Amazing. Rosemary Winters (Tribune) is calling this speech "Hate Speech". It
didn't sound like "hate speech" to me! He spoke very calmly, humbly and meekly!
He said we LOVE them!I wonder if the protesters will be speaking so
calmly, mildly and humbly, and making sure everyone understands that after
everything is sayed, the most important thing is... WE LOVE YOU?I
doubt it. But which speech will be characterized as "Hate Speech" by they
Tribune??? I think it's safe to say they will be accusing the prophet of being a
hatter.I don't know how effective protesting will be in
this case. It's not like either side is on the fence or needs just a little
convincing to change their positions. Nobody's changing positions here. The
protests are to satisfy people's need to retaliate. But I honestly don't think
any offense was intended in this speech.I wonder... Will
faithfull LDS people be more likely to listen to their prophet speaking humbly
to them??? Or Brandie Balken? And a group of "national gay-rights heavyweights"
YELLING and cursing at them???I'm_just_say'in... You gotta consider
the source of each message.
1. I hope this talk isn't seen as contentious. But people with an agenda will
see or make it into something contentious and spin it into something he NEVER
said. He didn't say it's OK to disrespect or harrass people with
same_sex_attraction. he said we love them. He expressed the Lords view_point,
not Pop_culture's view_point.2. This was his
assigned_topic. I hope people don't paint President_Packer as a "homo_phobe"
because he was assigned to speak on THIS topic.3. I
didn't see anything in his talk that isn't in "The Family - A Proclamation To
The World", which has been around over a decade. NOTHING NEW was in this
talk.4. He wasn't being bombastic. He spoke in
humility. If he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ... then it's
sorta his job to tell_it_like_it_is (from the Lord's perspective) and not bow to
pop_culture... isn't it?5. If you sustained him as a
prophet, but now question your testimony (though he said nothing new)....
pray_sincerely and ponder the words he actually said (not the rumors about what
he said).Then... will you require your prophet bend to
@Zoniezoobie Very true my friend, very true! And what is not understood is that
no amount of calling evil good and good evil will ever actually make evil good
and good evil.I read an article a while ago about research done that
showed how that little children who are BORN with a lack of fear are more likely
to become criminals one day. According to some of those who have posted today,
we are therefore to believe that we should legalize rape murder and other such
things since these children were, according to the scientists this world trusts
so much, BORN that way. The folly of the argument is self evident. I
myself have struggled with feelings I certainly didn't choose to have but I am
certainly not about to give into them!
How prophetic the teachings of Pres. Packer...many in this blog are
calling evil good, and good evil..
Did any of you who are attacking President Packer's talk actually read or listen
to it? Nearly all of it had nothing to do with same-sex marriage or
same-sex attraction, but about the dangers of pornography. My advice is, read
the WHOLE thing before you cherry pick through this and that. There
are, in fact, some people who feel their addiction to pornography is the same as
those who have same gender attraction. Is anyone going to advocate that
pornography addiction should be embraced and considered normal and healthy? This
is what troubles so many people with the "Born that way" argument. It isn't just
gays and lesbians saying it, but many others. "I can't help it if
I'm a drug addict, I was born that way.""I can't help it if I lose
my temper every five minutes. I was born that way."You see the
context in which President Packer was speaking? In fact, he didn't even use the
words "same-sex attraction" in his talk. The LDS Church's position
on marriage is pretty clear and straight forward, but so is it's position on
understanding and compassion.
The "discussion" of homosexuality and the LDS Church seems to go around and
around in circles. Some brethren say the Church has no stand on nature/nurture,
President Packer seems to think otherwise. From my extensive reading it seems
the major concern of our Church and many others is the fear that if same sex
marriage is legalized Churches will be required by law to perform such marriages
in their sacred places. Of course no law can change that which comes from God.
While polygamy is often cited as one such change, we still believe in the
principle of polygamy, however the law of the land says we can't practice it.My thoughts are that perhaps governments should step out of the marriage
business all together, they'll lose marriage license revenue and perhaps have no
record for taxation reasons, but I'm confident governments will find a way
By the common definition, God is all knowing and all powerful, even to the
changing of the hearts of the willing. What is the sense of arguing with Elder
Packer who obviously believes in such a God. Those who argue against Elder
Packer's statement are simply asserting that that they do not believe in God as
so defined. These people's time would be better spent in explaining their
alternate definition for God so that we might be enlightened by them.
There is NO known genetic component to homosexuality, there
is no known gene nor genetic markers, and none has been
found,There are many ways one comea into the homosexual
lifestyle, some were brought into it deceptively, lead
astray And through Christ's Atonement one can repent and and be
brought back into the fold of righteous livng,For others who
believe or feel they are "born" with it, then it must be a test
given to them by the wisdom of God, you must pray, and confer,
and counsel, ask for help to understanding and strength to deal with that
test.But life is a test.
As I was saying when I was somehow interrupted-- :D -- one venomous comment
breeds another, and another, and another.
@Jiggle, you state:"Lets' say that homosexuality was the norm and
heterosexuality was considered to be abnormal....would you still require that
person to take responsibility for what they've done? Not really,
because homosexuals eliminate themselves every generation from the gene pool
there would soon be no surviving human beings to be responsible for anything.
I was saddened to listen to Mr. Packer’s speech. I had hoped that with
the Church acknowledgement that the origins of homosexuality were not known,
things might have calmed down a bit. I was especially hopeful when the LDS
Church announced in 2009 that they would back a law banning discrimination
against gays in housing and employment in SLC.My wish for those who
members (and nonmembers) who face same sex attraction or have members of their
family with this situation that they are not too discouraged.
@justice77For the sake of argument...lets me assume you are a
heterosexual....could you change YOUR sexual orientation (your natural urges) to
homosexual like you require of a gay person to do? Could YOU deny your natural
urge to be heterosexual? Could YOU change what nature gave you? Do really
require gays to deny their natural urges simply because YOU or your Church think
its wrong yet you think it shouldn't be required of you? Lets' say that
homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was considered to be
abnormal....would you still require that person to take responsibility for what
they've done? Isn't your objection really about morals and sin rather than the
rights of the individual? Are you saying we shouldn't allow a segment of society
equal rights because of the way they have sex. Would you liked to be denied
rights because of the way you have sex? This issue isn't a sexual orientation
issue....or a moral issue....or a fighting your urges issue....it is a "rights"
issue. How people conduct themselves in their sexual lives has nothing to do
I think how these people try to excuse themselves by saying it's just the way
they are or that nature made them this way is just laughable. There are a lot of
natural urges that people have like dishonest urges, anger and murderous urges,
sexual urges, etc. There are also people who are naturally more inclined to have
these urges. That doesn't mean that they have follow through on them. It is
silly to say that they can't control it, can't change what nature made them. The
whole human race has been denying natural urges since man first stepped foot on
this earth. Some just don't want to take responsibility for what they've done.
It's very sad.
@ 9:07 "Lying, cheating, stealing, exploitation, discrimination, and hypocrisy
are immoral" Not to sure these activities are any LESS
"natural" then a sexual impulse. However, just to argue with a - love government
more then God liberal, let me make this statement. Against the law or not has
very little to do with "morality". Morality especially in this discussion,
refers to obedience to the laws and teachings of our Father in Heaven, through
our Savior Jesus Christ and his Prophets. Morality is not limited to your little
list.@ 9:59 Maybe your the one who is denying facts? Interesting
how you like to "cherry pick" articles and misleading ideas about topics, that
you think support your gay agenda. Arguments go both ways, and for every
psychotic "uncured" gay person you dredge up, who is "damaged" by society, I can
find and locate a person with gay tendencies who has turned their life around,
and is happy and content. As for your Rutgers student reference. What is your
point? I agree his privacy was violated, and that was wrong. But why commit
suicide, if your involved in an uplifting moral relationship that society
embraces and accepts as you teach?
Thank you, DN! I am truly grateful that you are willing to publish comments
obviously at odds with the teachings of the General Authorities. This reflects
the reality we live with even as church members.I agree with some of
the dissenters. Our State and Federal laws should reflect our diversity.
Recent laws in other states legalizing gay marriage really do NOT pose a threat
to LDS or Catholic, Islamic, Jewish or any other doctrine of marriage.Withholding ceremonial and legal freedoms from homosexuals only threatens our
foundational doctrine of free agency. We should not do that. Doctrinal sin is often legalized. And, that does present greater challenges
to us as we strive to live in this society. But, on the other hand, conversion
to the gospel should require us to leave behind many legal sins.I
believe as younger, more diversely-minded General Authorities contemplate the
gay marriage issue, they will support legalization of gay marriage. I hope they
When reviewing the comments of President Packer, I found myself remembering a
quote that President Monson shared during the General Relief Society on 9/25.
"Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who worked among the poor in India
most of her life, spoke this profound truth: “If you judge people, you
have no time to love them.” The Savior has admonished, “This is my
commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” I ask: can we
love one another, as the Savior has commanded, if we judge each other? And I
answer–with Mother Teresa: no, we cannot."The sooner we can
stop judging and seeking to put down others, then a true spirit of Christ will
pervade the members of the Church and the human population as a whole.
Why is this story buried in the Des News? Does the official spokespaper for the
church want to disavow itself from the views of Mr Packer? This story on the SL
Trib site has 1800+ comments. I tried to comment here yesterday to no avail.
Why is the Des News trying to cover up this story?
I am not against straight marriage. I am not against Temple
marriage, as this does not allow any additional rights and legal protections on
top of, straight marriage. But to remove any other options, by
passing Amendment 3 in 2004 in Utah, and then claim homosexuals 'can' marry? That is just foolish. And the LDS church agrees that,
trying to get gay people to marry straight people so their same-sex orientation
will 'go away', is also foolish, and potentially harmful. My example
is: *'In doing so, recognize that marriage is not
an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a
heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. We are all thrilled when
some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and
achieve family happiness. But other attempts have resulted in broken hearts and
broken homes.' - Title: “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender
Attraction,” - Author Elder Jeffrey R. Holland - Oct 2007 Source? LDS official website. Don't agree? Fine. Do
not actively work to make others lives SO miserable they take their own lives
and then claim you are 'helping' them.
'"Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are
inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our
Heavenly Father do that to anyone?’ - Article Is
the DSNews in the habbit of denying facts now? *'Gay man
says 'reversal' therapy did not change him' - By Lisa Leff - Associated Press -
Published by DSNews - 01/20/10'A gay man testified Wednesday in a
federal same-sex marriage trial that the "reversal therapy" he underwent as a
teenager to change his sexual orientation drove him to the brink of suicide.'*'Psychologists nix gay-to-straight therapy' -
AP - 08/05/09'The American Psychological Association declared
Wednesday...(sic) No solid evidence exists that such change (to orientation) is
likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce
change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.'*'We can make it unacceptable to intrude on others' privacy'
- Kathleen Parker - Published by DSNews - 10/04/10'The suicide of an
18-year-old Rutgers University student following an unimaginable invasion of his
I don't agree with Mr. Packer (and others) thinking on homosexuality being
reversible by therapy, prayer, or whatever. I don't care if he or his church
wants to exclude gays, or to refuse them whatever sacraments or ceremony the LDS
Church offers to its members. All that's their right.What I find
objectionable is his conviction that he and his fellow believers have the right,
and ought to have the right....to compel by law others who do not share his
religious beliefs...to conduct their lives by the rules of his faith.It surprises me when LDS leaders do that. Their ancestors fled across half a
continent to a wilderness to escape being forced to conduct their lives by the
religious beliefs of others. Now they want to do the same thing! He
and his fellow LDS can conduct their lives and their church by whatever
standards they believe to be god-ordained. But....the Church really has no
business trying to compel, by law, others to do that same.C'mon...Deseret News...there is nothing in your rules that should make you ban
my post others than your bias toward Mormonism.
Maybe BKP is confused, homosexuality is not illegal. Sex is a natural impulse.
It isn't immoral. Lying, cheating, stealing, exploitation, discrimination, and
hypocrisy are immoral. If he wanted to talk about morality you would think he
would talk about ethics reform in politics, the widening gap between rich and
poor, the golden rule, etc.He is right about one thing though, laws
that prohibited homosexuality (laws that went against a persons sexual nature)
did in fact prove impossible to enforce. Similarly, laws against premarital sex
would fail miserably. ------President Packer said there
are those today who not only tolerate, but advocate voting to change laws that
would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God's
laws and nature. A law against nature, he said, would be impossible to enforce.
Pres. Packer states that no one is born gay and then posed the question
regarding homosexuality, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" I
have asked this question many times not just in regards to homosexuality, but to
so many things that people arrive in this world with, for example those born
intersexed or without the ability to produce or bear children.In my
opinion our Heavenly Father doesn't "do" any of these things, they are simply
part of mortality, but that doesn't make them any less real. People are born in
less than perfect ways and with very real diversity.I do not doubt
or even question Elder Packer's conviction on this subject. But I see little
compassion in such discourse and very tragic consequences.I take
comfort in the statements by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman to LDS Public Affairs
that the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or
nature’ (see official statement re: SGA at newsroom page of LDS website)
and that the atonement covers all of the failings of mortality.
For now, I'd only like to point out one fallacy in this speech. Mr. Packer said,
"History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed
by battle and cannot be changed by ballot." Maybe he is using different history
books than the rest of us, but moral standards are almost always changed by
ballot or by battle. As society advances, develops increased liberty, and
follows reason rather than dogma, positive changes are voted into law and then
enforced, or they are won by fiat. Examples include the creation of a
Constitution, revolutionary wars to create democracies where was tyranny, the
legislation of civil liberties regardless of race, giving women the right to
vote, the magna carta; there are literally hundreds of examples. Uplifting moral
standards through reason-guided legislation is the norm.Either Mr.
Packer is seriously out to lunch on this topic, or his is making a false
statement to back a reasonless argument.
A true apostle of Jesus Christ doesn't fear to speak the truth when moved by the
Spirit even when it is not convenient or popular. His fear of God is greater
than the fear of men (and women). Thank you, pr. Packer, for saying and doing
the right things. Truly a powerful talk!
Very well said - powerful in it's logic and simplicity.