counsel vs. commandment


Guest mysticmorini
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's EXACTLY why I said " even as some may be born with the proclivity".  Maybe I should have said "even IF...".  It doesn't matter whether it's nurture or nature!    Elder Packer's quote is STILL correct.

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm writing in a foreign (to you) language... I seem to have a hard time having people understand what I'm saying.  :(

Is having same sex attraction inborn or not? are you/can you be born with it? If you are born with it aren't we setting the bar pretty high for those individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is having same sex attraction inborn or not? are you/can you be born with it? If you are born with it aren't we setting the bar pretty high for those individuals?

 

Nobody knows and IT DOESN'T MATTER.

 

I am born with IED.  Do you think I should just go and throw knives at anybody that makes me mad?  Do I think that the bar is set pretty high for me for having a commandment that says, Thou Shalt Not Wring Other People's Necks?

 

Note:  Although I'm making IED sound funny, it is very very serious for me.  I have 2 children and a husband that are living victims of it.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Packer doesn't take a position on nature/nurture in this quote. All he is saying is that some people think they have no choice but to give in to their homosexual temptations, and that those people are incorrect on that point. That's all.

 

He never says whether those temptations originate in nature or nurture. The church also hasn't taken a position on that. As far as I can see, neither has anyone on the thread. We just don't know.

 

Do you see where we're getting this omega? Or is it still unclear?

Edited by Josiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows and IT DOESN'T MATTER.

 

I am born with IED.  Do you think I should just go and throw knives at anybody that makes me mad?  Do I think that the bar is set pretty high for me for having a commandment that says, Thou Shalt Not Wring Other People's Necks?

 

Note:  Although I'm making IED sound funny, it is very very serious for me.  I have 2 children and a husband that are living victims of it.

Improvised Explosive Device?

 

I'll try not to upset you.

 

I am joking I hope you take it as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Improvised Explosive Device?

 

I'll try not to upset you.

 

I am joking I hope you take it as such. 

 

Of course.

 

But... I do look at it as IED - explosive device.  It can get that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why yes. Putting off the natural man and being willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us is setting the bar pretty high.

Sure I get it fundamentally, but we are talking about an inborn desire here. Not I started smoking when I was 12 and now can't quit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure I get it fundamentally, but we are talking about an inborn desire here. Not I started smoking when I was 12 and now can't quit. 

 

When we talk about "inborn desire" many seem to rule out that humans are an intelligent species - capable of learning.  There has been a lot of science done concerning how humans learn and the effects of learning.  I could reference studies by Skinner and Pavlov - but perhaps the best and most informative were done in Germany by the Nazis headed by Joseph Goebbels - that did extensive studies in what is called the lowest cognitive levels of learning - also considered a form or element of brain washing.  The result as characterized by the notorious Dr. Goebbels - is that such learned (or acquired) behavior will be understood by the learner to be "inborn desires" or in other words - that they were born that way.

 

Dr Goebbels also demonstrated that behaviors learned in conjunction to the release of various "stimulants" from the human brain or introduction of similar artificial drugs are the most difficult to over come or "relearn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure I get it fundamentally, but we are talking about an inborn desire here. Not I started smoking when I was 12 and now can't quit. 

 

What's your point?  That the Church has a moral responsibility to ensure that its standards don't prevent a person from acting on a particular desire, so long as it can be demonstrated that the desire is truly "inborn"?

 

I think Packer's sermon would squarely refute this--not because of the theme leftists have contrived for it (this nonsense about Packer supposedly saying homosexuality is not inborn), but because of its actual theme--that who we are does not dictate what we must do, and that we are fundamentally free to throw off our predispositions to do evil.  In a word--repentance.

 

 

This for starters:

 

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.
Spencer W. KimballSpencer W. Kimball, "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball," p. 303

 

 

As Josiah eloquently points out, a big part of "context" is reading the rest of the sermon.  So, let's do that:

 

 

When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn't a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise.

 

The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor's degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

 

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

 

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

 

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.

 

It's interesting to me that folks who criticize Kimball never engage with his discussion of the statistics, or the actual problems that really do crop up when a couple is trying to blend disparate cultural traditions.   Critiques usually boil down to something along the lines of "well, I chose a different path, and the world didn't blow up, and Kimball's statements offend me.  So, the man must be pooh-poohed; and to Hades with the statistics and to Hades with the real-life problems and to Hades with the dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of LDS youth who may have actually dodged a bullet by following that advice."

 

I don't know whether Kimball's advice is still timely today given globalization, the internet, increased ethnic diversity in the US, et cetera.  I do agree that a surfeit of left-wing bigots have created an atmosphere such that even if Kimball's advice is still empirically true, there is still a devastating social cost to speaking that truth aloud.  So in that regard--Mission Accomplished, or something, I guess . . .

 

Whether applicable today or not, Kimball's statements were born of repeatedly trying to mediate marital disputes in his various ecclesiastical offices, over a period of decades--and Kimball, you may recall, reserved a special place in his ministry for Native Americans.  It's one thing to suggest that Kimball's advice was generally applicable then but not now.  But it takes a heck of a lot of chutzpah to suggest that this wizened, experienced counselor was in truth some kind of sheltered, doddering ninny who didn't have a clue what he was talking about even at the time he said it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reformatted just a tad for clarity:

 

This is the actual quote from LDS.org:

 

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. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.” 13 

 

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father. 

 

So is homosexuality is not a preset or inborn temptation? According to Elder Packer, can we agree he said this?

 

No, he did NOT say that. Rather, he said it is false that people are "preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure I get it fundamentally, but we are talking about an inborn desire here. Not I started smoking when I was 12 and now can't quit. 

 

I have inborn desires to commit adultery/fornication. It's true! Guess what...I've never done it, and I'm not planning on doing it. Doesn't matter if I ever get married or not, or anything else. It won't happen. What does that tell you? I've got more inborn desires for sin too, if you need more examples. Everyone does.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay the difficulty of temptation faced by those who are homosexual. I'm fully convinced that their challenges in the chastity department are quite a bit tougher than what I deal with. I acknowledge that. My point is, the fact that a temptation is inborn doesn't justify giving in to it. President Packer's point is that it is completely possible with the Savior's help to resist homosexual temptations, whether they are inborn or acquired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Yet again, please quit dodging the question. What is unrealistic about Elder Kimball's teachings?

I already referred you to my post #71.

Times have changed, and when this "counsel" was given they already had. The context added by another poster only makes it more appalling.

I'm a Harley rider and when Harley riders are asked why we ride Harleys we reply "if I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand".

Should people be careful whom they marry? Sure. But that "coursel" is really out of bounds IMNSHO.

Edit. I know you love the prophets and want to defend them. I love them too. But one cannot defend the indefensible.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already referred you to my post #71.

Times have changed, and when this "counsel" was given they already had. The context added by another poster only makes it more appalling.

I'm a Harley rider and when Harley riders are asked why we ride Harleys we reply "if I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand".

Should people be careful whom they marry? Sure. But that "coursel" is really out of bounds IMNSHO.

Edit. I know you love the prophets and want to defend them. I love them too. But one cannot defend the indefensible.

 

MMarklin... I'm Filipino married to an American.   Pres. Kimball is right.  As a matter of fact, my parents told me the exact same thing but they went one step farther and cut me off when I married my husband.  They are also right.  And if I have to explain why I think they're right - you wouldn't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already referred you to my post #71.

Times have changed, and when this "counsel" was given they already had. The context added by another poster only makes it more appalling.

I'm a Harley rider and when Harley riders are asked why we ride Harleys we reply "if I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand".

Should people be careful whom they marry? Sure. But that "coursel" is really out of bounds IMNSHO.

Edit. I know you love the prophets and want to defend them. I love them too. But one cannot defend the indefensible.

 

If you think there are no special challenges in multi-cultural marriages, explain the existence of articles like this one or this one or this one.  If you think multi-cultural marriages do not now, and did not in Kimball's lifetime, have a higher failure rate--let's have the statistics. 

 

But refusing to have that discussion and falling back onto the crutch of "he's wrong (and appalling!) because I say he's wrong (and appalling!)" is textbook bigotry.

 

And, your scare quotes around the word "counsel" somewhat undercuts your suggestion that you have any real respect or affection for the individuals who gave that counsel.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MMarklin... I'm Filipino married to an American.   Pres. Kimball is right.  As a matter of fact, my parents told me the exact same thing but they went one step farther and cut me off when I married my husband.  They are also right.  And if I have to explain why I think they're right - you wouldn't understand.

 

Are you going to get a divorce?  I know you're against it, but your statement above gives me pause.  Are you that unhappy with your inter cultural marriage?

 

I'm happy with mine.  I'm glad my wife and I ignored the "counsel".  I disagreed with it then and my opinion has not changed to this day.

 

AFAIK my children have suffered no adverse consequences from our marriage as well.  They're all well into adulthood.  I hope yours are doing well.

 

With the now very multicultural church that we have in 2015 I would hope that the only decision a member would have to make about his/her partner is whether or not they are good members of the church with those kind of goals in mind.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already referred you to my post #71.

 

Yes, you did. And it did not answer the question. You made an assertion; now please support it. For the fourth time: What is unrealistic about Elder Kimball's teachings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the second and last time I´ll post it here, I already posted earlier.

 

NOT all documents and books written by a prophet are official, because:

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 278). Prophets have the right to personal opinions. Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, their discourses to the Saints and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded.
Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, (4-6) When Are the Words of Living Prophets to Be Considered as Scripture? 
 
 
So unfortunately there are many people who read PERSONAL opinions of the prophets, like NON official church books they wrote and have it as revelation, but personal opinions are no revelations only those given to the saints like general conference and Ensign.
 
 
https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng here is this link for example  The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.
 
Of course there are many personal opinions, sometimes prophets use non official quotes from those books in general conference because there are in harmony with church, but it doesn´t mean the whole book is correct.
 
Same way as Gordon B. Hinckey used Mother Theresa quotes which are in harmony with church doctrine, but not everything she said is in harmony with church doctrine.
 
The ONLY person who can for surely use those quotes are prophets, not we, because WE might use something which is not in harmony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to get a divorce?  I know you're against it, but your statement above gives me pause.  Are you that unhappy with your inter cultural marriage?

 

I'm happy with mine.  I'm glad my wife and I ignored the "counsel".  I disagreed with it then and my opinion has not changed to this day.

 

AFAIK my children have suffered no adverse consequences from our marriage as well.  They're all well into adulthood.  I hope yours are doing well.

 

With the now very multicultural church that we have in 2015 I would hope that the only decision a member would have to make about his/her partner is whether or not they are good members of the church with those kind of goals in mind.

 

 

I already addressed this:

 

 

A white person marrying a black person in 1965 in the United States of America would have gigantic obstacles.  An Arab marrying a Jew in today's Middle East would have gigantic obstacles.

 

I am a Filipino married to an American - even with the Philippines being an American commonwealth for a while with the same teachings on the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I can tell you with all my being that I wouldn't advice anybody doing so.

 

My marriage is working, not because I think the Prophets are wrong, but because my husband and I both acknowledge that the Prophets are right and that we have to seek God's will and doubly triply quadruply guard our marriage against the promised pitfalls of such a union.

 

But note - marriage is a union with Eternal consequences and at the point where my husband was placed infront of me, our eternal path was forged from which I have gained very very vast eternal blessings.  If it was just a tattoo and ear-piercings, I wouldn't bother with going against the counsel of the prophets.  For what am I to gain from such?  A beautiful butterfly on my ankle?  For what eternal purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share