lds backlash from gay community cnn.com

[bcguy]

I read it and only take the talks of the 70 in a discussion like this as what the LDS leaders would normally say and is nothing new. If the gay community don't like it, then turn off the tv.

Mormon leader's remarks spark outcry on same-sex issues – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[Gwen]

please read ALL of this thread before commenting further..... http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/35049-protest-gay-rights-outside-mormon-church-offices.html

[rameumptom]

I think the key is that we are combining into one pile several different, but related issues.

First, we have to realize that there is possibly/probably a genetic trait involved in homosexuality, just as there is for disposition towards addictions.

Second, We love the sinner, hate the sin. Yet must realize that just because we hate the sin, does not make it any easier for the person with the struggle. Once an alcoholic, always in mortality an alcoholic....

Third, As Christians, we are to show love and kindness to those around us, even if we do not agree with their choices. We can focus on the things that unite us, rather than those that tear us apart. And we can give encouragement to all to live the commandments. Except for judges in Israel (bishops), we really should not be judging those around us. We have beams in our own eyes to work on.

Fourth, don't read too much into what people say or write. For Pres Packer, his statements, and especially once revised in print, are mild compared to statements made in the past by several General Authorities. Want something harsh? Read Pres Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness regarding homosexuality. I think Pres Packer's talk was several levels softer than that, and we should put such things into perspective. It does no one any good to allow Satan to rile us up into anger over statements made. That is Satan's goal: divide us and fill us with anger and hatred. Comments and blog posts throughout the Bloggernacle show a lot of hurt feelings, primarily because people chose to be outraged, rather than calmly and prayerfully considering the statements and the context, etc. Radicalism on either side divides us, and is unworthy of those who wish to be Saints.

Fifth, we can disagree with comments from apostles. I disagree with comments and writings made from some of them. But we should be careful not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed. Such is the way towards apostasy. Discourse can be made in a calm and loving form - setting the Christ-like example that needs to be in the center of any discourse.

Finally, anyone with a temptation, whether from a genetic trait or addiction, etc., can endure to the end keeping the commandments. It is not easy for any of us with such a struggle to maintain. Many of us suffer from loneliness, addictions or temptations that we deal with quietly every day of our lives. But we can do it. It requires looking forward with faith that God will fix us or the problem in the next life, to our full satisfaction, if we are just faithful now. Our focus in life must be in studying and pondering the things that will spiritually lift us. A little (or a lot) loneliness or thirst for the forbidden can be endured with peace, joy and hope, if we place our trust in Christ.

[Wingnut]

Does this topic qualify as a political discussion yet?

[prisonchaplain]

Does this topic qualify as a political discussion yet?

Not at all. The purpose of the "political discussion" restriction, during election seasons, is to avoid any semblance of advocacy from this site, or its parent non-profit, the MoreGood Foundation. Supporting particular candidates, condemning particular candidates, or advocating for or against issues or referendums that are actually on ballots--those are the types of strings that would receive close scrutiny.

[prisonchaplain]

As for this issue...the GLBT community has gone too far. How dare they condemn a religious talk given during an official church conference as hate-speech that might lead to suicide??? This is the ugliest form of social censorship. It is the very kind of blackballing that religious conservatives have been warning about for decades--that the day would come when it would be a crime to cite passages of the Bible, such as Romans 1, from a pulpit.

We were called cranks, conspiracy theoriests, whiners, and we were told--by this same community--that never would the ludicrous rules that infect Sweden, and much of Europe, hit our shores. Apparently, this is now what they are driving towards.

This campaign is even more insidious though. Rather than legislating religious censorhsip, they are using fear and intimidation to bully religious speakers, hoping and expecting that they will self-censor.

The crux of this discussion appears to be whether same-sex attraction is a hardwired, 100% biological condition--as natural as race. Despite what these SSA protestors are saying, the science is still out on that matter. Predisposition? Very likely. Pure biology? Unproven!

I've said this before...but if there is any blessing in all this, the controversy, and the criticism your church bares, may actually win you some friends in the broader religious community.

[Soulsearcher]

As for this issue...the GLBT community has gone too far. How dare they condemn a religious talk given during an official church conference as hate-speech that might lead to suicide??? This is the ugliest form of social censorship. It is the very kind of blackballing that religious conservatives have been warning about for decades--that the day would come when it would be a crime to cite passages of the Bible, such as Romans 1, from a pulpit.

We were called cranks, conspiracy theoriests, whiners, and we were told--by this same community--that never would the ludicrous rules that infect Sweden, and much of Europe, hit our shores. Apparently, this is now what they are driving towards.

This campaign is even more insidious though. Rather than legislating religious censorhsip, they are using fear and intimidation to bully religious speakers, hoping and expecting that they will self-censor.

The crux of this discussion appears to be whether same-sex attraction is a hardwired, 100% biological condition--as natural as race. Despite what these SSA protestors are saying, the science is still out on that matter. Predisposition? Very likely. Pure biology? Unproven!

I've said this before...but if there is any blessing in all this, the controversy, and the criticism your church bares, may actually win you some friends in the broader religious community.

Point of clarification. They weren't against the talk so much as what people think was said in the talk. As said in the other thread that was linked earlier many many many many many many many times. The crux of the discussion isn't biological vs learned as again said many many many many many many many many many times in the other thread. The crux is how the complete denial of biological has been used as a manner to beat down those who are still living a pure life but still feel the same sex attractions. Not acting or encouraging the desires, but still having them. When a homosexual is living the gospel, has a recommend and is in good standing, members have still been known to tell him he's still sinning and selfish because he's not straight. The protest was a request to the church to please for once clarify that we do not know the reasons why homosexuals are homosexual, but that changing into straight isn't always an option and that maybe just maybe we need less guessing and judgment. But all of this was said over 17 pages in the previous thread so i know you know that these were the differences already PC :)

[Just_A_Guy]

As for this issue...the GLBT community has gone too far. How dare they condemn a religious talk given during an official church conference as hate-speech that might lead to suicide??? This is the ugliest form of social censorship. It is the very kind of blackballing that religious conservatives have been warning about for decades--that the day would come when it would be a crime to cite passages of the Bible, such as Romans 1, from a pulpit.

We were called cranks, conspiracy theoriests, whiners, and we were told--by this same community--that never would the ludicrous rules that infect Sweden, and much of Europe, hit our shores. Apparently, this is now what they are driving towards.

This campaign is even more insidious though. Rather than legislating religious censorhsip, they are using fear and intimidation to bully religious speakers, hoping and expecting that they will self-censor.

:clap::clap:

Point of clarification. They weren't against the talk so much as what people think was said in the talk.

I recognize the distinction; but frankly, it doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort from the point of view of one having the concerns PC elucidates. All it means is that, rather than being punished only for what I've said, I can now be punished for what my enemies want others to think I've said.

The protest was a request to the church to please for once clarify that we do not know the reasons why homosexuals are homosexual, but that changing into straight isn't always an option and that maybe just maybe we need less guessing and judgment.

I don't doubt that your motives were entirely honorable; and I hope they were widely shared. But, FWIW, I saw the Facebook page underlying the protest (two or three law school classmates of mine attended). This is anecdotal, to be sure--but your motives do not seem to have been the majoritarian view on that site. The consensus there seemed to be (as one actually wrote): "Die in a fire, Packer".

Edited October 12, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

:clap::clap:

I recognize the distinction; but frankly, it doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort from the point of view of one having the concerns PC elucidates.

I don't doubt that your motives were entirely honorable; and I hope they were widely shared. But, FWIW, I saw the Facebook page underlying the protest (two or three law school classmates of mine attended). This is anecdotal, to be sure--but your motives do not seem to have been the majoritarian view on that site. The consensus there seemed to be (as one actually wrote): "Die in a fire, Packer".

Fair enough, though i wonder what you'd tell me to do about the vocal majority of LDS i run into? Are they the norm or are they the fringe?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'd like to think they're the nutcase fringe, just as you'd like to think the Facebook clowns I saw were the nutcase fringe of their movement.

But, from the protest leader (as per the Deseret News):

"We are here tonight with a message of hope and a demand for change. We were born this way. You can't change us and every time you try people are hurt."

From other participants, as per the Trib:

When you hear nothing from [church leaders] but that you are nothing but evil and you need to change the unchangeable nature of yourself, that is only a message kids can take for so long.

“I was most upset by the fact that [Packer] said we can change,” Berge said. “It gives kids hope. Then when they realize they can’t change, they’re depressed. They might feel like taking their lives is the only option.”

Those aren't requests for clarification. They're grandstanding, by people who obviously were incapable of reading Elder Packer's talk (original or edited; take your pick) without interpreting it through the lens of their own (to pirate a phrase) persecution complex.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I'd like to think they're the nutcase fringe, just as you'd like to think the Facebook clowns I saw were the nutcase fringe of their movement.

But, from the protest leader (as per the Deseret News):

That's not a request for clarification. That's just grandstanding.

True, though before the protest the words i heard from a member were " now we have it, there is no chance gays can be born this way and now god has confirmed it. No more excuses!"

[Just_A_Guy]

Isn't it fortunate that Elder Packer corrected his talk to remove the portion that could be thus interpreted?

[Wingnut]

(Preface: I know you've since edited your post, but this is what I saw originally, so it's what I'm responding to.)

I'd like to think they're the nutcase fringe, just as you'd like to think the Facebook clowns I saw were the nutcase fringe of their movement.

But, from the protest leader (as per the Deseret News):

"We are here tonight with a message of hope and a demand for change. We were born this way. You can't change us and every time you try people are hurt."

That's not a request for clarification. That's just grandstanding.

I don't disagree with your final observation, but I do think it takes away from the real genuine sentiment that exists in the statement from the leader.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, Wingnut; I probably could have worded that more precisely; but the only other terms that were coming to mind at the moment could have been construed as being even more offensive--so I just left it at "grandstanding".

[Soulsearcher]

Isn't it fortunate that Elder Packer corrected his talk to remove the portion that could be thus interpreted?

Except the same member said it didn't change the meaning, and i've heard it from numerous members since. The talk still makes it clear, Gays can not be born gay and they can all change and there are no more excuses. I do agree with the sentiment of the leader, stop trying to force change. Focus on the celibacy rather than trying to force people into something they might never be able to be.

[Wingnut]

Yeah, Wingnut; I probably could have worded that more precisely; but the only other terms that were coming to mind at the moment could have been construed as being even more offensive--so I just left it at "grandstanding".

Like I said, I agree with the observation you made. The leader's statement is not so much an opening of a discussion as it is the putting down of a foot, but the emotion behind it is very real, I'm sure.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Except the same member said it didn't change the meaning, and i've heard it from numerous members since. The talk still makes it clear, Gays can not be born gay and they can all change and there are no more excuses. I do agree with the sentiment of the leader, stop trying to force change. Focus on the celibacy rather than trying to force people into something they might never be able to be.

Where in that talk was it said that gays must change their orientation? Or perhaps the statement I emboldened needs quotation marks because it's supposed to say what "numerous members" think?

[Soulsearcher]

Where in that talk was it said that gays must change their orientation? Or perhaps the statement I emboldened needs quotation marks because it's supposed to say what "numerous members" think?

It's the quote from a number of members have said since the talk.

I also know this view might get me some bad reviews, but could one see the comments that were edited out of Elder Packers talk as grandstanding?

[Just_A_Guy]

Except the same member said it didn't change the meaning, and i've heard it from numerous members since. The talk still makes it clear, Gays can not be born gay and they can all change and there are no more excuses.

I think Prince of Light is on the right track, then . . . you have to just make the member actually read the talk and discover for himself that, in the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

I do agree with the sentiment of the leader, stop trying to force change. Focus on the celibacy rather than trying to force people into something they might never be able to be.

(Not being snarky, and apologies if it comes off that way):

Do you really think that Ethington [Edit: corrected name] & Co. would be content if the LDS Church's entire focus, at every level, were merely on encouraging celibacy?

I also know this view might get me some bad reviews, but could one see the comments that were edited out of Elder Packers talk as grandstanding?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

The protest was a request to the church to please for once clarify that we do not know the reasons why homosexuals are homosexual, but that changing into straight isn't always an option and that maybe just maybe we need less guessing and judgment. But all of this was said over 17 pages in the previous thread so i know you know that these were the differences already PC :)

I had to go with the CNN article, not the 17-page string. If 4500 people really gathered, dressed in black, to seek clarification from the church, then okay. On the other hand, if the CNN article got it right, that there were accusations that the church was encouraging suicide indirectly, fostering hostility towards gays, and, engaging in hate speech, then wow.

[Soulsearcher]

I think Prince of Light is on the right track, then . . . you have to just make the member actually read the talk and discover for himself that, in the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

(Not being snarky, and apologies if it comes off that way):

Do you really think that Etheridge & Co. would be content if the LDS Church's entire focus, at every level, were merely on encouraging celibacy?

I'll be honest and say i don't know. I'll be honest and say I'm mostly focusing on the why of this particular protest. With so many using this to go back to the teachings of past leaders like Kimbal and seeing the damage it did, then it would be refreshing if this was the stance taking, at least then it gives a certain level of hope. With members going back to the thinking it's a disease, fully changable except for a persons selfishness they concern that comes it that it will also cause members of the church with SSA to regress back to those times as well.

[Wingnut]

Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Soulsearcher]

I had to go with the CNN article, not the 17-page string. If 4500 people really gathered, dressed in black, to seek clarification from the church, then okay. On the other hand, if the CNN article got it right, that there were accusations that the church was encouraging suicide indirectly, fostering hostility towards gays, and, engaging in hate speech, then wow.

It's not so much the church is supporting it indirectly, but also asking the church to possibly clarify and abolish a lot of the past teachings. Leaders in the past are still quoted and some of the material is still available and some of it is misused when dealing with SSA. Not sure about the hate speech, but when a number members constantly say that people with SSA are just selfish and not trying over and over and quote leaders directly and provide the talks this was said in, one wonders if they really mean the move forward they've show on if it's just a cover. The Church it's self doesn't advocate the things members are doing with the teachers, but a cleaer stance so someone like me can point to one talk or doccument and say "See this is exactly what the church says and this is what it believes and it leaves no room for argument, what you are doing is wrong" Right now i have to quote 3 or 4 talks and a pamphlet and even then i'm wondering sometimes if it really says what i think it does cause members turn around and use the same things against me. The anger i don't think is at the church for supporting, but possibly for not just making it crystal clear like they have some other positions such as abortion. I can find a direct quote on it and say see this is a very clear, hard to question or misunderstand statement.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll be honest and say i don't know. I'll be honest and say I'm mostly focusing on the why of this particular protest. With so many using this to go back to the teachings of past leaders like Kimbal and seeing the damage it did, then it would be refreshing if this was the stance taking, at least then it gives a certain level of hope. With members going back to the thinking it's a disease, fully changable except for a persons selfishness they concern that comes it that it will also cause members of the church with SSA to regress back to those times as well.

That being the case, Etherington should look at today's press release and state "Mission Accomplished".

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

[Soulsearcher]

Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

AWESOME!!! I can't speak for the rest, but this is very encouraging, nothing new, but all in the same place and very clear. For me this is exactly what i've been looking for. This is the Church i know and respect.