosexuals in this life?

While I acknowledge the spectrum of sexual orientation that ranges from "full homosexual" to "full heterosexual" (with "full bisexual" in the middle), and the ability for people not on the far edges of the spectrum to choose their lifestyle to some degree, I've never seen or heard of any situations that lead me to believe that God can (or would) make a "full homosexual" into a "full heterosexual".

And, as I've mentioned, I've known several people who were "full homosexual" and did everything they could over decades to avail themselves of any spiritual power to help them find happiness in a heterosexual relationship (even to the slightest degree), with no success.

So while I acknowledge that God could change a full-homosexual into a full (or partial) heterosexual in the theoretical "God can do anything" sense, I place the likelihood of that happening near zero. I think it's about as likely as an amputee regrowing a limb from a priesthood blessing.

[Pahoran]

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.

This is nonsense, Jaybear. We're not in court. Not all "gays" are so rabidly anti-Mormon as to refuse to be friends with a Latter-day Saint, therefore Jeff's claim to have a "gay" friend is a reasonable one. Likewise, not all "gays" are necessarily selfish hedonists unable to subordinate their carnal desires to genuine religious conviction.

And it is unreasonable to assume that Jeff's friend is somehow at your beck and call.

It's been my observation that Jeff has been honest with us throughout his posting history. Even if he did not have a posting history of nearly ten thousand posts, he would still have more credibility than those who are badgering him right now. I recommend you don't start inviting comparisons by which you can only suffer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

So while I acknowledge that God could change a full-homosexual into a full (or partial) heterosexual in the theoretical "God can do anything" sense, I place the likelihood of that happening near zero. I think it's about as likely as an amputee regrowing a limb from a priesthood blessing.

So, your answer the question I actually posed is "no," not that you actually answered it (the intentional obfuscation is bolded and underlined above). Is that a fair assessment?

Edited March 27, 2012 by Log

[Jeff K.]

While I acknowledge the spectrum of sexual orientation that ranges from "full homosexual" to "full heterosexual" (with "full bisexual" in the middle), and the ability for people not on the far edges of the spectrum to choose their lifestyle to some degree, I've never seen or heard of any situations that lead me to believe that God can (or would) make a "full homosexual" into a "full heterosexual".

And, as I've mentioned, I've known several people who were "full homosexual" and did everything they could over decades to avail themselves of any spiritual power to help them find happiness in a heterosexual relationship (even to the slightest degree), with no success.

So while I acknowledge that God could change a full-homosexual into a full (or partial) heterosexual in the theoretical "God can do anything" sense, I place the likelihood of that happening near zero. I think it's about as likely as an amputee regrowing a limb from a priesthood blessing.

It seems you deem homosexual acts to be a desireable outcome because the orientation is, one presumes on your terms, organic and natural in its development and therefore in no need of change. For the natural man, this is true. But then the natural man is an enemy of God. But it does beg the question, if homosexuality and its acts, which is condemned by God, is somehow something you don't believe can or should be changed, what of other sexual attractions? To children for example? With sadomasochism? Are they not also equally natural constructs and therefore should not be changed by God? Orientation does not simply go along the lines of singular one way or another. The ramifications you offer are disturbing.

[Sky]

Perhaps more relevantly, is it your belief that God does not remove this defect for any homosexuals in this life?

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, God doesn't seem to have done this for a lot of people (change a homosexual orientation into a hetersexual orientation). This is based solely on my own observation. Yet we still live with the hope that someday He will.

But I believe that God can and does help in other ways in every way that He can. There is no reason to believe that He would want to see any of His children suffer in misery either in this life or the next.

As Dallin Oaks said: "The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

[Pahoran]

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).

Yes, I'm aware that the "gay" jihad is convinced of the inevitability of Der Tag. But again I point out that you are supposed to be pretending that once you have subverted the civil marriage system you'll be leaving churches alone. Thank you for that uncharacteristically frank admission that a "Final Solution" to your religious problem is part of your agenda.

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?

Much to your surprise, black and white Americans do not quite manage to exhaust all possible racial groupings. And equally to your surprise, the former Priesthood ban was predicated upon the lineage of an individual, not the ethnicity of a putative spouse. Which is to say that for the few faithful people who were actually affected by it, whoever they expected to marry made no difference.

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.

Indeed, you've been unusually forthright today, especially about your ultimate goals.

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

I hope you can show that those tediously pedestrian and didactic lyrics are actually on-topic; because from where I sit your posting thereof looks rather like a slender pretext for a ham-fisted attempt at proselytizing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

So, your answer the question I actually posed is "no"; not that you actually answered it (the intentional obfuscation is bolded and underlined above). Is that a fair assessment?

Actually, my answer to the question you actually posed is "yes".

Edited March 27, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

It seems you deem homosexual acts to be a desireable outcome because the orientation is, one presumes on your terms, organic and natural in its development and therefore in no need of change. For the natural man, this is true. But then the natural man is an enemy of God. But it does beg the question, if homosexuality and its acts, which is condemned by God, is somehow something you don't believe can or should be changed, what of other sexual attractions? To children for example? With sadomasochism? Are they not also equally natural constructs and therefore should not be changed by God? Orientation does not simply go along the lines of singular one way or another. The ramifications you offer are disturbing.

If that's what you got from my post, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language.

Edited March 27, 2012 by cinepro