Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?

[Buzzard]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEX.  How can you possibly reduce a relationship between two people that are in love to simply about sex.  What an ignorant comment to make.  You certainly must not be married.  And you certainly will be in for a big surprise if you think marriage is just a legal way to have sex.  If you are married, I have the upmost sympathy for your wife if your relationship with her is simply so you can have your "certain type of sexual activity."

Then what is it about? Certainly no one has a problem with you being friends with another person, or many people. My wife has close friends that she spends a lot of time with. What is the difference between their close friendship and marriage? It's that we have had children together, and I assume you  know how babies are made. Don't go off on me about couples who are infertile. The fact of the matter is that sexual expression is a critical part of marriage. Do you know when I understood the importance of that part of marriage? Because I had remained virtuous before our marriage, as had my wife, when we were married, the difference in the relationship was clear, and I understood only at that point why chastity is so important to God and to us.  

If I had not been virtuous, then marriage would have not been so starkly and wonderfully different from other friendships and dating relationships I had had. 

By the way, God is not picking on gay people. Many people do not have the opportunity to marry, or even choose not to marry. I presume they are issued hormones as well, so they are certainly tempted along the same lines as gays, but God expects chastity from them as well, and they and you and every single person can enter into God's presence and partake of his kingdom. But I and you, and everyone only gets there by faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Negotiating with God to allow us to do just this one thing without consequence is human nature, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere in scripture as acceptable. 

[foster]

I'm guessing he is referring to the story told by Boyd K. Packer about the missionary who punched his companion for coming on to him or groping him in his sleep, I forget the salacious details, and was told by Elder Packer that he needed a good punch, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for an apostle to administer it. I guess that qualifies as an endorsement of violence against gays in some peoples minds. BTW, I am as harmless a fuzzball as they come, rarely get mad, but if one of my missionary companions had made an open pass at me, I might, as a 19 year old young man, been tempted to administer the laying on of hands.

Sounds more like an endorsement of violence as an appropriate response to sexual assault. Had the victim been female, would anybody have criticized Elder Packer for saying that the perpetrator needed a good punch?

You might want to find out the details of Elder Paker's talk before guessing at what he did not say. Elder Packer did not delineate the types of conduct for which Elder Packers felt physical violence is an option.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a simple fact that the Church has evolved on the issue of homosexuality. While still considering homosexual acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin.

In more than five decades of Church membership, I don't recall a time when the Church considered being subject to homosexual temptation  to be a sin.

 

Moreover; There was a time not that long ago that violence against homosexuals was considered appropriate for Church members.

 

By whom? Certainly not by me. And not by the Church as an institution. There may have been some errant Church members who felt that way, but don't lay their errors on the Church.

 

And please, let's not dredge up the quote from President Packer's talk "To Young Men Only." He was talking in that instance about a young man forcibly defending himself against  sexual assault. It would be twisting his words to say that implies condoning violence.

 

That all types discriminatory laws against homosexuals were in place, even in Utah, regarding employment, housing, medical decisions, and survivors rights/benefits as examples.

 

 

 

How is that the fault of the Church?

 

That being said I don't foresee a time when SSM will become acceptable to the Church.

 

This is the only portion of your post that made any sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

You might want to find out the details of Elder Paker's talk before guessing at what he did not say. Elder Packer did not delineate the types of conduct for which Elder Packers felt physical violence is an option.

First of all, the appropriate title is President Packer (he is president of the Quorum of the Twelve).

 

Second, I am quite familiar with the talk. I was personally seated in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, just a few rows from the front, when the talk was delivered. I have a copy at home of the pamphlet that was published containing the text. I have read it several times. And President Packer was using a specific instance as an example, one in which a perpetrator was forcing his sexual intentions on a victim. The clear implication was that the victim was defending himself against attempted sexual assault.

[BCSpace]

So what you are saying is that the only path for God's gay children for exaltation is if they choose in the next life to spend eternity with a woman having children, something they were unable or unwilling to do in this life.

 

 

I think you already know that's doctrine and scripture.

 

Unwilling is no argument or excuse as that applies to any of God's commands.  Shall we reward those unwilling to stop committing murder?  Unable is also no argument or excuse because of Ether 12:27 and the fact that things ultimately get fixed (pun intended).

 

If a gay member chooses to spend his entire earth life celibate rather than be with a woman, what makes you think they are looking forward to spending eternity married to a woman?

 

What makes you think I think that?

 

Whoopee.  I can hardly wait.  It is this very reason why I choose to leave the church.  I have absolutely no interest in spending eternity with a woman. It makes being celibate pointless doesn't it.

 

 

I agree that celibacy is as pointless as gay sex.

 

So there is absolutely no exaltation possible for me no matter how much I follow the church teachings.

 

Who said that?  Not having sex outside heterosexual marriage is following the Church teachings.  You will have exaltation if you follow them.  If you are sealed to a woman before the Judgement, you are following the Church teachings.  Your problem, like Barbara Young, is that you want to change Church teachings.

[foster]

Elder Packer did not speak of the details of the situation. I have the talk also. Elder Packer says a missionary reluctantly admitted to striking his companion, Elder Packer goes on to says that after further discussion on the matter Elder Packers told the missionary it was better he punched the missionary than a General Authority punching the missionary. Elder Packer did not divulge to conduct, nor did Elder Packer provide clear instruction on when violence would be acceptable.

[foster]

But let's get back on topic. Bcspace since you see no difference between a benign statement and clear attack on the Church, do you think Sister Young's should be excommunicated?

[BCSpace]

Bcspace, Elder Packers did not speak of the details of the situation. I have the talk also. Elder Packers says a missionary reluctantly admitted struck his companion and Elder Packers then says that after further discussion on the matter Elder Packers told the missionary it was better he punched the missionary than a General Authority punching the missionary. Elder Packers did not divulge to conduct, nor did Elder Packers provide clear instruction on when violence would be acceptable.

 

I think you mean to address this to Scott Lloyd.  However, I heartily endorse what he said on the subject.  I also agree that Packer was correct to deck in that instance and such an instance provides us a clear example of when we can use violence to defend ourselves.

[BCSpace]

I know I'm going to get killed for this, but so be it: A statement of a single apostle does not Church doctrine make.

 

That is the Church's position, correct.  The Church's position is that official publication does doctrine make.

[thesometimesaint]

In more than five decades of Church membership, I don't recall a time when the Church considered being subject to homosexual temptation  to be a sin.

 

By whom? Certainly not by me. And not by the Church as an institution. There may have been some errant Church members who felt that way, but don't lay their errors on the Church.

 

And please, let's not dredge up the quote from President Packer's talk "To Young Men Only." He was talking in that instance about a young man forcibly defending himself against  sexual assault. It would be twisting his words to say that implies condoning violence.

 

 

How is that the fault of the Church?

 

This is the only portion of your post that made any sense.

 

I've been a member for only 42 years. , and yes there was a time when the Church considered even the temptation as a sin. It wasn't logical, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was there.

 

From "To young men only":

 

"There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.".

 

The first young man DID NOT engage in sexual assault. What President Packer said is an appeal to violence.

 

When a General Authority says it the thinkling has been done.

 

Anyone whom doesn't believe that the Church in Utah has a big influence on the laws is sadly mistaken.

 

My posts always make sense.

[Buzzard]

But let's get back on topic. Bcspace since you see no difference between a benign statement and clear attack on the Church, do you think Sister Young's should be excommunicated?

I'm not Bcspace, but the answer is of course not. People disagree with the church all the time over a doctrine, with no consequence. Now if at her next TR interview, she cannot say she sustains the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators, then she might have an issue with that. For a case study of just when the line is crossed and your membership in the kingdom is in peril, see the file marked "Johnson, Sonia".

[BCSpace]

Now if at her next TR interview, she cannot say she sustains the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators, then she might have an issue with that.

 

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Packer did not speak of the details of the situation. I have the talk also. Elder Packer says a missionary reluctantly admitted to striking his companion, Elder Packer goes on to says that after further discussion on the matter Elder Packers told the missionary it was better he punched the missionary than a General Authority punching the missionary. Elder Packer did not divulge to conduct, nor did Elder Packer provide clear instruction on when violence would be acceptable.

President Packer made that remark after the young missionary explained the details of the incident. President Packer said to the priesthood meeting congregation that he was not recommending that course of action, but he was not ruling it out either. And then he made this very telling remark: "You must protect yourself." What would there be for the missionary to physically protect himself against if he was not being subjected to forcible sexual assault?

 

The implication is clear; you just refuse to see it. And if there is any ambiguity, wouldn't it be better for you to ask President Packer himself what he meant before going around uncharitably spreading the accusation that he unrighteously advocated violence?

 

I've said it before, but let me repeat it here for emphasis: If I had a son -- or a daughter, for that matter -- who found him/herself in a situation where he/she was being subjected to unwanted sexual advances, and there were no other recourse, I would want him/her to defend him/herself physically, if need be, and would commend him/her for doing so. And I will make certain he/she understands that before I send him/her out into the world.

 

So in essence, my advice to my children will be the same as that given by President Packer: I'm not recommending forcible defense as a course of action, but I'm not ruling it out either. You must defend yourself.

[LordUther]

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

Except that pretty much every group that isn't the church will at some point have a teaching or practice that is contrary to the teachings of the church. Are you saying that we can't belong to any other organisation but the church. No political parties, or unions? The spirit of this question is meant to ascertain wether or not you affiliate with an apostate group in a way that threatens your own standing in the church. A group that believes that God loves his gay children, has a place for them and hopes that one day that plan will be more widely known is not an apostate group. I might not agree with their agenda but they are not an enemy of the church. Membership of the group does not effect my standing in the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been a member for only 42 years. , and yes there was a time when the Church considered even the temptation as a sin. It wasn't logical, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was there.

 

 

Repeating your assertion does not endow it with any greater credibility or truth; it is still quite wrong.

 

From "To young men only":

 

"There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.".

 

The first young man DID NOT engage in sexual assault. What President Packer said is an appeal to violence.

 

 

I have already addressed this in an above post to foster. In short, you are willfully misconstruing what President Packer said and are making him an offender for a word -- or in this case, for seeking to empower young men to defend themselves from becoming assault victims.

 

 

When a General Authority says it the thinkling has been done.

 

 

Apparently, thesometimesaint feels that when he himself makes an assertion the thinking has been done.

 

Anyone whom doesn't believe that the Church in Utah has a big influence on the laws is sadly mistaken.

 

 

If you have evidence of the Church taking a position on discrimination against gays in housing, employment medical care, etc., other than to oppose such discrimination, feel free to present it. Otherwise, this is just more vacuous supposition on your part.

 

My posts always make sense.

 

I will mercifully forgo comment on this remark.

[california boy]

Only if one gets stuck in earthly perspective (which plenty of us do, whatever our sexual orientation).   Heavenly Father loves us.  He does.  Whatever our personal experiences or thoughts or knowledge of carnel or mortal or earthly things, our purpose is to learn how to control our bodies and desires to submit to His will and His plan which is perfect and which we are told is better than anything we experience here.  Neither He nor His plan forces us into anything.   And we know that He doesn't hold us accountable for things that we cannot do.  So I'm thinking that there will be a way to heal and a disposition that will allow all faithful and repentant souls to have all that He has.  

 

(My personal belief is that one of the reasons He opposes gay marriage on earth is that it will make it harder for those who engage in such relationships on earth to handle the eternities and He would  not wish any more pain or hurt on souls who came to earth with that struggle.)

If we are to believe what has been revealed, there is no question that the plan of salvation involves eternal marriage to the opposite sex.  I guess if you are straight, your post about how you envision eternal desires is both reassuring and a good guess as to how God will treat you.  If you are gay, there are only two outcomes.  Either God magically makes you straight (something that every part of me does not want to happen) or there will be gay marriage in the afterlife. (something that many in the church resist as much as I am resisting magically becoming straight)  

 

I guess it is difficult for a straight person to understand the eternal knot a gay man has thinking of being magically made straight in the afterlife.  But maybe you can understand what it would be like if you were told that you would have no interest or attraction to your wife or any other woman in the next life, but you will get to spend eternity with a man in eternal marriage.  Now just how excited would you be with that prospect?  Would you be willing to be celibate and live a life without any companionship while on earth in order to be married for eternity to a man??

[Scott Lloyd]

Except that pretty much every group that isn't the church will at some point have a teaching or practice that is contrary to the teachings of the church.

I don't buy this. There are many, many groups that function within their chosen spheres without ever contradicting any teaching of the Church.

[california boy]

 

You may or may not consider it revelation-perhaps you are demanding canonization in the D&C-but the Declaration on the Family in 1996 was pretty forthright: : "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.".

As for the prospects of exaltation, any virtuous son or daughter of God can enter into his kingdom. Since the only acceptable sexual relations are within heterosexual marriage, if for whatever reason one does not enter into such a marriage, remaining virtuous (a term I prefer to celibacy) is a requirement for that reward. It's actually pretty easy to understand.  

 

Well since the church has not cannonized the Declaration on the Family, I would think it would be pretty presumptous for me to decide to cannonize it.  Perhaps you feel more secure in making such a declaration.  You might want to notify the prophet of your decision.  

 

As for the rest of your assumptions, please read my post above this one.  Love to hear your imput on what I wrote.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well since the church has not cannonized the Declaration on the Family, I would think it would be pretty presumptous for me to decide to cannonize it.  Perhaps you feel more secure in making such a declaration.  You might want to notify the prophet of your decision.  

 

As for the rest of your assumptions, please read my post above this one.  Love to hear your imput on what I wrote.

Canon or not, it is an inspired declaration that carries the imprimatur of all 15 prophets, seers and revelators.

 

And I'll go on record as predicting that it one day will be canonized.

[LordUther]

I don't buy this. There are many, many groups that function within their chosen spheres without ever contradicting any teaching of the Church.

 

Really? I don't know a single organisation outside of the church that keeps the Word of Wisdom. If they serve refreshments they will serve tea/coffee/alcohol, nor will most of them have an issue if their members smoke. Every political party at some point will advocate something that goes against church standards. Wether it's gambling laws, abortion laws etc. So if I belong to my local political party does that mean I can't have a temple recommend. Maybe that's why Mitt Romney's wife was able to wear that short skirt...?

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? I don't know a single organisation outside of the church that keeps the Word of Wisdom. If they serve refreshments they will serve tea/coffee/alcohol, nor will most of them have an issue if their members smoke. Every political party at some point will advocate something that goes against church standards. Wether it's gambling laws, abortion laws etc. So if I belong to my local political party does that mean I can't have a temple recommend. Maybe that's why Mitt Romney's wife was able to wear that short skirt...?

Apparently you and I are talking past each other. To me, contradicting or having a teaching that is contrary to the Church means taking an advocacy position against it. Allowing something and advocating it are not the same thing.

 

And that gets to the spirit of the temple recommend interview question. It emerged specifically to address the problem of Church members affiliating themselves with apostate or off-shoot groups from the Church, particularly those that teach that practice of plural marriage is still in effect, contrary to what has been said by the Lord through the prophet.

[california boy]

Then what is it about? Certainly no one has a problem with you being friends with another person, or many people. My wife has close friends that she spends a lot of time with. What is the difference between their close friendship and marriage? It's that we have had children together, and I assume you  know how babies are made. Don't go off on me about couples who are infertile. The fact of the matter is that sexual expression is a critical part of marriage. Do you know when I understood the importance of that part of marriage? Because I had remained virtuous before our marriage, as had my wife, when we were married, the difference in the relationship was clear, and I understood only at that point why chastity is so important to God and to us.  

If I had not been virtuous, then marriage would have not been so starkly and wonderfully different from other friendships and dating relationships I had had. 

By the way, God is not picking on gay people. Many people do not have the opportunity to marry, or even choose not to marry. I presume they are issued hormones as well, so they are certainly tempted along the same lines as gays, but God expects chastity from them as well, and they and you and every single person can enter into God's presence and partake of his kingdom. But I and you, and everyone only gets there by faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Negotiating with God to allow us to do just this one thing without consequence is human nature, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere in scripture as acceptable. 

Quite frankly I really have no idea how to respond to your post.  You have managed to reduce the value of marriage down to two amebas reproducing.  If you think that marriage is about sex or a close friend is the same as a relationship with your wife, then I have nothing but sympathy for you and your wife.  If you were to ask your wife why she is married to you, I would not be surprised if she didn't even list sex in the top 5 reasons why you two are together.  If marriage is simply about having sex and reproducing, why  not line up each sex and match them together like a high school graduation.  

 

I never said God picks on gay people because they are not allowed to have sex together.  What I have CLEARLY said is this is way more than just about sex.  Evidently this is a concept you are simply unable to understand since this is your second post about the paramount importance of sex.  

[LordUther]

Apparently you and I are talking past each other. To me, contradicting or having a teaching that is contrary to the Church means taking an advocacy position against it. Allowing something and advocating it are not the same thing.

 

And that gets to the spirit of the temple recommend interview question. It emerged specifically to address the problem of Church members affiliating themselves with apostate or off-shoot groups from the Church, particularly those that teach that practice of plural marriage is still in effect, contrary to what has been said by the Lord through the prophet.

 

But I think we're making the same point, that it's the spirit of the question that's important.. Just because Affirmation believes & hopes that one day the church will accept gay relationships doesn't make it an apostate group and membership of the group wouldn't deny me my TR which is what bcspace seems to be implying.

 

ETA I was being facetious in making the point that if we take that question too literally there'd be very few organisations we would be able to join outside of the church.

[california boy]

I think you already know that's doctrine and scripture.

 

Unwilling is no argument or excuse as that applies to any of God's commands.  Shall we reward those unwilling to stop committing murder?  Unable is also no argument or excuse because of Ether 12:27 and the fact that things ultimately get fixed (pun intended).

 

 

What makes you think I think that?

 

 

I agree that celibacy is as pointless as gay sex.

 

 

Who said that?  Not having sex outside heterosexual marriage is following the Church teachings.  You will have exaltation if you follow them.  If you are sealed to a woman before the Judgement, you are following the Church teachings.  Your problem, like Barbara Young, is that you want to change Church teachings.

 

Then why does the church recommend gay men to be celibate in this life.  If the only path for exaltation is marrying a woman for eternity, why not require all gay members to find a willing wife and start the process here on earth? If they can't be happily married to a woman in this life, what makes you even think for a moment that gay men will be happy to be married to a woman in the next?  

 

My problem is not like Barb Young at all.  I am not campaigning for gay temple marriage.  That is something I leave entirely up to God.  My opinion is completely irrelevant.  I am only expressing the reality of how the plan of salvation works for God's gay children.  

[california boy]

dupe sorry