President Boyd K. Packer – Sunday a.m. session

[Wingnut]

No I don't have personal knowledge of the process. It just seems logical that that's about how it would go. I still don't think the changes are a big deal.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh I agree that the council isn't to "go straight". :) I'm just saying that some people don't seem to "get" that SSA isn't a "switch" that can be flipped on and off with enough effort. For the vast majority of people dealing with it it's something they'll be dealing with for life.

That's why I believe we need to show a whole lot of compassion for people dealing with SSA because, for many of them, if they choose to remain in the church, it means a lifetime of celebacy and singleness. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to have to go through life without even having the hope of having a deep emotional and physical committed relationship with someone in this life. I know there are hetero people who also face that kind of life, but for them there's at least a *chance* at them meeting someone they could marry. Not so for people dealing with SSA who simply cannot form that kind of attraction to someone of the opposite sex. And dealing with that in a very family-focused church has to be very lonely.

Thanks, yes I agree. That has to be one of the toughest challenges there is. Maybe that is why only a small percentage have it, they are special enough spirits that have the strength to be faced with such challenges. Wherever there is more difficult challenge in life, the greater the reward.

I have had that conversation with a friend of mine who has SSA that there should be no reason to even debate the issue of whether they are born with it or not, I would assume that they are "born" with that encoding, just like any challenge that is given to us via our body's predispositions.

[Just_A_Guy]

When the senior Apostle speaks at general conference isn't that talk basically considered scripture? So which version are we to stick with, the spoken version, or the written version?

As was pointed out in a discussion now occuring over at Nine Moons, which versions of the revelations that now form the D&C are we to "stick with"?

Again I ask the question, is the proclamation to the family a revelation or a guide? Obviously a revelation carries more weight, so why was that emphasis downplayed in the text version?

I just re-watched the video version. Elder Packer stumbles (briefly) at about this point in his talk; I think it's at least arguable that he's going off-script in this particular instance.

At any rate, what does it matter? Last year's Primary curriculum (which was presumably approved by the same Correlation boogeymen some now hint have reined Packer in) called it "revelation". If you didn't believe it then, you wouldn't have believed it now even if Elder Packer's original text had been allowed to stand.

[Wingnut]

Additionally, nothing stated in the family proclamation is new information. None of it is anything we didn't know or that wasn't taught prior to 1995. So does that make it a revelation or a guide? If it's not new, then really, is it a revelation, or just a compilation with focus? Wouldn't that be a guide?

But again, why does that matter?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Additionally, nothing stated in the family proclamation is new information. None of it is anything we didn't know or that wasn't taught prior to 1995. So does that make it a revelation or a guide? If it's not new, then really, is it a revelation, or just a compilation with focus? Wouldn't that be a guide?

But again, why does that matter?

I'm pretty sure the family proclamation as a whole is doctrine. But I suppose it could be considered a comprehensive guide to all doctrines concerning family as well.

[GaySaint]

I've been staying away from this one for some personal reasons... but I had a friend of mine point out that the other part that was edited from the talk was the part about the Family Proclaimation being revelation...

I thought that was interesting too... Maybe a topic for another thread, even.

[Wingnut]

I'm pretty sure the family proclamation as a whole is doctrine. But I suppose it could be considered a comprehensive guide to all doctrines concerning family as well.

I agree with both those statements. That's my point. Why are we focused on the semantics, and "looking beyond the mark?"

[Soulsearcher]

I agree with both those statements. That's my point. Why are we focused on the semantics, and "looking beyond the mark?"

Cause right now the semantic in this talk has a lot of members saying " see, we told you you weren't born like this, so drop the excuses because you can get rid of it if you want, now either do it or admit you are just going against god" or so i've been told by a few members since the talk.

[Wingnut]

That's my point, Soul. That is not what people should be focusing on. Whether same-sex attraction is inborn/genetic/whatever or not is not doctrine. We should be focusing on the doctrine that President Packer taught, not on the semantics.

[Soulsearcher]

That's my point, Soul. That is not what people should be focusing on. Whether same-sex attraction is inborn/genetic/whatever or not is not doctrine. We should be focusing on the doctrine that President Packer taught, not on the semantics.

I agree, though sadly they see this as a statement of a shift in doctrine. What one sees as semantics, others see as a battle cry.

[Jenamarie]

I agree, though sadly they see this as a statement of a shift in doctrine. What one sees as semantics, others see as a battle cry.

Honest question: battle cry of what? I don't have many day-to-day dealings with gay people, and have never had anything like a close friendship or aquaintanceship with someone who is gay, so I don't "know" a lot about how they see/experience the world.

Could you explain to me what they see Pres. Packer's talk as being a "battle cry" for? I mean, they knew the LDS church has a strong history of being against gay marriage. Is there something else that his talk has added to that stance?

[zippy_do46]

Divide and conquer?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Honest question: battle cry of what? I don't have many day-to-day dealings with gay people, and have never had anything like a close friendship or aquaintanceship with someone who is gay, so I don't "know" a lot about how they see/experience the world.

Could you explain to me what they see Pres. Packer's talk as being a "battle cry" for? I mean, they knew the LDS church has a strong history of being against gay marriage. Is there something else that his talk has added to that stance?

There isn't. His point is that people are making something out of it that isn't actually there.

[Soulsearcher]

Honest question: battle cry of what? I don't have many day-to-day dealings with gay people, and have never had anything like a close friendship or aquaintanceship with someone who is gay, so I don't "know" a lot about how they see/experience the world.

Could you explain to me what they see Pres. Packer's talk as being a "battle cry" for? I mean, they knew the LDS church has a strong history of being against gay marriage. Is there something else that his talk has added to that stance?

Some members are using this as "proof" that this is 100% a choice. Gay people at some point in life say, "hey i'm gay" and so think it means it can be changed just as easy. The issues i and others took with this is that no the church doesn't say "yes this can be cured that easy" they say don't act on it and try to live the gospel. Gay's are worried that this will go back to the days where gays were told it's a sickness to be cured and that they just need to live a normal life, get married, go through therapy, and if it doesn't get better it's all their fault.

I should also clarify I don't think that Packer meant it the way some people are taking it, i believe he was addressing the urges not the biology .

Edited October 9, 2010 by Soulsearcher
Clarification

[dorave]

I agree with both those statements. That's my point. Why are we focused on the semantics, and "looking beyond the mark?"

Why? does it trouble you?

[Daniel2020]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1 Corinthians 6:9)

I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness (2 Nephi 9:40)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; (Isaiah 5:20)

Wickedness never was happiness. (Alma 41:40)

t is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 16:15)

For the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)

As Elder Body K Packard, President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in his address entitled “Cleansing the Inner Vessel” delivered during the Sunday Morning, October 2010 session of the 180th General Conference, “We are free to ignore the commandments, but when the revelations speak in such blunt terms…we had better pay attention.”

Although some want to kick against the pricks, it's true that "the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness" and "the wages of sin are death." The life and death of these modern day "sodomites" asset to the truthfulness of the scriptures. Edited October 10, 2010 by pam

[livyb]

I am slightly confused as to what you are saying here Daniel?

It should be a heartbreaking, soulwrenching surprie whenever anyone takes their own life.

[Just_A_Guy]

Daniel -

So, since we can't stone 'em, we just drive 'em to suicide?

That's revolting. Even Elder Packer himself wouldn't take that position.

[Jenamarie]

Daniel -

So, since we can't stone 'em, we just drive 'em to suicide?

That's revolting. Even Elder Packer himself wouldn't take that position.

ITA. I am just.... I don't even know what to say to that kind of post...

[pam]

Thread closed.