lds backlash from gay community cnn.com

[Gwen]

i don't think the church edited it due to social pressure. i have heard the priesthood session gets edited all the time. i think it was edited cause it was the right thing to do and would have happened if no one had said anything. there was just a delay, as always, in getting the text out.

[Traveler]

...

But homosexuality is no cold! The American Psychiolical Association, the American Association of Paediatrics and the social workers have proved it by researches.

...

Do you think now that the accusations are groundless against this address of packer?

Please provide the links where the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Pediatrics and the social workers have proved any cognitive behaviors (conditions) cannot be altered.

I would caution that the stand many take being; that gay individuals cannot change; can be damaging to an individual confused concerning their sexuality that has "experimented" and become labeled as homosexual but discovering in they have errored in their experimenting. Especially when it is insisted that the American Psychological Association says there is no cure for the label they now carry – that they can never be happy or successful straight.

Surely if the non-gay community can “drive” gay individuals to suicide with suggesting something else be considered – so can the gay community drive individuals to suicide that have second thoughts having tried the gay lifestyle. The rhetoric over someone changing is as hateful and angry or even more so than those suggesting a change is possible.

The Traveler

[pam]

Traveler you do realize that you will get a response "I have searched the internet."

[Suzie]

i think it was edited cause it was the right thing to do and would have happened if no one had said anything. there was just a delay, as always, in getting the text out.

In what way was the right to do?

[Guest]

In what way was the right to do?

How many times have YOU said something and people who heard you misunderstood it, so you say a different way to make sure your meaning is clearer?

English is my 3rd language. I studied English from Kindergarten through 2nd semester of college and I thought I had a pretty good grasp of it. Then I came to America. Gee weez. I cannot get myself understood for the life of me! Written English is definitely a lot EASIER than spoken English. You can read what you wrote, reflect on it, then revise it millions of times to make sure it conveys what you mean to say before you give it to somebody else to read. Speaking though - once the word is out, that's it. Only way you can clarify it is after your listener's feedback.

I am very sure this is why the SPOKEN version of talks get modified in the WRITTEN version. To make sure that people who read it understand what the speaker meant by the passage.

[Suzie]

How many times have YOU said something and people who heard you misunderstood it, so you say a different way to make sure your meaning is clearer?

English is my 3rd language. I studied English from Kindergarten through 2nd semester of college and I thought I had a pretty good grasp of it. Then I came to America. Gee weez. I cannot get myself understood for the life of me! Written English is definitely a lot EASIER than spoken English. You can read what you wrote, reflect on it, then revise it millions of times to make sure it conveys what you mean to say before you give it to somebody else to read. Speaking though - once the word is out, that's it. Only way you can clarify it is after your listener's feedback.

I am very sure this is why the SPOKEN version of talks get modified in the WRITTEN version. To make sure that people who read it understand what the speaker meant by the passage.

Oh I understand that. I suppose my issue is with the changes (I believe the words have now a different meaning than the original talk) as well as taking a portion out of the talk as well. I guess in the end, it's all a matter of interpretation.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Oh I understand that. I suppose my issue is with the changes (I believe the words have now a different meaning than the original talk) as well as taking a portion out of the talk as well. I guess in the end, it's all a matter of interpretation.

Isn't that the point? They tossed out the less than clear (and some would say alternate) meaning that was in the spoken version and replaced it with Packer's intended meaning.

[prisonchaplain]

From my point of view the LGBT community has not gone yet far enough. Why? In Germany there is the saying of the honest man (Biedermann) and arsonist (Brandstifter). It means which arouses somebody by a speech other people so far / influenced that these do something unlawful or / and morally despicable. The speeches of Hitler and Stalin are, in political area, the best example of it.

And in the religious area?

How often preached priests of the inferiority of the women and blacks and they used Bible citations, better abused the Bible. And everything only to cement the Leadership of the (white) man. And now an apostle of the Mormons rushes, - it could also have been the pope or Fred Phelps - against the civil and human rights of homosexual people, and states, that they can be "cured". But homosexuality is no cold! The American Psychiolical Association, the American Association of Paediatrics and the social workers have proved it by researches.

What can arrange such a sermon, points the following story which I heard from a former JW (she is not it now any more) whose son committed suicide because he heard over and over again that his being, his feelings are wrong and ill and perverted.

There are two areas of contention between your beliefs and mine. First, freedom of speech is a core American value. Not so in Germany. There are certain ideas that are criminal there, that are allowed here. So, we start from a different vantage point.

Secondly, freedom of religion is also foundational to our culture. Germany has state-sponsored religion. One independent Christian missionary who had been there told me that in that country, most people believed that if you were not Catholic or Lutheran you were a cultist. So, again, religious speech is not protected to nearly the same degree as it is in the U.S.

I have experienced a loved one who committed suicide. It is tragic. However, those who do that are not incited by a single speech. Rather, even in the case you present, the individuals believe that their sexual hungers were necessary to their lives. They would rather die than obey God, when doing so meant literally denying their flesh. I do not diminish that celibacy is a tall order. But to reject God-given life instead? That cannot be blamed on ministers who preach what their Bibles tell them.

Do you think now that the accusations are groundless against this address of packer?

Yes. Outsiders have no right to bully religious leaders into censoring their beliefs or speeches--at least not in the U.S. The day when gender-identity groups gain more power than religious freedom, enshrined in our Constitution, will be a dark day indeed.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I have experienced a loved one who committed suicide. It is tragic. However, those who do that are not incited by a single speech. Rather, even in the case you present, the individuals believe that their sexual hungers were necessary to their lives. They would rather die than obey God, when doing so meant literally denying their flesh. I do not diminish that celibacy is a tall order. But to reject God-given life instead? That cannot be blamed on ministers who preach what their Bibles tell them.

Just one thing PC. A lot of them commit suicide because they're mistreated in one way or another, not because they can't stand the idea that their sexual desires need to be suppressed.

[Traveler]

In what way was the right to do?

Whenever what-ever you have said or written is being used to convey what you did not intend.

What I do not understand is if the corrections are more in line with what a person thinks ought to have been said - why not praise the update rather than condemn it – regardless of the reason of the change?

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

... They would rather die than obey God, when doing so meant literally denying their flesh. I do not diminish that celibacy is a tall order. But to reject God-given life instead? That cannot be blamed on ministers who preach what their Bibles tell them.

Ok. It's time for me to jump back on this wagon =)

PC: This is certainly not why I considered suicide, nor is it the reason most gay men I know have attempted, thought about, or commited suicide.

When someone believes that they, themselves, are evil, and have done everythign they possibly can to change, but are unable, the discouragement and hopelessness leads one to believe that it would be better to take their own life rather than risk continuing to live with the possibility that the very nature of your sexuality offends God.

In my case, I felt it would be better for me to die righteous than risk the possibility that change wouldn't happen and I would end up making a mistake and sinning. In the LDS culture, I felt that even not being able to marry (heterosexually) would be enough to not fill my purpose on earth according to the plan of salvation (namely, getting sealed to a woman and having children). As such, even INACTION was an offense to God.

I think that is the reason so many gay people took issue with "the talk." It encouraged that line of thinking. It suggested "change" without suggesting the method or the alternatives. The original could be interpereted by a young teenager struggling with their sexuality as calling even the "tendencies" sinful.

And that could lead the struggling youth to the same place I was when suicide seemed to be a very real option.

[Traveler]

Just one thing PC. A lot of them commit suicide because they're mistreated in one way or another, not because they can't stand the idea that their sexual desires need to be suppressed.

It is my opinion that a person committing suicide is having mental issues and because they are dead we may not know why they committed suicide. It is my understanding that someone attempting suicide is more often looking for help. It would seem that the needed help is not forth coming from anywhere – and this includes the community of those blaming others for what they say was not helping.

I have known many an LDS convert that was rejected by their family and everyone they use to know – but were able to find relief from other LDS. It appears to me that – for whatever reason a person committing suicide is not finding relief even from those that say they support them. Or why would they consider suicide?

The Traveler

[PrinceofLight2000]

Ok. It's time for me to jump back on this wagon =)

PC: This is certainly not why I considered suicide, nor is it the reason most gay men I know have attempted, thought about, or commited suicide.

When someone believes that they, themselves, are evil, and have done everythign they possibly can to change, but are unable, the discouragement and hopelessness leads one to believe that it would be better to take their own life rather than risk continuing to live with the possibility that the very nature of your sexuality offends God.

In my case, I felt it would be better for me to die righteous than risk the possibility that change wouldn't happen and I would end up making a mistake and sinning. In the LDS culture, I felt that even not being able to marry (heterosexually) would be enough to not fill my purpose on earth according to the plan of salvation (namely, getting sealed to a woman and having children). As such, even INACTION was an offense to God.

I think that is the reason so many gay people took issue with "the talk." It encouraged that line of thinking. It suggested "change" without suggesting the method or the alternatives. The original could be interpereted by a young teenager struggling with their sexuality as calling even the "tendencies" sinful.

And that could lead the struggling youth to the same place I was when suicide seemed to be a very real option.

Hi GS. I'm not sure if you've read what I've had to say about all this but you can go back through and see. The one thing I don't get in here is this middle part. You don't have to be exalted if you don't want to be, and you can still reach the Celestial Kingdom if you're unmarried and don't want to pursue that kind of relationship. Once you reach the Celestial Kingdom, it's not about whether you've sinned and repented or sinned without repenting, that's what the other two kingdoms are about. Rather, it's about what sort of heavenly privileges you want to partake in. Who told you that you weren't fulfilling your purpose on Earth by not being married? I have no doubt there are many religious people who have done many great things that have chosen to be celibate who will inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited October 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

It is my opinion that a person committing suicide is having mental issues and because they are dead we may not know why they committed suicide. It is my understanding that someone attempting suicide is more often looking for help. It would seem that the needed help is not forth coming from anywhere – and this includes the community of those blaming others for what they say was not helping.

I have known many an LDS convert that was rejected by their family and everyone they use to know – but were able to find relief from other LDS. It appears to me that – for whatever reason a person committing suicide is not finding relief even from those that say they support them. Or why would they consider suicide?

The Traveler

I'm not sure all suicides are due to mental illness. A sane individual can be driven to despair that is irrational which can lead them to contemplate suicide.

[GaySaint]

Prince: I suppose it was a Mormon culture thing. Since I don't feel that way anymore I'm not sure I can adequately answer your question now other than to say that in the LDS culture, nothing but perfection and the best is good enough. Aiming for a “lower” qualification, even a lower “celestial” qualification would still seem like not being good enough; at least that is how I saw it back then.

Besides, if I’m going to be single in the celestial kingdom, why not be gay here on earth? I could still “possibly” end up in the celestial kingdom as a single person…

It just isn’t good enough when marriage and family is what is expected, where Godhood and Celestial exaltation are the goal.

But you are right, and perhaps if that aspect was stressed a bit more, it would be that much easier for gay people struggling to remain faithful to the church. But the fact is that it isn't. The ENTIRE goal of the church is to get families sealed... That is what is preached (you can hear single people of all sorts complain about this quite often, haha).

Obviously it is compounded in a teenage mind (or was, at least, in mine).

[prisonchaplain]

Just one thing PC. A lot of them commit suicide because they're mistreated in one way or another, not because they can't stand the idea that their sexual desires need to be suppressed.

I was working with the German poster's supposition that religious leaders who teach that SSA is a perversion, or a temptation to be denied, drive their gay adherents to commit suicide. If the argument is that when LDS authorities, or Christian ministers preach measured instruction on this matter, that irregardless, some will be impassioned to commit abuses against gays, therefore the teaching should stop...that line of reasoning would lead draconian censorship and constant second-guessing. Are we really so fragile?

[GaySaint]

It appears to me that – for whatever reason a person committing suicide is not finding relief even from those that say they support them. Or why would they consider suicide?

I agree with this! But where is a gay Mormon supposed to turn for support? The church really doesn't do a great job in this regard (policies are too unevenly applied, half-truths and fear still run rampant, bishops aren't trained, even LDS social services still doesn't know how to handle gay people), leaving only the gay community - which the church teaches is evil and sinful.

THIS is exactly the area of the church where I would LIKE to see change, and it wouldn't require any doctrinal adjustments at all.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Prince: I suppose it was a Mormon culture thing. Since I don't feel that way anymore I'm not sure I can adequately answer your question now other than to say that in the LDS culture, nothing but perfection and the best is good enough. Aiming for a “lower” qualification, even a lower “celestial” qualification would still seem like not being good enough; at least that is how I saw it back then.

Besides, if I’m going to be single in the celestial kingdom, why not be gay here on earth? I could still “possibly” end up in the celestial kingdom as a single person…

It just isn’t good enough when marriage and family is what is expected, where Godhood and Celestial exaltation are the goal.

But you are right, and perhaps if that aspect was stressed a bit more, it would be that much easier for gay people struggling to remain faithful to the church. But the fact is that it isn't. The ENTIRE goal of the church is to get families sealed... That is what is preached (you can hear single people of all sorts complain about this quite often, haha).

Obviously it is compounded in a teenage mind (or was, at least, in mine).

Yes, but the church works to get only those families sealed which: a. already exist or b. desire to be exalted. No one who doesn't desire that is sinning.

I was working with the German poster's supposition that religious leaders who teach that SSA is a perversion, or a temptation to be denied, drive their gay adherents to commit suicide. If the argument is that when LDS authorities, or Christian ministers preach measured instruction on this matter, that irregardless, some will be impassioned to commit abuses against gays, therefore the teaching should stop...that line of reasoning would lead draconian censorship and constant second-guessing. Are we really so fragile?

I think I've seen the whole spectrum when it comes to the opposition to our position. As Soul has told me before, some cry to Elder Packer "TAKE BACK WHAT YOU SAID, HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE!" while others cry "We don't want to change your position, just clarify that you think entertaining the attractions is sinful, and not that the attractions themselves are".

[GaySaint]

I was working with the German poster's supposition that religious leaders who teach that SSA is a perversion, or a temptation to be denied, drive their gay adherents to commit suicide.

I think until there is a workable solution that is honestly discussed (celibacy, being one possibility), and until it is very clear that homosexuals aren't inherantly evil (something that is taught and assumed too often by religious leaders, and taken even further by their followers), yes, suicide becomes a workable solution. Is it the leaders fault if their congregants are left with only this one workable solution because no other has been presented? I think partially, yes.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I agree with this! But where is a gay Mormon supposed to turn for support? The church really doesn't do a great job in this regard (policies are too unevenly applied, half-truths and fear still run rampant, bishops aren't trained, even LDS social services still doesn't know how to handle gay people), leaving only the gay community - which the church teaches is evil and sinful.

THIS is exactly the area of the church where I would LIKE to see change, and it wouldn't require any doctrinal adjustments at all.

To be honest GS, I think we all need to do better simply as members to show love and support toward everybody, not just people struggling with SSA.

[GaySaint]

Yes, but the church works to get only those families sealed which: a. already exist or b. desire to be exalted. No one who doesn't desire that is sinning.

Why would I want to be a member of the church if I wasn't aiming for exaltation?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Why would I want to be a member of the church if I wasn't aiming for exaltation?

So you can get the ordinances you need to make it to the Celestial Kingdom and be in the presence of the Lord and your parents and siblings as a family. I can't believe you needed to ask, GS.

[pam]

Why would I want to be a member of the church if I wasn't aiming for exaltation?

That's why we have agency and that's why we still love ya. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Ok. It's time for me to jump back on this wagon =)

PC: This is certainly not why I considered suicide, nor is it the reason most gay men I know have attempted, thought about, or commited suicide.

When someone believes that they, themselves, are evil, and have done everythign they possibly can to change, but are unable, the discouragement and hopelessness leads one to believe that it would be better to take their own life rather than risk continuing to live with the possibility that the very nature of your sexuality offends God.

First, please know that I recognize that what you share in imbedded with personal experience. I consider a measure of trust that you do so, and want very much to honor it.

I do not pretend to know the depth of LDS teaching in this regard, but evangelical instruction is that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. We may have free will, but our natures are all predisposed to sin--not just those of homosexuals.

It's a horrible burden to bare that one was born predisposed to a particular sexual temptation. Horrible yes. Unbarable? Catholic priests have chosen a life of service to God, complete with the vow of celibacy for centuries. The Apostle Paul may well have considered homosexuals when he said that for those who can bare it, celibacy can free one to greater service of God and the church.

In my case, I felt it would be better for me to die righteous than risk the possibility that change wouldn't happen and I would end up making a mistake and sinning. In the LDS culture, I felt that even not being able to marry (heterosexually) would be enough to not fill my purpose on earth according to the plan of salvation (namely, getting sealed to a woman and having children). As such, even INACTION was an offense to God.

Again, I am not expert in this theology. Some have suggested that celibacy may be the highest possible obedience in this existence, and that the opportunity to marry might be provided in the next. However, I know many LDS reject that line of thought, and could not imagine what it would mean to me. The closest I could figure is that if I discovered that God expected us to marry our own gender, and to have regular relationships with our "spouses," what would that be like to me? And yes, there is no diminishing the heaviness of that scenario.

I think that is the reason so many gay people took issue with "the talk." It encouraged that line of thinking. It suggested "change" without suggesting the method or the alternatives. The original could be interpereted by a young teenager struggling with their sexuality as calling even the "tendencies" sinful.

And that could lead the struggling youth to the same place I was when suicide seemed to be a very real option.

OKAY...I understand better, if such is the case. For the record, I see the tendency as a temptation--one that is particularly challenging. Those willing to work towards overcoming it, even if the result is a life of celibacy, should be honored, not condemned--encouraged, not berated. "love the sinner....hate the sin." It's one cliche that rings true.

[Surehand]

There are two areas of contention between your beliefs and mine. First, freedom of speech is a core American value. Not so in Germany. There are certain ideas that are criminal there, that are allowed here. So, we start from a different vantage point.

Also I estimate the right at free speech high. But to be allowed to say something, does not tell to have to say something. In the German history there were several times where the freedom of speech was limited, or was forbidden. We know Germans about that words can heal, but can also kill. This is why we handle responsibly with this high property of the freedom of speech. Here nobody would effect with impunity racist, sexist or homophobic statements. Just because we know around our responsibility. As already uncle Ben said in Spiderman 1: "With a lot of power a big responsibility is also tied together".

Secondly, freedom of religion is also foundational to our culture. Germany has state-sponsored religion. One independent Christian missionary who had been there told me that in that country, most people believed that if you were not Catholic or Lutheran you were a cultist. So, again, religious speech is not protected to nearly the same degree as it is in the U.S.

Is called freedom of worship that religions have the right to preach hate (Fred Phelps) or denied others their civil rights? By the way, we have no religion sponsored by the state. The state enters only Church-expensive by order of the churches, something what wants to change the German parliament. If somebody is neither Catholic nor Protestant, he maybe belongs to one of many free churches (the Baptists belong to it, e.g.), or to the sects (like JW) if he is not a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. On the idea that somebody belongs to a cult nobody would come. The missionary has told rubbish.

I have experienced a loved one who committed suicide. It is tragic. However, those who do that are not incited by a single speech. Rather, even in the case you present, the individuals believe that their sexual hungers were necessary to their lives. They would rather die than obey God, when doing so meant literally denying their flesh. I do not diminish that celibacy is a tall order. But to reject God-given life instead? That cannot be blamed on ministers who preach what their Bibles tell them.

You err, because they CAN BE ACCUSED!!!!!

Why?

Because they create a climate by their sermons that it makes homosexual impossible to lead a quiet and sure life. And this, although the Bible does not condemn the homosexuality of homosexual people. Besides, "homosexual actions" are called, e.g., in Leviticus 18 & 20 not as a moral sin if one uses the original word for abomination", but as a ritual impurity (Levitical holyness code). You as a priest should know this. Read up once in Kittel's. If you are too decayed in addition, here a link.

Yes. Outsiders have no right to bully religious leaders into censoring their beliefs or speeches--at least not in the U.S. The day when gender-identity groups gain more power than religious freedom, enshrined in our Constitution, will be a dark day indeed.

If religious leaders want to take over the USA as "a God's state", they will experience not only the opposition of the homosexuals and women, also those of the dissidents and atheist. The civil rights, and the constitution are valid for ALL CITIZENS of the USA, not only for white fundamentalist heterosexual men.