Mormonsandgays

[Kemara]

You seem to want me to say something. I am just not sure what you are expecting me to say. You seem to think that I have a need to have the churches approval on my choice to be in love with a man and have sex outside of marriage.

Goodness me, did you even read my post? It is beyond all sense of reason that you got that from my post. CFR that I seem to think you need to have the church’s approval for you choice, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

Yet I have said countless times, that I seek no such approval and you have NO evidence that I have ever tried to justify my own behavior. None.

Goodness me, did you even read my post? Did you not read where I explicitly said this:

I agree that this has been your ongoing position and as far as I know you have never pretended otherwise.

And this:

True you are not taking a single step back from your position regarding homosexuality and the church….

This is a serious question, I not being flip, did you or did you not read these statements? Yes or no…..and CFR that I said that you did seek the approval from the church, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

CFR where I ever used this point to justify my choices.

First, you have some serious nerve to ask me for a CFR when you have ignored almost entire posts or large portions of posts that I have directed at you. Wasn’t it you who asked for civil dialogue? Is it civil to misrepresent an entire post and then offer the misrepresentation as the reason you are not going to engage the post? It is not good enough to call for civility, one must be civil.

Secondly, goodness me, did you even read my post? I provided a number of examples of you using the silence of the scriptures in an attempt to justify the morality of homosexual “marriage”. As such CFR answered.

I have not said once that Christ approved of gay marriage.

Goodness me, did you even read my post? CFR that I said that you said that Christ approved of gay marriage, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

I have simply pointed out that Christ has been silent on this issue. To assume that I point this out for some justification to the choices/ I have made is both wrong and contrary to all of the posts I have made not just here but over the past 1,600 posts.

This is blatantly false as I demonstrated in my previous post and will again demonstrate now. Here is the kicker, you actually agreed with me. Here is my summary of your argument, from the previous thread, that I included in my previous post:

To sum up the totality of your argument presented in that thread so as to save a bit of time:

1. Christ did not explicitly condemn homosexual “marriage”
   
2. While the scriptures are clear that homosexual sex is a sin, it is the same as saying heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also a sin. Since Christ did not explicitly condemn homosexual “marriage” homosexual sex within the bounds of a homosexual “marriage” could be considered moral.
   

And this is your response to my summary of your argument:

You correctly summarized the facts that I presented.

Just to be clear, you agreed with me regarding the totality of your argument.

Justify (ˈdʒʌstɪˌfaɪ)

vb -fies, -fying, -fied (mainly tr)

1. (often passive) to prove or see to be just or valid; vindicate

2. to show to be reasonable; warrant or substantiate

3. to declare or show to be free from blame or guilt; absolve

jus·ti·fy (j s t -f )

v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies

v.tr.

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

2. To declare free of blame; absolve.

3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/justify

Despite your cleverly veiled denials the summary of your argument by itself (that you agree with), let alone all the specific posts from which the summary was formed, clearly fall within any reasonable definition of justification. As such CFR answered.

Nor have I implied that by Christ's silence He approves of gay marriage. CFR if you feel I have made such a statement.

The implication was as clear as cloudless sky at midday and I have provided the CFR in the form of the summary of your argument.

[Kemara]

I simply have pointed out that there is NO direct word from Christ on this subject.

And as clearly demonstrated you have done so in an attempt to justify homosexual sex within the bounds of homosexual “marriage”.

If you got a scripture where Christ has commented on gay marriage in scriptures or a revelation claimed by modern prophet, then please provide it. If you have none, but just want to argue then move on. I have no interest in arguments over unknown positions.

But there is a known position and we have discussed it before. Christ has explicitly defined what marriage is, as such all other types of “marriage” must be ruled out. His definition did not define heterosexual marriage and he didn’t define homosexual “marriage”, He simply defined Marriage. As far as the laws of God are concerned (despite any label that we might attach to it) there is no such thing as heterosexual marriage, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, there are no subsets of marriage, there is just marriage, and Christ has defined it as being between a man and a woman.

Sure you can guess, you can think that verses may insinuate your position. But that is not what was discussed. The only thing that was requested was clear doctrinal word from Christ.

There is no guessing about it, Christ’s definition is clear; Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the clear doctrinal word of Christ.

But what I do know is that my pointing out very specifically the position that Christ while he was on this earth did not mention gay marriage has nothing to do with me trying to justify what the church views as my immoral behavior.

You have been caught with your fingers in the cookie jar in a manner of speaking. While it is true that you have not used the position of Christ to justify what the Church views as immoral behavior (I have agreed with you that this is your position) you have in fact attempted to justify your immoral behavior in general terms and this is what you have done by any reasonable interpretation of what the word ‘justify’ means.

You got it now? How about this. CFR a scripture where Christ while on this earth for 33 years called gay marriage or even being gay an abomination or that the prophet has received a revelation from Christ that gay marriage is an abomination.

Why are you asking me for this? Have I not said that I agree that Christ did not explicitly say that gay marriage was an abomination? Just like He did not explicitly condemn any other form of “marriage” and why would He, why would He address or condemn an oxymoron? Homosexual and marriage are a contradiction in terms as it relates to the laws of God as is any form of “marriage” that falls outside Christ’s definition.

Just as an aside, while they are not the words of Christ you yourself have admitted that the scriptures do condemn homosexuality.

If you have no scripture, then you can only guess what Christ's position on this issue is. Your guess may be right. I frankly have no idea.

Christ clearly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, there is no other type of marriage. No guessing is needed.

There, now you have three CFR's to answer on this subject. The rules of this board is to answer the CFR's or apologize for implying that I have made such a statement.

All CFR’s are answered. Now you answer yours or apologise.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for copying it over. As mentioned before, I'd only read the text and not watched the videos due to my slow internet connection (China ex-pat).

For what it's worth, I don't 'harbor a fantasy that heralds a new age of the church repealing the law of chastity.' I live it as an active member. I teach it to my children as God's law. I was trying to make the point that if God issued a revelation offering a way of bringing married homosexual activity within that law, I would welcome it. But OK, point taken. I agree that the intention of the website is not to discuss whether there is the chance of it happening but to help members learn how to be more considerate and supportive to those with SSA. I'll move on.

Thank you for taking my point.

I'll just point out that it is not necessary to watch the video -- or have a fast Internet connection -- to get Elder Christofferson's words. They can be read verbatim just below the video link.

[Linda]

I think that the attitude of the church towards the homosexuality in principle will not change. The tone may get more moderate but the result still will be the same.

And I think that many of the behaviors of the leaders of the church therefore come, that they have more prejudices than knowledge about homosexuality.

When I was a member of the church; I think this was in the seventies at that time; was a pamplet published written by B. K. Packer with the title "to young men only". Into this he told the story of a young missionary who had beaten his employee because this, he thought so, would have made an "overtures". It was the reaction of Packer that he OK found it to perform force against homosexuals.

Here an interesting statement:

During the priesthood session of October LDS general conference in 1976 Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a speech entitled "To Young Men Only", that discussed ituations in which young men are "tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another in unusual ways." He commented that "such practices are perversion....Physical mischief with another man is forbidden." Packer also essentially advocated anti-Gay violence in his speech when he recounted the story of a male missionary who had "hit" and "floored" his mission companion, apparently for simply revealing his sexual orientation. Because Packer does not specify the reason for the violent response, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Packer told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way." Packer told his audience, "I am not recommending that course [of violence] to you but I am not omitting it.You must protect yourself".(Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only (Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976) n.p., quoted in: http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Here an interesting statement:

During the priesthood session of October LDS general conference in 1976 Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a speech entitled "To Young Men Only", that discussed ituations in which young men are "tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another in unusual ways." He commented that "such practices are perversion....Physical mischief with another man is forbidden." Packer also essentially advocated anti-Gay violence in his speech when he recounted the story of a male missionary who had "hit" and "floored" his mission companion, apparently for simply revealing his sexual orientation. Because Packer does not specify the reason for the violent response, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Packer told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way." Packer told his audience, "I am not recommending that course [of violence] to you but I am not omitting it.You must protect yourself".(Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only (Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976) n.p., quoted in: http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)

You do know in 1976 it was viewed as a mental illness...what is the point of bringing this up?

[Linda]

You do know in 1976 it was viewed as a mental illness...what is the point of bringing this up?

The American Psychiological Association took homosexuality from the illness list in the year 1974. Moreover, homosexuals were still treated with electric shock and aversion therapies at the BYU to 1980. To this an eyewitness:

kicked out of school and have their families notified about what they had done or they could go through this therapy. We had quite a few

people who were going through it. There were others in the therapy who felt so much guilt for being the way they were or they had been

promised that if they underwent the therapy they would be able to marry and have children and they would be turned. Of course they had

to have the desire to change, and if the therapy failed (which it always did), it was their fault for the failure since they didn't have enough

desire.

"Anyway, they would come in usually three times a week. I would be behind a glass one-way mirror, and they would be on the other side

of it. They had their choice to look at pornographic magazines or watch porno videos. We would tape electrodes to their groin, thigh,

chest and armpits. We had another machine that would monitor their breathing and heart rate. If there was a difference in their heart rate

when looking at homosexual pornography, we would turn a dial which would send a current to shock them. If they were a new patient, we

would use a very low current. From the reaction that I saw there were muscle spasms which looked very painful.

"After that was over, we would switch the pornography over so that it was a man and a woman having sex, and we would play very

soothing music in the background to try and get the mind to relate to that. For the people that had been doing the therapy longer we

turned the voltage way up so that you could see burn marks on the skin and quite often they would also throw up during the therapy. This

is speculation, but most of the students at BYU probably hadn't even seen pornography before.

"After undergoing that kind of pain over a number of months, everyone said that they had completely changed. They kept records for as

long as the people were at BYU. After they had graduated, there was no records kept to see what kind of success rate they had. The

BYU statistics were wrong because the people were lying. They were desperate to get their degree and get out of the situation. They had

been blackmailed into the situation in the first place.

"We did have some people who became completely asexual after undergoing the therapy. But no, we never changed anyone from gay to

straight....We had several people who committed suicide during the therapy. We had three different people who hung themselves in the

Harris Fine Arts Center on BYU campus." (source: Transcript of Legacies at http://www.lds-mormon.com/legacies.shtml, quoted in: http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)

[Senator]

I take it, then, that you are declining to clarify or amend your stance on the implications of agreeing to disagree.

No, I will not. This way we can put a quick end to this off-topic diatribe of yours.

Weird!

[canard78]

Thank you for taking my point.

I'll just point out that it is not necessary to watch the video -- or have a fast Internet connection -- to get Elder Christofferson's words. They can be read verbatim just below the video link.

Thanks, have read through in full and find his statement clear.

[volgadon]

You do know in 1976 it was viewed as a mental illness...what is the point of bringing this up?

I believe she had already posted here once before. Makes sense if it is the same poster.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The American Psychiological Association took homosexuality from the illness list in the year 1974. Moreover, homosexuals were still treated with electric shock and aversion therapies at the BYU to 1980. To this an eyewitness:

kicked out of school and have their families notified about what they had done or they could go through this therapy. We had quite a few

people who were going through it. There were others in the therapy who felt so much guilt for being the way they were or they had been

promised that if they underwent the therapy they would be able to marry and have children and they would be turned. Of course they had

to have the desire to change, and if the therapy failed (which it always did), it was their fault for the failure since they didn't have enough

desire.

"Anyway, they would come in usually three times a week. I would be behind a glass one-way mirror, and they would be on the other side

of it. They had their choice to look at pornographic magazines or watch porno videos. We would tape electrodes to their groin, thigh,

chest and armpits. We had another machine that would monitor their breathing and heart rate. If there was a difference in their heart rate

when looking at homosexual pornography, we would turn a dial which would send a current to shock them. If they were a new patient, we

would use a very low current. From the reaction that I saw there were muscle spasms which looked very painful.

"After that was over, we would switch the pornography over so that it was a man and a woman having sex, and we would play very

soothing music in the background to try and get the mind to relate to that. For the people that had been doing the therapy longer we

turned the voltage way up so that you could see burn marks on the skin and quite often they would also throw up during the therapy. This

is speculation, but most of the students at BYU probably hadn't even seen pornography before.

"After undergoing that kind of pain over a number of months, everyone said that they had completely changed. They kept records for as

long as the people were at BYU. After they had graduated, there was no records kept to see what kind of success rate they had. The

BYU statistics were wrong because the people were lying. They were desperate to get their degree and get out of the situation. They had

been blackmailed into the situation in the first place.

"We did have some people who became completely asexual after undergoing the therapy. But no, we never changed anyone from gay to

straight....We had several people who committed suicide during the therapy. We had three different people who hung themselves in the

Harris Fine Arts Center on BYU campus." (source: Transcript of Legacies at http://www.lds-mormon.com/legacies.shtml, quoted in: http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)

So if their were wrongs in the past there can be no change or forgiveness ever? Seems counter-productive.

[Sky]

I think that the attitude of the church towards the homosexuality in principle will not change. The tone may get more moderate but the result still will be the same.

And I think that many of the behaviors of the leaders of the church therefore come, that they have more prejudices than knowledge about homosexuality.

When I was a member of the church; I think this was in the seventies at that time; was a pamplet published written by B. K. Packer with the title "to young men only". Into this he told the story of a young missionary who had beaten his employee because this, he thought so, would have made an "overtures". It was the reaction of Packer that he OK found it to perform force against homosexuals.

Here an interesting statement:

During the priesthood session of October LDS general conference in 1976 Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a speech entitled "To Young Men Only", that discussed ituations in which young men are "tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another in unusual ways." He commented that "such practices are perversion....Physical mischief with another man is forbidden." Packer also essentially advocated anti-Gay violence in his speech when he recounted the story of a male missionary who had "hit" and "floored" his mission companion, apparently for simply revealing his sexual orientation. Because Packer does not specify the reason for the violent response, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Packer told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way." Packer told his audience, "I am not recommending that course [of violence] to you but I am not omitting it.You must protect yourself".(Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only (Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976) n.p., quoted in: http://www.connellod...n.com/abom.html)

The difference between now and the 1970's is indeed stark. I guess all I really have to say to this is, aren't we thankful we're in a better place now? None of us is perfect, even the men who stand at the head of the Church. Homosexual acts are still considered contrary to God's law, but at least now we are able to sit down and have an open and rational discussion about this without all the fear and shame. God's unconditional love and willingness to forgive seems to be emphasized more, and the push for homosexuals to attempt to change their orientation seems to be discouraged or emphasized less. And Boyd K. Packer is still with us, next up to become the president of the Church. It would be interesting to sit down with him today and have a conversation about this. But he seems to be okay with the new approach the Church is taking, because all fifteen of the living apostles' have to be in agreement before any change is made.

[Flyonthewall]

I think that the attitude of the church towards the homosexuality in principle will not change. The tone may get more moderate but the result still will be the same.

And I think that many of the behaviors of the leaders of the church therefore come, that they have more prejudices than knowledge about homosexuality.

When I was a member of the church; I think this was in the seventies at that time; was a pamplet published written by B. K. Packer with the title "to young men only". Into this he told the story of a young missionary who had beaten his employee because this, he thought so, would have made an "overtures". It was the reaction of Packer that he OK found it to perform force against homosexuals.

Here an interesting statement:

During the priesthood session of October LDS general conference in 1976 Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a speech entitled "To Young Men Only", that discussed ituations in which young men are "tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another in unusual ways." He commented that "such practices are perversion....Physical mischief with another man is forbidden." Packer also essentially advocated anti-Gay violence in his speech when he recounted the story of a male missionary who had "hit" and "floored" his mission companion, apparently for simply revealing his sexual orientation. Because Packer does not specify the reason for the violent response, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Packer told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way." Packer told his audience, "I am not recommending that course [of violence] to you but I am not omitting it.You must protect yourself".(Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only (Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976) n.p., quoted in: http://www.connellod...n.com/abom.html)

First thing that is sacrificed is accuracy. I'd like to see what was actually said. Can you provide a link to Boyd K. Packer's talk? or the pamphlet?

IIRC the story has gone from one Elder punching another Elder for an unwanted sexual advance toward him, to an Elder beating another Elder simply for revealing his sexual orientation.

BKP did not recommend that course but does not rule it out has turned into advocating violence against gays.

I suppose if anyone condones a woman slapping a man for an unwanted sexual advance would be advocating violence towards men ...?

[california boy]

Goodness me, did you even read my post? It is beyond all sense of reason that you got that from my post. CFR that I seem to think you need to have the church’s approval for you choice, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

Goodness me, did you even read my post? Did you not read where I explicitly said this:

And this:

This is a serious question, I not being flip, did you or did you not read these statements? Yes or no…..and CFR that I said that you did seek the approval from the church, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

Yes I did ready your statements. And yes I did say you summoned up my position correctly Now in answer to your CFR, this is what you said in post 391

I agree that this has been your ongoing position and as far as I know you have never pretended otherwise. However, you have attempted to justify your choices in light of the scriptures and the words of Christ.

As well as here

Your point was to show that the scriptures say nothing against gay marriage. Feel free to spin it however you want, in my view that is a clear attempt at justification by any reasonable standards. And it didn’t end there, not by a long shot, the attempt to justify from the silence of scripture went on and on and on.

So goodness me, now answer my CFR. When have I ever felt the need to justify my choices to you to the church or to anyone else?

First, you have some serious nerve to ask me for a CFR when you have ignored almost entire posts or large portions of posts that I have directed at you. Wasn’t it you who asked for civil dialogue? Is it civil to misrepresent an entire post and then offer the misrepresentation as the reason you are not going to engage the post? It is not good enough to call for civility, one must be civil.

Secondly, goodness me, did you even read my post? I provided a number of examples of you using the silence of the scriptures in an attempt to justify the morality of homosexual “marriage”. As such CFR answered.

Sorry but you did not provide ANY post where I tried to JUSTIFY anything. You only provided examples where I said that Christ was silent on this issue. Something that I did say and something that I still say. I am not pointing this out to justify anything. I am only pointing out that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST THINKS ABOUT BEING GAY AND GAY MARRIAGE FROM READING THE SCRIPTURES. If you are now claiming that the words of Christ are silent on this issue, then we are in agreement and that is the ONLY point I was making.

Goodness me, did you even read my post? CFR that I said that you said that Christ approved of gay marriage, or apologise for implying that I made such a statement.

This is what you said

You have to wrest the holy scriptures, you have to invoke the name and character of the Redeemer in a totally illogical manner in an attempt to justify your lifestyle choices, you have to attempt acceptance.

I never involked the name and character of the Redeemer to justify anything. Yet you make that claim against me. So like I said, CFR where I invoked the name of the Redeemer to JUSTIFY ANYTHING about my lifestyle.

This is blatantly false as I demonstrated in my previous post and will again demonstrate now. Here is the kicker, you actually agreed with me. Here is my summary of your argument, from the previous thread, that I included in my previous post:

And this is your response to my summary of your argument:

Just to be clear, you agreed with me regarding the totality of your argument.

Justify (ˈdʒʌstɪˌfaɪ)

vb -fies, -fying, -fied (mainly tr)

1. (often passive) to prove or see to be just or valid; vindicate

2. to show to be reasonable; warrant or substantiate

3. to declare or show to be free from blame or guilt; absolve

jus·ti·fy (j s t -f )

v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies

v.tr.

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

2. To declare free of blame; absolve.

3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/justify

Despite your cleverly veiled denials the summary of your argument by itself (that you agree with), let alone all the specific posts from which the summary was formed, clearly fall within any reasonable definition of justification. As such CFR answered.

The implication was as clear as cloudless sky at midday and I have provided the CFR in the form of the summary of your argument.

You seem to be ASSUMING things that I said when I never intended for you to assume anything. THERE ARE NO IMPLICATIONS. I have clearly shown numerous times that you have claimed repeatedly that I tried to justify me being gay and the choices I have made. I have asked for a CFR where I have tried to justify anything to you or to anyone else. If you agree that I have NOT tried to justify the choices I have made, then we have no issue and you can ignore my CFR. If however you maintain that I have tried to justify my choice to be with a man I love in a homosexual relationship, then the CFR remains in place.

So goodness me, let me make this as simple as possible so you know exactly what I am asking you for. Please fill in the blank.

I believe that California Boy has tried to justify his lifestlye and has tried to show that Christ approves of his lifestyle because of what he said here________________________. He made this statement to justify his homosexual lifestyle and not to simply say we don't know what Christ thinks about gays or gay marriage because Christ was silent on this issue while on this earth for 33 years.

Or

Sorry I was mistaken, California Boy has NEVER tried to justify his choice to be with the person he loves He has only stated that Christ was silent on this issue when He was on this earth and as such has said that We really don't know what Christ thought about this subject. when we look at scripture. Since this is the case, we have no disagreement.

Edit; Your followup post is much more accurate as to what I said and my position. What you still got wrong is that I was trying to justify anything. I was not. We disagree with the intent of Christs comments about marriage but agree that He did not say anything about gay marriage. If this is your scripture reference to prove that Christ defined marriage as a man and a woman, then fine, I will accept it as your viewpoint and disagree from my viewpoint that Christ was defining what marriage should be.

Edited December 8, 2012 by california boy

[Tacenda]

You do know in 1976 it was viewed as a mental illness...what is the point of bringing this up?

If Boyd K. Packer is an apostle would he have more insight than that?

[DavidB]

First thing that is sacrificed is accuracy. I'd like to see what was actually said. Can you provide a link to Boyd K. Packer's talk? or the pamphlet?

IIRC the story has gone from one Elder punching another Elder for an unwanted sexual advance toward him, to an Elder beating another Elder simply for revealing his sexual orientation.

BKP did not recommend that course but does not rule it out has turned into advocating violence against gays.

I suppose if anyone condones a woman slapping a man for an unwanted sexual advance would be advocating violence towards men ...?

It would appear you know what she is referring too. BKP did not describe the conduct of the Elder that lead to the punch, he left it open, and he also left open violence against a gay person.

[Calm]

I am curious. To those who find the use of various practices considered perverse in a conversation about homosexuality inappropriate, are there any practices considered immoral that you would be okay being used for those who still consider external homosexual behaviour immoral to illustrate points? If so, could you list them please for the benefit of those attempting to make civil but relevant arguments.

[Tacenda]

It would appear you know what she is referring too. BKP did not describe the conduct of the Elder that lead to the punch, he left it open, and he also left open violence against a gay person.

Not saying BKP would ever condone this! But the last part of your post sparked my memory of the horrible murder of this boy, Matthew Shepard.

http://www.matthewsh...d.org/our-story

Not using criminals for comparison works both ways. You are out of the thread.

[rockpond]

Christ clearly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, there is no other type of marriage. No guessing is needed.

Where? When? To whom?

[Calm]

Not saying BKP would ever condone this! But the last part of your post sparked my memory of the horrible murder of this boy, Matthew Shepard.

http://www.matthewsh...d.org/our-story

It seems to me if those who oppose SSM are not to use extreme practices in any connection with homosexuality, that such extremes as the murder of Matthew Shepard should not be part of the conversation either....especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

add-on: I would also suggest that any suggestions that BKP was advocating anything beyond self-defense are unproven and unprovable extreme claims as well and should not be part of a civil conversation.

Edited December 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

It would appear you know what she is referring too. BKP did not describe the conduct of the Elder that lead to the punch, he left it open, and he also left open violence against a gay person.

I remember the talk clearly. I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when it was given, and I have read it a number of times since. The clear and obvious implication was that the blow was a defensive move to halt an unwanted sexual advance. I have said since that the elder who did the striking behaved just as I would want my son (or daughter, for that matter) to behave in a similar circumstance.

As to leaving open the matter of violence, the message I got was this: If you are ever confronted with such a circumstance, there may be less extreme ways to resolve it, but if it is the only option open to you, you may use it.

The statement I remember clearly after the incident had been related is "You must protect yourself" the operative word here being "protect."

Edited December 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I will not. This way we can put a quick end to this off-topic diatribe of yours.

Weird!

A better way to end it would be something along these lines:

"I didn't really mean 'agree to disagree.' I just used that phrase because I was tired of getting bested in the debate and wanted to end the conversation.'"

[Sky]

I remember the talk clearly. I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when it was given, and I have read it a number of times since. The clear and obvious implication was that the blow was a defensive move to halt an unwanted sexual advance. I have said since that the elder who did the striking behaved just as I would want my son (or daughter, for that matter) to behave in a similar circumstance.

If the guy was trying to rape the other guy, I could understand the need to take a swipe, in the name of self-defense. But if if was something less than that, I think a simple but firm "no thank you" or "please stop" would be more appropriate. I think this applies regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Of course nobody was there to know what really happened, so we kind of have to form some of our own conclusions and use our best judgement.

[DavidB]

I remember the talk clearly. I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when it was given, and I have read it a number of times since. The clear and obvious implication was that the blow was a defensive move to halt an unwanted sexual advance. I have said since that the elder who did the striking behaved just as I would want my son (or daughter, for that matter) to behave in a similar circumstance.

"unwanted sexual advance.", yes that much is quite obvious, did anyone say otherwise?

What was the unwanted advance?

Was it the Elder who made the advance misunderstanding the mixed messages sent from the Elder who threw the punch?

Did the Elder who made the advance attempt to rape the Elder who threw the punch?

Were they kissing each other and Elder who was punched tried to take things too far for the other Elder?

Did the Elder who made the advance attempt to get in the shower with the other Elder?

Were the two Elders engaged in "idle foolishness" and thing went to far for the Elder who threw the punch?

BKP did not give any indication to the degree or type of the advance, he left that open, he also left the door wide open that violence was an acceptable response.

Edited December 8, 2012 by DavidB

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If Boyd K. Packer is an apostle would he have more insight than that?

They are flawed men, it is all God has to work with. What impresses me is what all our leaders accomplish despite their weaknesse.

[Scott Lloyd]

"unwanted sexual advance.", yes that much is quite obvious, did anyone say otherwise?

What was the unwanted advance?

Was it the Elder who made the advance misunderstanding the mixed messages sent from the Elder who threw the punch?

Did the Elder who made the advance attempt to rape the Elder who threw the punch?

Were they kissing each other and Elder who was punched tried to take things too far for the other Elder?

Did the Elder who made the advance attempt to get in the shower with the other Elder?

Were the two Elders engaged in "idle foolishness" and thing went to far for the Elder who threw the punch?

BKP did not give any indication to the degree or type of the advance, he left that open, he also left the door wide open that violence was an acceptable response.

So your unspoken acknowledgement appears to be that there may be extreme circumstances when forcible resistance is the only viable option. That is the gist of what Elder Packer said.

You may be inclined to put the least charitable construction possible on his words, but I am not bound by your cynicism.