Top LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer: Mormons will always oppose Satan’s counterfeit marriages (transcript attached below)
The age of homophobes is over. They are a throwback to a different age, when people were ignorant of the realities of sexual identity. When Anderson Cooper, a CNN reporter, can openly mock a homophobe (Andrew Shirvell) on the air, you know the age of homophobia is over.
I’m certainly not wishing death on anyone, not even someone as hateful as Mr. Packer; that would be almost as mean as saying what he just did in conference. But I think he is the ring leader among the octo- and novo-generian leadership of LDS Inc. opposing same-sex marriage. There are probably at least a few younger apostles who are either sympathetic or at the very least indifferent to the issue of same-sex marriage (e.g., Henry Eyring and Dieter Uchtdorf strike me as being possible candidates, though they could probably never say so publicly like Marlin Jensen did recently). I’m guessing the current situation is kind of like the blacks and the priesthood situation – a couple of crotchety old holdouts are keeping the leadership from being just 20 years behind the times. Once those holdouts kick the bucket, progress!
I won’t wish for Boyd Packer to die. But I have to wonder what changes will occur when he finally does kick it.
— — — — — — —
P.S. Former Student Review staffer and current friend of Main Street Plaza, Eric Ethington (who links to MSP from his blog, Pride in Utah), talks to FOX13 in the second half of this report (Eric’s interview starts at the 1:35 mark):
‘Tough Talk’ on Homosexuality from an Old and Tired Mormon ‘Apostle’ …
ABC4 reports that more than 400 have signed up on Facebook to protest in Salt Lake City (now over 500 600 1,100 as of this posting):
— — — — — — —
Transcript:
We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand whats going on. Parents be alert, ever watchful, that this wickedness might threaten your family circle. We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satans many substitutes and counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the Gospel must be wrong. In the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.” Some suppose that they were “pre-set” and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.
Paul promised, “God will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” You can if you will, break the habits and conquer the addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.” Isaiah warned, “Wo unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Years ago, I visited a school in Albuquerque. The teacher told me about a youngster who brought a kitten to class. As you can imagine, that disrupted everything. She had him hold up the kitten in front of the children. It went well until one of the children asked, “Is it a boy kitty or a girl kitty?” Not wanting to get into that lesson, the teacher said, “It doesnt matter, its just a kitty.” But they persisted. Finally one boy raised his hand and said, “I know how you can tell.” Resigned to face it, the teacher said, “How can you tell?” And the student answered, “You can vote on it.”
You may laugh at the story. But, if we’re not alert, there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change lives that would legalize immorality. As if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws of nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would the law against – a vote against – the law of gravity do?
There are both moral and physical laws irrevocably decreed in Heaven before the foundation of the world that cannot be changed. History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day.
Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the Gospel. If they are misunderstood, either innocently or willfully, so be it. We cannot change, we will not change the moral standards. We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God.
Transcript courtesy of BrinkleyBoy @ r/exmormon
Flamboyant homophobes like Boyd K Packer are 90% always repressed, self-loathing homosexuals. It’s now a rule of religious psychology that the more extremely anti-gay a person is, the more likely they are to be same-sex attracted themselves. Examples are on a Ranklist of the top anti-gay secretly-gay politicians, and there are also a ton of historical examples.
Boyd K Packer has been obsessed with gays his entire adult life, he rants about gays at every GC since the 70s, it’s like he dreams about gay sex. I’m a 1 on the Kinsey Scale of sexuality and I’ve never had a thought about gay sex, and I don’t worry about it, neither do any of my genuinely straight friends. Boyd’s infamous warning to the YM about “boys” must represent his secretest desire.
Only a closet-case like Boyd K Packer could think that same-sex attraction is a choice, because he has been choosing to hate himself for years he thinks everybody else should too. It wouldn’t shock me to learn that Boyd K Packer has some skeletons in his “closet.” His firing of “liberal” professors from BYU was directly related to work that one of them did on gay relationships among the early Saints, which were common and not scandalous. What is President Packer so scared of?
The bottom line that any gay kid needs to know is that the biggest bullies are secretly queer and they are the most dangerous. It is much more honorable and respectable to be openly gay or lesbian, even if it means leaving the LDS, than it is to be a closeted, self-loathing homosexual like Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who lives a life of bitter hatred.
Sadly the lds church will most likely always be ruled by heterosexual old white men, rarely not US citizens. So even if Packer dies and they stop oppressing gay people so much, they will still most likely be many years behind the rest of the country on issues like this.
Andrew Sullivan: A Mormon Thaw?
Exactly one hour after Andrew posted a link to Joanna Brooks’ piece on the Marlin Jensen meeting (calling it “A remarkable event in Oakland”) … Boyd K. Packer happened.
And now I think I’m going to go back and re-read all my emails from Mormon bloggers who’ve written me complaining about counter-productive approaches to effecting change in the LDS church. Because I could use a good laugh.
Other linkage:
Jana Riess: LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer Is Wrong About Homosexual Relationships
John Aravosis: Now that several gay kids are dead, Mormon leader suddenly chooses to mouth off in anti-gay tirade
Human Rights Campaign: HRC to Mormon Apostle: Your Statements are Inaccurate and Dangerous
Hmm, protecting people from learning to use evidence and reason — nothing good comes of that strategy, as this story clearly demonstrates.
Humble people submit their opinions to logic and evidence. We have documented homosexual behavior among hundreds of species ranging from reptiles and birds to mammals including all the primate species.
The evidence says that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that does not hurt anyone any more than heterosexuality.
Unfortunately, Boyd Packer is too arrogant to acknowledge the evidence and too cowardly to change his views. The results will be devastating to the believers.
More families will be broken, more children will commit suicide because they put their faith into a man who stubbornly clings to his prejudices instead of humbly embracing love.
A little bit of humility and courage will go a long way in setting our love for our children and neighbors free.
Prof, Dieter Uchtdorf is pretty unforgiving of any sexual failure. He just has better manners than Boyd Packer.
Packer behaves like a thug, Uchtdorf like a gentleman but their views about obedience and sexuality are fairly identical.
I’m sorry, did a Mormon apostle just argue that marriage between one man and one woman is a “natural state” like gravity and at no time in history has the law been different, really? I don’t even know where to begin.
Instead I think I will focus on the other grave injustice revealed in this post. Someone seriously named their daughter Ninevah.
I know, so many things wrong with this that it would be a joke if people weren’t planning to use this nonsense to attack civil rights.
Let me take a crack at it, though. First of all, he’s conflating the (civil) laws of the land with scientific principles — merely because (in English) both are sometimes called with the word “law”. But they’re not the same thing at all.
But that’s not the worst of it.
When it comes to civil laws and scientific “laws” neither one of them is decided by your local cleric! One of them is determined by the consent of the governed (often through vote), and the other is discovered through the scientific method.
So much for all the work to repair their image…. This is all it takes. Who cares how many skateboarders belong to the church when some old hatemonger can sit behind the podium and spout nonsense like this?
This stuff makes me so angry as to be irrational. I have so many friends, acquaintances. so many family members who totally believe this kind of thing, and to have their illustrious apostle say things like this only validates their feelings which leads to more and more self-hatred and perhaps worse.
It’s unforgivable.
I, too, believe Packer doth protest too much.
But that only makes it worse.
I don’t think much of their “heavenly father.”
Amen and amen to everything Keep Sweet said in the first post! I’ve been thinking the same thing for ages, but never had a place to verbalize (type!) it out loud. Well expressed.
LOL, Holly. Somebody should cut an “I am a Mormon” ad from Boyd Packer’s speech.
LOL, Holly. Somebody should cut an I am a Mormon ad from Boyd Packers speech.
Yes! With the tagline, “My name is Boyd K.Packer. I’m a raging homophobe, an unrepentant bigot, a self-aggrandizing bully, a two-bit martinet enraged to realize that I won’t live long enough to become president of the church and squash my enemies under my iron fist, so sexually repressed I don’t even know what my orientation is, and I’m a Mormon.”
I’d vote for a video like that on Youtube! If I had the time I’d do it, but I don’t right now. Anyone else with the skills?
Oops–forgot “humorless git unable to recognize irony.”
I don’t have the tech skills to make the video, but I hope someone will.
Just wanted to thank Jeremy Hooper at G-A-Y for linking to this post:
‘Satan’s many substitutes’ (and he’s not referring to that string of awful fill-ins from when your fifth grade teacher was on maternity leave)
Cheers!
In the days when evil shall be called good, and good evil. Timeless assessment of such mockery of an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ is unacceptable and unbecoming of any who hold any stake in belief in the restored gospel. I am ashamed to see so many, frankly faith lacking members, nitpick at an apostle. Your desires to change the laws of God go beyond rational thinking, but for a more selfish understanding. May I suggest your beef isn’t with Elder Packer, but lies in the struggle to be able to comprehend the underlining of whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not.
If He really did see God, and Jesus Christ as He said he did, and if He really was called a prophet, then the line of succession with proper authority is still in play, making Elder Packer a true Apostle of God, called to testify, preach repentance, and teach, which seems is hard for those unbelievers to take to heart. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, but a liar, then naturally Elder Packer would not be a true Apostle. So, instead of bickering, and mocking something you struggle with and blame God for all that is wrong, may I suggest figuring out if Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, because if he is, Elder Packer is a true Apostle in our days, and if that is true, then the call to repentance and teaching he gave which pierce your hearts as it shows, is something you need to come to grips with.
Packer’s hate-speech and others like it are directly responsible for the deaths of LGBT teens everywhere. There will be a protest over his bigoted remarks this Thursday in SLC http://bit.ly/dgq2Iz
E,
Your logic is, of course, faulty (just like Packer’s). Joseph could have been “called of God,” but that would not necessarily mean that Packer was a true apostle, or that what Packer said yesterday was true or right or good (or are you arguing that everything any “true” apostle has ever said in General Conference is absolutely true and right and good?). Joseph Smith could have been a fallen prophet, as many of the early Mormons, such as David Whitmer, believed. The keys could have passed to another after his death, as many faithful Mormons not belonging to the Monsonite branch of Mormonism, such as Martin Harris (for a time), believe. The church could have fallen into apostasy at any time after Brigham Young took the helm, as many fundamentalist Mormons believe. Or, as you suggest might be the case, Joseph Smith himself could have been a fraud, deluded, or some combination of the two. That would make Packer the same. Having examined an abundance of evidence on the matter, that is the conclusion I have reached. Talks like Packer’s simply underscore the point.
I admit I was horrified by CLP’s report that at the Oakland meeting, Marlin Jensen “added that in his experience the general authorities of the Church are as good-hearted a group of men as could be found anywhere, perhaps not perfect, but trying hard to do what is right and that they entered the Proposition 8 campaign without malice.”
I think this latest talk shows just how rotten Packer’s heart is, how much malice he’s infected with.
How does the corporate church not realize that the world will instantly become a better place for everyone–especially Mormons–if they give that old bully emeritus status, and never let him in front of a microphone again?
I recommend this analysis: http://wisdomlikeastone.com/04/10/elder-packer-axis/
It includes this question:
“If an apostle, an individual who is entitled to direct inspiration and revelation from deity, cant get the basic facts rightbasic facts that should be gleaned from life experience, but can be verified in a casual visit to the public librarythen how can we trust them to get other, perhaps more important matters, right?”
Or check out Jana Reiss saying flatout that Packer is wrong: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/10/lds-apostle-boyd-k-packer-is-wrong-about-homosexuality.html
These are people who still go to church. Reiss is a very faithful member with a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon.
I think that if members could impeach an apostle, Packer would be history.
E @17 — It’s not mockery, it’s that we’re pointing out an example of the exact problem you mention: “evil shall be called good, and good evil.” This man is spreading lies that are killing our precious young people. And people (even many parents whose own kids are gay) wrongly assume that this man’s words must be good, just because he has claimed the noble title of “apostle”. That’s why we’re speaking out about it.
Holly, perhaps, the issue is self-righteousness. The consequences of Packer’s behavior are malicious. Unfortunately, it doesn’t necessarily follow that his motives are malicious.
We can explain his behavior in terms of egocentrism and self-righteousness and need not invoke malice.
In some ways, that actually makes it worse. Adam Smith pointed out: “Virtue is more to be feared than vice because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of the conscience.”
Packer can be so ruthless and brutal in pursuing his interests because he cloaks them in terms of the ultimate virtue.
In Brighamism, an arrogant epistemology exacerbates our capacity to abuse our neighbors. Rather than invoking faith, we claim to know the will of God.
Knowledge claims imply power claims and Boyd Packer is as certain about his knowledge claims as the totalitarian despots of the 20th century were about theirs. If he could have his way, he would rival the brutality of Lenin and others.
@20 Excellent links, thanks!
Just wanted to thank Pam Spaulding at Pam’s House Blend for linking to MSP from her post:
Video: the homophobic bile of LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer
Nice to have some Blenders passing through, cheers!
Chino — that’s so cool about the conversation online! Especially the interview with Eric Ethington! I remember him from our Student Review days, but I had no idea what he was up to!
I have to agree that his message was very hurtful to GL community. I am right on board with people there. However, no one has mentioned how his stance on porn addiction is also lacking. If someone is truly struggling with porn and is trying to do the mormon thing of praying, fasting, reading scriptures, talking with priesthood leaders, seeking counselling, ect… And still have no success, and then to hear Packer say, that all they need to do is get it out of their mind and have the preisthood help them… (like some magic cure) It seems to me that it just helps re-inforce the persons self-hate that is fueling their addctive cycle to begin with. The self-talk begins. “I must be doing something wrong if this isn’t working.” “I must not be worthy, because he says I should be able to stop.” “What is wrong with me?” When the person should be asking themselves, if this isn’t working, then maybe I should try something else. I think masturbation isn’t a problem. I agree that porn can become a problem if it takes over regular functions of our lives. But making someone feel innadequate and self-loathing is not going to help. Our sexual feelings are normal and should be embraced not supressed. I am not suggesting rampant promiscuity, but acceping our sexual feelings as normal, whether we choose to act on them or not, is more important to healing. I guess I don’t really know the answer, but I really felt that there was more wrong with his talk then just homosexuality (even though this bothered me as well.)
B’KKK’P reversed in 20 minutes any positive image the Church could have hoped to create with the “…and I’m a Mormon” and mormon.org campaign. And completely spent any goodwill that resulted from the Marlin Jensen “apology.”
To answer the question of the post, yes, I think it will continue after Packer. Packer thinks about homosexuality in terms of gender identity; he won’t touch the concept of “orientation.” A lot of the anger toward Packer on this subject I believe has to do with his unwillingness to acknowledge gay people as gay people. Unfortunately, I think the rhetoric will take a more subtle form after Packer and Monson of the Oaks and Holland variety, whereby an orientation will be okayed in terms of vernacular discourse, but “agency” will be said to trump it. This idea has been around since the 1990s, as espoused first by Hinckley who said “We have gays in the Church”– whereas Packer likes to hark back to the 1960s when everything was easier because gays knew they were “evil,” but were “immoral” anyway out of “selfishness.”
Given the high volume of conference talks admonishing people to FOLLOW THE CURRENT PROPHET no matter what, it’s a sign that more and more rank & file members are not. That’s actually a good sign, imo. It means change will *eventually* happy and at the very least, it’s already happening amongst the members.
I find it ironic that the title of this post is “hateful rhetoric..”, yet I did not hear any “hateful” words, but rather someone taking a stand and expressing where the Church stands and why. Calling homosexual behavior (and pornography, which was actually a bigger portion of the message) immoral and explaining that there is a way out – repentence – is a message of love, the same message Christ delivered (and continues to deliver) to sinners. Its the same message for all of us.. Turn your life toward Christ, repent and come unto Him. Its the only way to happiness.
I do believe about 90% of the comments here were “hateful” towards Boyd K. Packer. I think if those of you visiting this site were honest, you’d see in yourselves the hypocrisy label you are trying to pin on others.
Jason, you’re a good old friend. I’m wondering why are you being so antagonistic and critical toward the Church and its leaders. Joseph Smith did say regarding apostates that they would never be able to leave the Church alone, there is no neutral ground. Are you really comfortable fighting against The Church of JESUS CHRIST? Is that what your new religion is (Anti-Mormon)?
Posting this in apostate territory will surely invite mockery and more debate, in which I will not participate.
yet I did not hear any hateful words, but rather someone taking a stand and expressing where the Church stands and why. Calling homosexual behavior (and pornography, which was actually a bigger portion of the message) immoral and explaining that there is a way out repentence is a message of love
Let’s extract the salient message: CALLING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IMMORAL IS A MESSAGE OF LOVE.
That sums up the basic message of Mormonism, its essential blindness (or deafness, in this case, since David F. can’t “hear”), and its inherent cruelty:
it self-righteously tells people that its labeling them immoral is love.
If you don’t feel the love when someone says you’re evil, why, that just shows how much MORE evil you are!
Well, David F., here’s how much I love you: you’re immoral. You’re grossly immoral, and we must take a stand against you, or civilization will fall. But there is a way out of your evil: education, evidence, equality. (Hey! I like that alliteration. Can it be part of the mission here or something?)
So–you feeling the love?
If not, it’s your fault–’cause, you know, you’re immoral.
I’m actually quite surprised at the tone of these comments. I despise the church as much as the next guy, but this GC talk isn’t anything new. It’s decades-old rhetoric. I find it more interesting that this talk was given in the face of multiple gay suicides and the resurfacing of the Prop 8 fiasco in the media. This corporate church has thrown its PR out the window, the consequences of which will no doubt hurt its numbers and make me quite happy. Its fun to watch the church destroy itself.
Kevin, I think it’s because we’ve had reason to hope things were getting better.
David F., The reason his words are hateful is because he essentially said that homosexuality is an immoral choice and that it can be changed with enough effort. You can argue about its morality, but evidence shows that homosexuality is to some degree innate, not a matter of choice, and that it can’t be changed.
So, Packer is shaming people for a choice they didn’t make and have no power to change.
Hey Dave,
Did you listen to the podcast I linked to in comments over on my Facebook page? If not, here’s the link again: BYU Professor Bill Bradshaw on a Biological Origin of Homosexuality
If you’re not in the mood to debate, go listen to Dr. Bradshaw. Do that and maybe the next time we talk, it can be something like an actual conversation.
And Dave, you know, after I left BYU, I spent twenty years leaving the church alone.
And then you guys decided to pull out all the stops to get Prop 8 passed. And not in a nice way.
You’ve got it bass-ackwards if you’re asking me whether I’m comfortable fighting the LDS church on this issue. It’s your church leaders who need to be asking themselves whether they really want me and my friends spending the next twenty years pissed off at their political meddling and pathetic exploitation of anti-gay prejudice.
And if you do check out that link to Mormon Stories and Dr. Bradshaw’s presentation, you’ll see this quote in comments over there:
The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. Ferdinand Magellan
I have more faith in the goodness of my gay friends and family than I do in Boyd K. Packer’s incoherent babbling. If you choose to follow Boyd, I have to wonder: Is that what your new religion is (Anti-Gay)?
Tic #26, you are quite right about pornography. It’s best to stop obsessing about sex.
If you go shopping in your bikini or in a burka really doesn’t make much of a difference. Either way, you are obsessing about sex and you are just making the problem worse.
In the army, there was porn everywhere and you could always tell the boys who had been raised by the most uptight parents because their noses were constantly in the magazines.
In light of Packer’s rhetoric, it’s no wonder that per capita Utah residents are the number one consumers of online pornography. The sex industry owes the brethren big time.
@ Hellmut: “In light of Packers rhetoric, its no wonder that per capita Utah residents are the number one consumers of online pornography. The sex industry owes the brethren big time.”
I would guess that isn’t so much that they watch a lot more porn than everyone else, but that living among Mormons, they can’t just go into a video store or porn shop like people do in the rest of the country, so they have to get their kicks online.
They sell porn in stores?! 😉
By the way, a quick update about the Main Street Plaza YouTube channel (yes, we have one) …
The Human Rights Campaign is using our latest video in its online letter-signing campaign to Boyd Packer. Sign the letter and see the video here.
And of course everyone here is invited to head over and subscribe to/befriend MSP’s YouTube channel here.
Gen. JC Christian links in and otherwise makes America proud (especially with that quote from Elder Packer on “Miscegenation” [spoiler alert: Packer’s against it]).
How can anyone believe that things will change when 20,000 souls absorbed this vicious nonsense and not one voice was raised in protest?
And so far, the ABC4 (Utah) poll is running 60% in favor of Packer’s views.
Click here to vote.
Regarding the question of porn (which BKP has tossed in the bucket with homosexuality), we’ve discussed it quite a bit here on MSP. Those who are new to this site, please have a look at our earlier discussions.
The ABC poll was 57% in opposition when I voted in the last half hour.
It could be that more people outside the LDS community are voting as the story of Packer’s speech has been picked up by belief.net, Andrew Sullivan, Perez Hilton, Huffington Post and, I”m sure, others.
The poll is being pharyngulated. 😀
Some cracks are showing. This morning I read a faithful blog where the poster disagreed with the substance of Packer’s talk. This person appears to be a faithful mormon – not even a new order mormon (but I wouldn’t know for sure).
One of the things we talk about a lot here at MSP is whether or not disagreement and dissent are allowing in the LDS church. I think if the leadership keeps making such statements that are out of touch with anything from a third to a half of the membership – this will be obvious pretty quick. Either this is an issue where mormons can respectfully disagree with one another, or it’s not.
I was also thinking, perhaps this is an issue for a schism of the LDS church. I was thinking that some of the leadership might actually do well in an organization like the westboro baptist church. But that’s not terribly positive of me to say.
The pointed silence from some of the bigger ‘nacle blogs is deafening. And telling. Normally you can’t shut their asses up, but they accidentally forgot to take a stand on this one.
OTOH, FMH FTW — 515 comments and counting.
And a second thread for good measure.
Edited to fix my verb tenses. Pesky verb tenses! I meant: “One of the things we talk about a lot here at MSP is whether or not disagreement and dissent are allowed in the LDS church. I think if the leadership keeps making such statements that are out of touch with anywhere from a third to a half of the membership this will be obvious pretty quick.”
aerin, I’m not placing any bets that this will cause a schism (I see this going down more like the racial issues than the polygamy issue) but if it did happen, both schisms would have to make some claim to the true authority. Mormonism puts so much emphasis on authority. I would be interesting to see how the rival claims would be made.
#49 – If it splits it may be the same way that the FLDS split originally – I think part of the account is here at this american life. I believe that Jesus, Joseph Smith and Heber J. Grant? appeared to one of the leaders of the FLDS and said that the Utah LDS church had gone astray.
I’m not saying it should split, just that this may be a big enough issue for a split, doctrinally.
FYI: Schism thread at Mormon Mentalists.
Even if all Mormons woke up tomorrow and thought homosexuality was not sinful, the Church still could not accept gay marriage without also ordaining women. This is because lesbians couples would have very little ecclesiastical power and gay males couples would have too much. I think this is the real issue, and why the Family Proclamation was/is about essentializing gender. It’s why in the early 90s Packer called feminists, gays and intellectuals the “biggest threats” to the Church. These groups are natural enemies of the Church’s hierarchy.
God, chanson’s brother, who is just lovely, got kinda spanked and censored at MMentalists. Hmph.
God is chanson’s brother? Wow!
Wry — What? Can you provide a link when you say stuff like that?
I mean, I know my bro is amazing, but I didn’t realize he’d been promoted to God. Yet. 😉
Wry provided the link in her #2: Schism thread at Mormon Mentalists.
And Andrew Sullivan finally got around to linking to us in his latest “A Mormon Thaw? Ctd” post.
And I was glad to see he also linked to that ‘Sunday Conference’ thread over at FMH. That crew certainly earned some attention after fielding nearly 600 comments in a single thread.
“Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”
Why would our Heavenly Father give children cancer?
Has this guy – this alleged elder of a religion – never even heard of Epicurus? Did he never read the book of Job?
Of course it will continue. Not a single talk is given in conference that hasn’t been vetted and approved by the First Presidency. Every single talk given is heavily correlated to make certain it follows the (current) church doctrine/policies to the letter. Packer’s talk is 100% indicative of the views of the church and church hierarchy as a whole. He might be more willing to talk about it (because of how painfully, self-loathingly repressed he is), but let’s not kid ourselves. His views are in no way unique.
It’ll be a long time before the church starts to really tone down the rhetoric. A long-ass time.
I think you should redefine the title of this article. Hate is a strong word, and you have to use it in context. Disagreement is not hate. The church disagrees with gay marriage, they don’t hate gays. (and don’t give me examples of mormons hating on gays, i’m aware of the fact) Individuals doing stupid things shouldn’t reflect on the entire church as a whole. If a mormon community does it, i’m saddened because they aren’t following what the church has said. He was stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it was established that way by God. Changing a law of the land does not change heavenly laws and will not change heavenly laws. He isn’t the first to say that people aren’t born gay either.
James E Faust said in a talk, “Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”
Link: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7809
I think most people are upset that the Church doesn’t accept immoral behavior, they don’t accept heterosexual sin, along with homosexual. They do however accept homosexual people, whether you beleive it or not. They won’t accept false ideas, and concepts, which, homosexual marriage is in their eyes. (and my own) I’m all for gay rights, I don’t think gay people should be persecuted, withheld from jobs, withheld from housing, financing, visitation rights. (the double standard here is astounding, there were many mormon businesses that were boycotted, and people fired because of the whole prop 8 fiasco, way to be fair) Thats all well and good, and i don’t hear about it often in fact, which means that its not so much an issue. I stick with the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I wholeheartedly agree with the proclomation to the world. It is the most sound place to foster the best growth of a family. (I know about all the counter arguments to this too, and i don’t buy them).
My message is not a message of hate, but of understanding. And I hope you understand where the church is coming before you cast blind rhetoric, and hateful speech the church’s way. I understand where the LGBT community is coming from, and they have to understand the churh’s view. The church is not evil, they are principled and unwavering.
Gad, you have a choice between humility and courage, on one hand, and arrogance and cowardice on the other.
Humility requires us to subordinate our opinions to logic and evidence. The evidence about homosexuality is quite clear. It is a natural phenomenon that does not hurt anyone anymore than heterosexuality.
We have observed homosexuality among dozens of species ranging from reptiles to bird and mammals, including all the primate species.
Logic and evidence exists independent of ourselves and no matter what we chose to believe, reality is what it is.
I am concerned about our children and neighbors that might believe Boyd Packer and act on his words. The greater a child’s faith, the greater the probability that this child will commit suicide. We have documented countless cases. You might want to check out this one:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml
We have to have the courage to stand up for these children even when powerful people’s irresponsibility and willful ignorance threatens them.
That’s what Jesus told us to do and you need to choose between the Savior and Boyd Packer.
@GAD
No matter how you dress it up, it is pure, unadulterated bigotry to preach that being gay or being in gay relationships is supremely unethical, or to use a your favourite word, immoral.
It is not moral to teach anyone, but especially young kids, that they’re are fundamentally broken, wrong, evil, flawed, etc. simply because they’re gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgendered, transsexual, or otherwise queer. The rhetoric of the LDS church, as best exemplified by Boyd Packer is one which leads directly to children, teenagers, and adults killing themselves. This is immoral. That you think that simply because your church teaches something that makes that teaching automatically moral says not that we’re blindly rhetorical when decrying speech and a pervasive attitude and culture which leads to the deaths of children, but rather that you’re blind. Being unwavering in your “morals” no matter who is harmed is not an admirable trait. It is evil.
What you view as “homosexual sin” is not in any single way different from the basic human need to love and be loved. Expecting LGBT people to live a life that you would never ask a heterosexual person to lead is the height of self-righteous, callous, cruel bigotry.
Oh, and just because your precious apostle claims that people aren’t born gay (and because he agrees with other bigots) it doesn’t make him right. Every single reputable, unbiased study done shows that there is a large biological and genetic component to sexual orientation, and that it cannot be changed, ever, no matter how hard or long you try.
Put another way, whether or not the motivation stems from hatred is irrelevant. Many self-proclaimed “moral” people who claim to be motivated by concern and love do incredibly hateful things. The LDS church may not have hated blacks, but the way it treated non-whites up until 1978 (and I daresay since) was hateful. It was bigoted, immoral and wrong. This is no different.
The LGBT community understands very well where the church is coming from – a desire to control and suppress all that is different and “other”. You put it in terms of moral vs. immoral. Everything you believe in is “moral” and everything others believe which differs is “immoral”.
No one’s doubting your or your church’s right to be bigoted/”moral”, but don’t expect any pats on the back from us. Indeed, expect a lot of fucking angry faggots, dykes and trannies who will not stop fighting back, and who will not respect you or your church, for you deserve no respect so long as you so blithely demean and dehumanise others.
Your beliefs have consequences. The institutional homophobia of the church not only leads many in the church to take their own lives, but outside the church as well. So get used to being incredibly unpopular. It’s only going to get worse.
Sorry for losing my temper. I just can’t take one more LDS church apologist who thinks that they should be patted on the back because they think they’re the only real moral ones around, and everything the church does is gold, or who thinks they and their precious church should be immune to criticism.
How people can rationalise away an epidemic of suicides is beyond me.
@61 GAD: They wont accept false ideas, and concepts
Right. That explains the consistency of Mormon belief and doctrine. All those people who think marriage is an eternal concept, and exists between one man and many women? Well, they believe that because they won’t accept false ideas and concepts. And then, a century later, all those people who think that marriage should be between one man and one woman? They believe that because they won’t accept false ideas and concepts. All those people who believe that black men will never receive the priesthood? They believe that because they won’t accept false ideas and concepts. All those people who think that evolution doesn’t apply to human beings, that Adam dropped into being 6,000 years ago, and any evidence that shows human beings were already here 10,000 years ago? They believe that because they won’t accept false ideas and concepts.
Mormons accept so many false ideas and concepts that pointing it out is easy as finding a fat guy in a white shirt in a Utah chapel on Sundays.
For the record, I don’t give a stale piece of sacrament bread for whether “the church accepts immoral behavior.” I care that people kill themselves over talks like Packer’s. That man has blood on his hand, and if there is an afterlife, I hope to be present when he is held accountable.
It bothers me when the LGBT community brands any and all who disagree with their agenda as hateful or cowards. Even their own word, homophobia, is incorrectly used in that it should mean fear of self. It is not always about fear, hatred, or cowardice!
About 15 years ago a study was done in Canada about declining church attendance in all mainstream churches, and the surprising finding was that the churches who were bending over backwards to accommodate one and all, changing long-standing doctrines and policies in an effort to be more inclusive were actually driving people away. When folks want religion, it seems, they want something that will stick to its guns, not be all milquetoast and wavering. They want an iron rod to grasp, something that is well grounded and deep rooted. With Mormonism, either you accept it or you don’t. I would be far more concerned if the Church changed with every wind of doctrine, as governments do, in order to remain popular. (I’m well aware of what occurred in 1978 — there was a lot more history to that than most people realize, and I have no problem with it.)
I mean, here’s the problem – you’re saying he shouldn’t say this, you’re saying he’s wrong, but no one seems to be going the single easiest and most logical next step – that Mormonism is what’s wrong.
He’s not wrong according to the doctrine, and to try to distance Mormonism from the doctrine is the wrong lesson.
It’s the same as all these other religions – the bible says slavery is okay. So instead of saying, “well, let’s forget about the slavery part,” we should say, “let’s forget about the bible because it’s clearly written by someone who’s ideas are bigoted and part of a shameful past.”
“Even their own word, homophobia, is incorrectly used in that it should mean fear of self. It is not always about fear, hatred, or cowardice!”
Typical – let’s whine about the fact that we made up a word to label the type of bigotry that is specifically directed toward LGBTQ people, instead of the ACTUAL issue: that bigotry IS about fear. We fear that which we do not understand. We attack that which we fear.
Why whine about words? Because your bigotry has no credible argument to back it up.
If people run away from inclusive churches, it’s a sign that they were using religion as a crutch for their bigotry.
Even their own word, homophobia, is incorrectly used in that it should mean fear of self.
in the case of someone like Packer, it’s used absolutely correctly, since what that nasty old man fear is humanity. He fears his own human nature, his own soul. That’s why he works so hard to kill the love and tolerance that Jesus would have us cultivate.
It could also mean “fear of men,” since we are “homo sapiens.” And certainly someone like Packer is that kind of homophobe: someone afraid of what would happen if he were to love a man.
Any way you define it, Packer is a homopbobe. Check out the picture here:
http://affirmation.org/news/2010_102.shtml
Retire Boyd!
@Carla #17: What she said. I like her argument better than mine.
Retire Boyd!
Fixed it for you.
cornponebread #15, as it happens, the Pew Center on Religion has published the most comprehensive survey about religion in America only a couple of years ago.
Their numbers show that we are losing five members for every four converts.
We are losing people faster than we can dunk them. Whatever justification there might be for Boyd Packer’s agitation, Mormon retention rates have collapsed in North America.
“I think most people are upset that the Church doesnt accept immoral behavior”
Yes they do! They speak about willful “choosing” of same sex attraction and fuel the fires of self-hatred and despair in a climate when 5 young men have very publicly killed themselves.
I can’t think of more irresponsible and self-righteous immorality.
“Sorry for losing my temper. I just cant take one more LDS church apologist who thinks that they should be patted on the back because they think theyre the only real moral ones around, and everything the church does is gold, or who thinks they and their precious church should be immune to criticism.
How people can rationalise away an epidemic of suicides is beyond me.”
I like how he’s labeled a homophobe, I like how you all pin these suicides on him. His speech came coincidentally, not because of it. Its not like they were sitting around a table planning on pissing off the LGBT community and to piss on the memory of those who committed suicide.
As far as I know, and understand, the churches has never condemned people for having a feeling, condemnation comes from action. If I’m attracted to a guy, and I never act on the feeling, I’ve committed no sin. There are many that struggle with the feeling, but never concede to it. Thats a fact, maybe its a feeling they’ve struggled with their whole life, but regardless, its a struggle that can be OVERCOME. I will say it again for emphasis OVERCOME. As the once alcoholic will still thirst for good ol’ Jack, as man or woman might also struggle continually with that attraction. BUT, they can always find satisfaction in knowing that they did what God wanted them to, if they live in accordance with God’s commandments, and its they who will find the most light and fulfillment for enduring through their struggles.
You all show as much prejudice towards the church as you claim President Packer is showing bigotry. The “God Hates Fags” people are the real bigots. President Packer is not. He did not say that God hates fags, and would burn them all for being sinners. The church has ever taught that God loves all his children, but does not condone all their actions. Jesus was a mirror image of this, he taught compassion and love for all, but did not condone sinful behavior, as was evidenced in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
A homosexual marriage may promote love within a homosexual relationship, but it promotes homosexual sex, and sinful behavior related to it. If the church were to accept homosexual marriages, they have to accept homosexual sex as lawful too. God’s law is to foster the relationship between a husband and wife, to build a family and have an environment to build up successful families to the lord. Sex, in and of itself, is meant as a life bringing tool, to be employed between husband and wife, and bring God’s spirit children into this world. Anything outside of that is an abomination, and its an abomination because it doesn’t follow its purpose.
I’m sorry you all feel the Church is “hateful” and bigots, and think that President Packer is a closet gay, because so many anti gays were. But casting hateful speech his way, and unwarranted claims really only eliminates the any view that you are an objective and openminded group. It only shows that you are what you claim president packer and the church is.
Gad, I am sorry but you really need to educate yourself about what Boyd Packer has said and done to our neighbors and children. Here is the link again:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml
Yet again, I have to point out, the attraction to people of the same sex is not separate from the relationships that stem from it; BOTH are linked as intrinsic parts of a person’s identity. If you hate that a person is gay, then you hate them, because you are saying that a fundamental part of their identity is evil. If you say “acting on those attractions” is a sin, then being gay is a sin. It IS the same thing. http://lifeofcarla.blogspot.com/2010/10/love-sinner.html
First of all, I was not apologising to you, I was apologising to people whose opinions I actually care about and respect.
“It only shows that you are what you claim president packer and the church is.”
Not tolerating intolerance doesn’t make one a hypocrite. Quite the opposite in fact.
And it’s really an atrocious argument to say that your church isn’t bigoted because the WBC is worse. That’s like saying it’s not racist to not allow blacks to eat in your restaurant, sit next to you on a bus, go to your school, or drink from your water fountain because you’re not actually actively lynching them. A (slight) difference in degree doesn’t make a difference in kind.
It’s a pretty solid, educated guess. It’s been studied and essentially proven that the more homophobic you are, the more likely it is that you’re gay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia
Oh, and the entire (not well hidden at all) subtext of Packer’s talk was “God Hates Fags”. If you can’t read between the lines, that’s pretty sad.
It’s just. too. easy.
1. Gay sex doesn’t hurt anyone. LGBT relationships are just as healthy as straight ones. If you deny this, then you deny the ability of science to actually tell us what does and does not cause harm in people’s lives. If you say that, then you are denying the ability of human beings to observe something and draw conclusions. In short, you deny that we have reason at all.
2. If you hate gay sex because you can’t procreate with gay sex, then the Mormon church better be demanding fertility tests of every single person who wants to be married in the temple. Because infertile people can’t have babies either. But you aren’t saying that, are you? No, because it’s not that gay sex doesn’t result in procreation, it’s because you think gay sex is gross, because you’re an immature pervert. LGBT people can adopt and have surrogates or in vitro fertilization just like infertile couples, and studies show their kids are just as well-adjusted, but MORE tolerant and accepting than the children of straight parents.
@ Craig #28 – what he said.
I fail to see how that refutes any point. BTW, effeminate tendancies don’t denote homosexuality.
Also, What about homosexual’s who end up straight? There are some in this category, but you don’t hear about them, you know why? Because it doesn’t agree with the mainstream line of thought. That its inborn, or can be overcome. The point is this; its a confusing issue, and people who have SSA who want to overcome it are confused by both sides, are told that being gay is a sin, but its never defined. They assume that having gay feelings is the sin, so that makes them feel lost and unloved. Then to exacerbate the problem further, they are told its inborn, and it can never be changed, and if they want to change something unchangeable, feelings they have that in their mind, already make them a sinner, then why continue living? And they don’t continue living. And its a tragedy, and the events sorrounding it is a travesty. But let us not forget those who move on, and have overcome their feelings. Are they “cured”? I think not entirely, and i’ll revisit my earlier statement, that its like the recovering alcoholic still thirsting for alcohol. But they are beyond it, they overcame it, and perhaps, they even lost their attraction, but I can’t confirm this unless there were a specific case.
Do not tell me its unacheivable, if there are people who have achieved.
“What about homosexuals who end up straight? There are some in this category, but you dont hear about them…”
Sure you do. You hear about it about 7 years after they’ve married and had 4-6 kids. You hear how “shocked” everyone is that the “marriage” didn’t work out. You hear about the wives who go into depressions and end up on anti-depressants. You hear about the kids who haven’t got a clue why their eternal family is no more and don’t have a father living with them or a mother who can meet their needs any more.
Or, alternatively, you end up with the self-loathing gays like BKP whose lives turn to venom they can only deal with by displacing it and spewing it at others.
You’re living in a world of self-dillusion. Or a very callous fellow.
PS – what “sinful behavior” related to “homosexual sex” are you referring to? Like, blow jobs? Is the Mormon church against BJ’s and HJ’s? Cuz I have to say, nothing “promotes love” in my relationship like some awesome oral action. 😀
Because, contrary to what you really, really, really want to believe – sexuality and gender identity are NOT binary. They’re both on a spectrum. If someone is bisexual, they’re usually only attracted to one sex at a time, and they might go back and forth a few times, or just once. Either way, they didn’t “turn straight.” More like they spun a wheel and it landed on opposite-sex attraction, and it happened not to move again after that.
So what you’re talking about is probably a bisexual person who liked the same sex for a while, then switched to the opposite sex.
If it’s no big deal to have gay feelings, why doe it matter if people speculate that BKP has gay feelings? After all, that’s really the only thing that explains why he’s so damn vehement and certain that being gay can be overcome: because he has first-hand experience with gay lust himself.
Shouldn’t you love and admire him all the more if he really is an example of someone who wanted to do gay stuff, but chose another path? Shouldn’t you love and admire his wife all the more for helping him not be gay? Shouldn’t he be an example of what you find best about the church: that he used it as the tool to help him deny his nature and be this thing you and he think god wants him to be? Why wouldn’t you flat-out embrace the idea that he’s gay–unless you think that someone who’s gay is, really and truly, somehow inferior to someone who is straight?
If the church were to accept homosexual marriages, they have to accept homosexual sex as lawful too.
Homosexual sex IS lawful. It’s no longer a crime to have gay sex. The church has to accept adultery as lawful too. But the fact that adultery isn’t a crime these days doesn’t prevent the church from excommunicating people over it.
Its not like they were sitting around a table planning on pissing off the LGBT community and to piss on the memory of those who committed suicide.
No, it’s not like they really plan very much…. for a bunch of people who claim the gift of prophesy, it’s really remarkable how badly so many of their actions turn out, how ignorant they are of the larger context in which their actions are viewed and evaluated. I’m sure one thing they weren’t planning was to see a huge national backlash…. but here it is.
And as long as they keep with this message, it’s just going to get worse.
GAD, there is not a piece of credible research that supports your views. You are free to believe what you want but that doesn’t make it real.
The American Psychological Association is quite clear about the nature of sexual orientation.
If your faith requires you to reject science then you do not have much more than superstition. We shouldn’t reduce Mormonism to a superstition.
I don’t know if this is actually an attempt to reject the stereotype or not, but kudos if it is. Because it’s based in two stereotypes: 1. men should be “masculine” (which means a narrow definition including toughness, strength, interest in sports, etc) and 2. gay men are “girly” (which means a narrow definition including being emotional, nurturing, being concerned with fashion and home decor, etc)
So no, being “effeminate” doesn’t make you gay. But I don’t see who above was implying that.
“Oh, and the entire (not well hidden at all) subtext of Packers talk was God Hates Fags. If you cant read between the lines, thats pretty sad.”
This statement is absurd in the fact that it only reinforces what I said about how blind you are to the message. Stop spouting off hateful rhetoric and give me some kind of intelligent response, so I can actually believe you’re a reasonable person.
“2. If you hate gay sex because you cant procreate with gay sex, then the Mormon church better be demanding fertility tests of every single person who wants to be married in the temple. Because infertile people cant have babies either. But you arent saying that, are you? No, because its not that gay sex doesnt result in procreation, its because you think gay sex is gross, because youre an immature pervert. LGBT people can adopt and have surrogates or in vitro fertilization just like infertile couples, and studies show their kids are just as well-adjusted, but MORE tolerant and accepting than the children of straight parents.”
Being sterile is one thing, they didn’t choose to be infertile. Just as you, necessarily, don’t choose to have the feelings. I never said gay relationships and families don’t or couldn’t work, i merely stated the fact of what had been established from the beginning, that families were established as husband and wife, who procreate and make children, and then raise those children and teach them righteous principles, to prepare them for the hereafter. I’m sure there are plenty of happy children in families of homosexual couples. I’m grateful we have invetro fertilization, so couples who can’t reproduce on their own can reproduce. But you still can’t take a sperm from a man and impregnate another man, or an egg from a woman and impregnate a woman. Nature is Nature. We are built a certain way, regardless of our feelings. I am a man, and I was born that way. Why can’t we take this as a sign then?
His disproportionate obsession with sexual orientation and his consistently hateful and condemnatory preaching over many years put the blood of those suicides on his hands. When you believe that God hates who you are, that you are an abomination, and when you discover that attempts to “cure” that part of your identity that God supposedly hates are completely futile no matter how hard you try, who wouldn’t want to end their life, rather than endure such a hopeless, lonely existence??
Nature is Nature.
Stop spouting off hateful rhetoric and give me some kind of intelligent response, so I can actually believe youre a reasonable person.
there you go. Someone who traffics in tautologies and entirely rejects scientific evidence (notice how he ignores Hellmut) wants others to provide some kind of intelligent response.
Yes you can. It’s call cloning. They just don’t.
No, you said that gay sex was wrong because you can’t procreate. And you basically said outright that sex is primarily for making babies, as if it didn’t have an essential purpose in bonding! Ever heard of oxytocin? It’s released during sex and birth, and it’s known as the “love hormone.” Because sex is just as much about love and bonding as it is about procreation. Because if you procreate but don’t bond, your kids (in cave man days) had a piss poor chance of surviving with just a mother.
But if you want to change tack and claim the “it’s always been like this!” argument, I’ll direct you to this post: http://archielevine.blogspot.com/2008/11/traditional-marriage-perverts-tradition.html It hasn’t always been one man, one woman. Polygamy was the rule for a very long time, and marriage as we know it today is a very recent concept.
Thing is, there is scientific research done for both ends. There have been studies to suggest that it is not an inborn trait, and studies to suggest that it is. That’s why my arguments have merit, is there is scientific backing for them.
“Shouldnt you love and admire him all the more if he really is an example of someone who wanted to do gay stuff, but chose another path? Shouldnt you love and admire his wife all the more for helping him not be gay? Shouldnt he be an example of what you find best about the church: that he used it as the tool to help him deny his nature and be this thing you and he think god wants him to be? Why wouldnt you flat-out embrace the idea that hes gayunless you think that someone whos gay is, really and truly, somehow inferior to someone who is straight?”
You know, funnily enough, i was going to say the exact same thing to you guys. If he was gay, and came out, and the church said it was ok, you’d have nothing to complain about would you?
Problem with you calling him an excessive homophobe is, he isn’t one. Again, he’s citing the church’s stance, if he were an extreme homophobe he’d tell us all to line up with WBC with God Hates Fags signs, putting down everyone who ever had the slightest attraction to the same gender as the utmost sinner. You just want to vent your anger because the church won’t agree with what the world says it right. You’ll all cite examples and scientific research, but both sides of the case can do the same.
I’m opt to side with Prophets of God on this. I’m sorry that many of you have chosen to be offended over this, and in your anger, have become blinded.
I challenge you all instead to focus fire on the true homophobes, and the true hateful and antigay proponents the ones who are just as hateful to you, as you are to the Church right now. They are your real enemie.
Shouldnt you love and admire him all the more if he really is an example of someone who wanted to do gay stuff, but chose another path? Shouldnt you love and admire his wife all the more for helping him not be gay? Shouldnt he be an example of what you find best about the church: that he used it as the tool to help him deny his nature and be this thing you and he think god wants him to be? Why wouldnt you flat-out embrace the idea that hes gayunless you think that someone whos gay is, really and truly, somehow inferior to someone who is straight?
If Packer were a gay guy who managed to repress his sexuality for the whole of his life, why would I think that was worthy of admiration? Why would a church be good if it enabled people to do that? You’re not making any sense.
The enemies of the pro-equality movement are those who:
1. promote the truly malicious lie that being gay, being openly gay, and/or being in a gay relationship is in any way immoral or unhealthy
2. attempt in any way to prevent LGBTQ people from having full equality in ANY of the following: marriage, employment, housing, immigration, anti-bullying, adoption … There are more of course, but all you need is one to be an enemy of LGBTQ people.
The Mormon institution fills both those criteria. The Mormon institution is an enemy to LGBTQ people.
@ Daniel – Holly was answering Gad’s complaint that people are making guesses about Packer’s sexual orientation. His premise is that the church says a success story is if a guy manages to “overcome” his “same sex attraction.” But then he complains that we’re saying Packer might be gay. It’s a contradiction, because even if he is, it shouldn’t matter, because under their terms, he’s just successfully “overcome” his attraction.
Holly wasn’t saying it’s good to repress your sexuality, just that if they play by their own rules, it shouldn’t bother them that we hypothesize on Packer’s sexual orientation.
OH, BTW, I’m not trying to ignore your responses, its just that theres so many of them, that its hard to respond to them all in a reasonable time limit.
Here are the facts on the discussion:
I have no reason to believe any of you are in any way reasonable. You won’t concede any point. I concede if I am wrong. I will admit it. If I haven’t, I’m sorry I haven’t got around to it, theres a lot of text to read through. All of you just spew hateful speech, with no merit. If you’re UPSET, then be UPSET, but casting about veiled and unveiled insults toward the church gives you the maturity of a 5 year old who hasn’t gotten his way and is throwing a temper tantrum (BTW the response over Prop 8 was much the same. I didn’t see any mormons going out and vandalizing a gay persons property, or boycotting a gay business, but if you do have a documented case, i’m open to reading it if you have a link.) Lets all be rational, not angry, because the LGBT community is all about open mindedness and fairness. Be fair with the church, even if we don’t agree, and that goes with having a mature, calm and rational argument, not mudslinging. If you can’t calm down, go to your room without dinner until you can.
The church has laid out their stance. Take it for what you will. If you don’t agree with it, then leave the church. If you don’t believe what the church does, and you’re not a member of it, then what are you even doing in this argument? What do you care? Live as you please. The church has every right to define its stance and its done it.
I could keep arguing, but it will do no good. You’re all set in your belief, as I am. I’ve typed myself hoarse. Maybe I’ll check back in a day or two and see if there are any rational, objective people here. Meanwhile, I’ll let the blind lead the blind.
GAD,
The real enemy isn’t WBC. They’re so overt, so buffoonish, so easy to dismiss.
The problem is subtle statements like Packer’s that say, in effect, that God loves you and wants you to rise above your unworthy feelings and live happily as a heterosexual, so have faith and work really hard and you can change your feelings.
On the surface, that sounds good and compassionate. The statement is subtly hurtful because, whether you believe it or not, homosexuality isn’t a choice. The scientific consensus based on the preponderance of the evidence supports this. So asking young people to pray and work really hard so they can change is setting them up for failure—desperate, ashamed failure. For some sensitive souls, when they realize that they can never change their feelings, it is enough to come to the logical conclusion (based on their tragic assumptions) that there’s no use in continuing to live.
You’re seeing a lot of anger here. I think we have a right to be angry. If you and I saw someone beating a child, I think we would both be outraged and angry. We see children being abused by BKP’s words and we feel outraged.
There is a real temptation to hate someone who has been the instrument of hurting so many people. I hope that we can all be above the hatred while maintaining and focusing our anger productively.
We need to be heard. Hatred closes people off. We need to point out exactly how hurtful BKP’s statements are and help people realize empathy for the sufferer.
“Holly was answering Gads complaint that people are making guesses about Packers sexual orientation. His premise is that the church says a success story is if a guy manages to overcome his same sex attraction. But then he complains that were saying Packer might be gay. Its a contradiction, because even if he is, it shouldnt matter, because under their terms, hes just successfully overcome his attraction.”
I’m sure he’d let us know, thats the point. But he hasn’t. If he has, i’d be happy for him.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2271&page=1
I’m sure I could find a few more of these, just like you could find a few more to the contrary. Scientific evidence just isn’t going tocover this.
BTW, THIS is my last post for a while. Hahahahah.
We would like to, except the LDS church insists on making a nuisance of itself. By stepping into the public square and opposing civil rights, it makes a target of itself. With all respect, get over it.
I’ll admit when I’m wrong. It’s unfair of you to swoop in an accuse us of being close-minded ideologues. Before making accusations like that, you should either spend some time getting to know us or should check the archives to realize that we are quite reasonable.
Wow, great discussion, which I just now read through at 100+ comments. I guess David F. @ #30 is long gone, but for him and all the others who just can’t understand why people can’t “leave the church alone” or who are clutching their pearls at the “hatefulness” of the rhetoric here, I have a small story that comes from an apostolic source that maybe you can get behind.
When I was still attending, James Faust came and spoke at stake conference in our stake. He told a story about his childhood. He was about 6 years old and going to the cattle round-up for the first time. He was allowed to help with the branding of the cattle. He branded a calf that was being restrained and when he pressed the iron to it, it managed to get one leg free and clipped him in the face with one hoof. He was very upset, as you might imagine a six-year old would be, and angry at the calf. His father, once he’d determined that he wasn’t seriously hurt, calmed him down and told him he couldn’t really blame the calf. It hurt to be branded and the calf was just reacting naturally.
He went on to make the point that we shouldn’t really be surprised or upset and can’t really justifiably complain if we brand somebody and they haul off and clip us one over it. Yeah, it kind of stings to be clocked in the face, but it was something YOU did, something more painful and damaging that caused the reaction.
“Brand somebody a sinner?” said Faust. “Don’t be surprised if you get clipped a good one in the face.” And, I might add, brand somebody immoral, unnatural, an abomination? Why clutch your pearls when people react to that? What the hell did you think was going to happen? It isn’t that people just “can’t leave it alone.” It’s that the church is going around searing people with a pretty nasty branding iron and expecting them to take it quietly. And playing the victim when people end up kicking back.
It is now, because you seem quite rational Jonathan, but I read everything else in this line of discussion, which lead me to beleive the contrary. I’m sorry. Theres at least one. But be objective. Look at both sides, look at the scientific evidence presented for both cases. Don’t assume its in born and unchangeable, if there are people who have gotten past it, and now identify themselves as heterosexual. Change comes from within, from those willing to change. Again, i didn’t think I’d keep posting, but its forefront on my mind. Bleh, I’m going to get to my homework now. Hahahaha!
Just because intolerant churches keep members better than tolerant ones, doesn’t make them right. If anything, it demonstrates that it takes courage to do the right thing and teach tolerance instead of just giving the religious folks what they want.
I wouldn’t recommend forgetting about the Bible — it is important for historical and literary reasons. However, I think it should not be revered as a moral guide (see here).
GAD, I’ve looked over the evidence and weighed it in my mind. The weight of the evidence supports that biological factors outside of an individual’s control play a role in determining sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts do not work and can cause deep psychological damage when people internalize homophobia.
Even if some people apparently change orientation (although it has been suggested that these rare individuals were actually bisexual and therefore acting within their orientation, not changing it (and most of those who seem to have changed actually go back to homosexuality in the long term)), that doesn’t change that there are some individuals who cannot change orientation.
If the LDS church expects all homosexuals to attempt to change their orientation or curb their need for companionship and intimacy, then it is expecting at least some people to do the impossible. It is setting up its believers (many of them impressionable children) for failure which results in them believing they are fundamentally unworthy and unlovable. That is cruel and deserves to be opposed from within and without of the LDS church.
Good luck on your homework. 😉
GAD,
Here’s an analysis of the paper you linked to. (It took me literally one minute to find this.)
Here’s something I just posted about what it means to “resist being gay.”
Here’s something I wrote a while back about calling people bigots.
As for leaving the church alone, I’ll gladly lave it alone when it starts leaving my gay friends alone.
Sorry about the last link. Here it is: Calling people bigots.
I think it’s unfortunate that the CoJCoL-dS has decided to select their leader via race to the grave (“last one in is Prophet!”).
1. It makes it hard to discuss who would make a good leader without it being a discussion of who dies before whom.
2. Even faithful Mormons grant that not all the prophet’s direction come straight from God. Waiting until people are fit for the nursing home before putting them in charge is obviously going to affect the type of leadership you get.
Yeah, witness the kerfuffle at FMH when someone expressed hope that Packer would die before becoming president of the church. I don’t like wishing people dead, but because of how the church has set it up, since I hope Packer never gets to be president, I am forced to hope he dies sooner than Monson.
Every Mormon prophet since Joseph Smith has admitted that inspiration can be misleading. That’s what D&C 9 is all about.
Speaking of “legalizing immorality,” take a look at how the “family values” guys vote when the topic is rape: video.
By coincidence, that one showed up in my reader right after this video about the “It Gets Better” project. Watch them back-to-back, like I did. It’s an interesting contrast…
Gad, while researchers are looking at all kind of factors that might contribute to sexual orientation, every single one of them considers homosexuality a biological trait that cannot be changed.
Here is a summary of the existing research:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Packer is wrong about the nature of homosexuality. Rather than looking at the facts, he begins with dogmatic assumptions and then deduces this and that. Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts his reasoning.
A humble person would accept that and change his or her opinions accordingly. That takes a lot of courage.
I was just reading that thread — it inspired my comment. 😉
By the same token, if you want him to be president, you’re saying you want Monson to die first…
@GAD 98: Im sure [Packer]d let us know [if he were gay], thats the point. But he hasnt. If he has, id be happy for him.
Oh, so you know how GA’s always behave? You know what’s in their hearts? And they’re always open and forthcoming about their personal struggles? Members always get details on GA’s sex lives? We’re wrong to speculate about their behavior and motivation based on what we’ve seen of them and others who take similar [wide] stances, but you are SURE Packer would let us KNOW if he was gay?
WHY are you sure?
@Belaja 100: Brand somebody a sinner? said Faust. Dont be surprised if you get clipped a good one in the face. And, I might add, brand somebody immoral, unnatural, an abomination? Why clutch your pearls when people react to that? What the hell did you think was going to happen? It isnt that people just cant leave it alone. Its that the church is going around searing people with a pretty nasty branding iron and expecting them to take it quietly. And playing the victim when people end up kicking back.
That’s a terrific story. Thanks.
Here’s a terrific piece discussing the likelihood that Packer is gay (and I’m becoming more persuaded by the minute)
http://mollymuses.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-post-that-will-get-me-excommunicated/
96 – I’m not sure if GAD is still here and commenting, but I wanted to respond to this. I can’t speak to mormons specifically, but a local cookie business was recently written up (possibly losing their business license) because they refused to make rainbow cookies for a coming out day celebration. So yes, this type of thing happens all the time. The difference is that the tipping point has happened. Forty years ago, no one would have blinked twice over a group not having a cookie order fulfilled. It would not have been a news story.
The argument over prop.8 and property is interesting. Isn’t taking away property exactly what prop. 8 did to families? GLBT people who aren’t married can’t inherit property if one spouse dies. Or visiting a spouse in the ER? Married hetero couples have many, many advantages – some of which they don’t even realize they have. So to your argument about property – yes, it was as if mormon (and others in CA who supported yes on 8) took away rights and property from GLBT people.
For the record, many of us here (and elsewhere) denounced the graffiti and any destruction of property of the mormon community. Just as I don’t assume that all mormons supported prop. 8, I also don’t assume that everyone approved of the actions of a few.
But boycotting businesses is a perfectly acceptable form of protest, one that has been around for quite some time (since the days of boycotting sugar to protest slavery).
To everyone who keeps arguing with GAD that homosexuality is a “biological trait” and therefore Packer should stop his rhetoric, I just have to say that Mormon leaders considered the biological argument long ago and have since decided that whether or not it’s biological, people have control over their behavior. The reason I say this is because talking about biology will fall on deaf ears since Mormons put theology over science. So, the idea that it’s about love rather than scientific fact will have more credence in the long run. Most of the GAs, in fact, don’t expect people to change their orientations, but to simply adapt to the Mormon lifestyle, which everyone can do. The question is whether they should.
Good point, Alan. But that is part of the problem with Packer’s speech. He is denying what other Mormon leaders have already acknowledged.
To paraphrase a Mormon slogan, denial has never led to happiness.
Alan,
Some people, like we see in this thread, are still claiming that orientation is a choice. BKP said as much in his talk.
Also, the biology angle is an important part of the love argument. If a person can’t change their orientation because it is biologically determined, then telling them that their orientation is immoral and unnatural and less worthy than heterosexuals means that they will always be immoral and unnatural and less worthy. That’s a heartbreaking, cruel thing to tell a child.
That’s like telling a little child, “You are so ugly. You will always be ugly. No one will ever want you. You are such a freak!” That is the antithesis of love.
Jonathan,
Exactly, which is why church leaders can’t say that an orientation is biologically determined. You have to get into these guys’ heads. If you read through Dallin Oaks’ stances on this topic, he says whether or not orientation can be changed, behavior is important (whereas Packer probably still thinks it can be changed through behavior). No leaders have said it can’t be changed, because of how this makes people “naturally immoral” and even the scientific community would never say its 100% unchangeable, but rather that it’s highly unlikely (putting things in terms of 100% is unscientific). Personally, I think all the sciencey talk obscures the real issue, which is that being gay is a normal variant of human sexuality and not to be shunned.
Agreed.
I guess I was never really trying to talk to LDS leaders. They won’t listen to me. I’m hoping that my LDS friends will. Maybe they can make their wards and stakes less toxic. And maybe they can get their leadership to keep their uncharitable opinions to themselves.
The reason I say “get into these guys’ heads” is because their source material has a lot of rich content that frames the current discussion, and well, Mormon correlate. If you help people realize why their leadership thinks the way it does, rather than throwing out arguments that their leaders have already taken stances on (such as the biological one), then it creates an intellectual disjoint between the people and the leadership. The leadership are forced to adapt if they wish to remain leaders.
I think I need an example to understand what you’re proposing.
I don’t know of a specific example, but the premise is simple. If you empower a population with the context of both sides of an argument (say, biology versus choice), rather than just argue one side or the other, then that works better.
OK, now I’m really confused. I thought that was what I was doing. 🙂
Or rather, I thought the argument for choice was presented by the LDS church, therefore no need to present it.
I think I really need an example. Sorry to be dogged about it, but if you can’t think of an example, then I have no hope to come up with one.
Boyd Packer has condemned even celibate gays as evil, and then claims that God wouldn’t make people gay. It’s words like his that drive Mormon teenagers to suicide.
In fact, according to the Book of Job, God has inflicted righteous people in terrible ways to show that they still loved Him. The children who teased Job because of his afflictions were eaten by dogs sent by God.
Boyd Packer you’d better listen for the sound of barking. The Hounds of Hell will be after your black soul.
oh my… I feel so WHINEY. I am gay. Gay and I just can’t stand it that people won’t redefine marriage to help me feel better about myself. Whine whine whine..
oh whine whine… I just know that if only I was allowed the fiction of pretending to be married while still whoring around in gay clubs with strangers. whine whine whine…
Mean ol’ Boyd Packer shouldn’t tell it like it is that way. It just makes me feel so.. Whiney. I just can’t grow up… I guess I’m destined to live my whiney, immature, boy-cuddling, apostle hating life.
I’m Mormon. Mormon and I just can’t stand that people exist who are different from me and refuse to be ashamed of it. I can’t stand it that people won’t hide who they are or live by my standards in order to make me feel more comfortable and never have to question my beliefs or challenge my assumptions, or face the fact that I’m a massive bigot.
Those mean old gays should just shut up and let me tell them exactly what rights they do and do not deserve. Everyone should treat my religious leaders with deference and never criticise what they say, even when they demean and dehumanise millions just for being different. All Americans should accept my church’s narrow definition of marriage, and forget the fact that we’re being massive hypocrites and ignore how we redefined traditional marriage and got discriminated against for it.
Oh my, I am feeling so bitchy and whiney today.
My real name is Craig and I am a gay whiney loserman and I post back and forth to myself because I have no self respect and don’t really like anything decent about life or this world. Full of self loathing… and hating apostles who just tell it like it is, all I can do is hate ….
and whine whine whine…
Don’t feed the troll.
Craig! You angered it!! Fuck, get the meat! GET THE MEAT!!
PS I like how the troll tries to make “boy-cuddling” sound like an insult when that’s one of the best things about gay men. Just my opinion … don’t judge. Also, it’s totally hot.
“I like how the troll tries to make boy-cuddling sound like an insult”
And it’s interesting how once again the anti-gay troll has said the gayest thing of anybody on the thread. (What straight guy would think of “boy-cuddling”?) It’s like they can’t talk about gay issues without letting their real feelings show through somehow or other.
How is boy cuddling an insult? I am just a gay whiner. If I sound gay, its because I am… But I whine about it cause that’s how I am. Constantly. And I piss and moan because the Mormon Church won’t bend to my wishes. If only they would just bend over and let me have my way with them, then maybe I wouldn’t feel so bad. God, I hate myself. And I hate the Apostles….. who insist on telling it like it is.
Whine whine whine whine whine…..
Let’s all please stick with what Hellmut said about feeding the troll.
WhineyLoserman — you are welcome to make a substantive contribution to this discussion if you have something substantive to say. Please see our commenting policy.
Here is my substantive comment:
We Whiners hate it when we are confronted with the truth about ourselves.
We run around upset and then set up blogs on the internet to whine about how people abuse us and gather other whiners around us to all join together in our mutual misery and to celebrate our hatred of the people who we do not like. But we do it all in an atmosphere of openness: “Lets all be free and open and accepting of our mutual negativity”.
That’s my substantive comment.
We whiners want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to criticize everyone we dislike and think oppress us, but we can’t stand it when we get criticized for being EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE.
I think it’s had its chance to contribute something substantive and that this latest failed attempt was its last.
So Chino, why you h8tn’ on me? I make a substantive comment and you just h8 me for it?
Goodbye.
The ‘CODE”
The ‘CODE” This man has lost his core ability to connect with God – EGO is his choice. His stature is small and his sexuality itself,ambiguous. I believe he understands though resistence.
Don’t you know I’m still whinin
better than I ever did
Looking like a true mainstreeter,
feeling up a little kid
I’m still whinin after all this time
Picking up the tricks of whinin hard by comin to this site
I’m still whinin
yeah yeah yeah
I’m still whinin
yeah yeah yeah
The best part is that people who advocate immorality are about 99% more likely to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and poor relationships. No, this isn’t an actual statistic, so don’t be ignorant and tell me to fact check. It’s just logic (If dudes were meant to sleep together, they wouldn’t have to adopt. If it was right to have sex outside of marriage, you probably wouldn’t get chlamydia).
Have fun with your AIDS and divorces, guys.
Hmm, in the question of logic vs. ignorance: Which one goes with fact-checking & actual evidence, and which one goes with pulling absurd, invented statistics out of the air?
Will this hateful rhetoric continue once Boyd K. Packer has passed on? Sadly, yes, for at least another 60 years (I’m assuming Naranjas is 12 years old with a life expectancy of 72). Speaking of relationships, I feel sorry for his media naranja.