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
#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.
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.