I think you’re certainly right, that there is less in this talk of controversy than the attention it has had suggests. However, the few lines that do seem to address the already deep pain felt by the gay and lesbian community are heard in context of the controversy over Prop 8 and everything surrounding it. President Packer certainly should have been aware of the weight of his words – and I’m sure he was. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was pleased overall, that his address was heard with a force and media coverage that few Conference addresses enjoy.

Random John,
I disagree with you here: “”Satan cannot beget life. He is impotent.” I think this is dangerous territory. Denouncing Satan as infertile and even impotent might be true, but for couples dealing with issues of infertility and impotence, being having these traits associated with the Devil himself is deeply hurtful.”

I’m infertile and I’m not hurt by it. then again, I’ve pretty much succeeded in handing my infertility over to the atonement. (most days anyway)

Ron,

I apologize if I implied that anyone that is infertile or impotent would or should be offended. I think that in the context of the early section that puts the physical act of procreation at the center of the plan of salvation that the statements concerning Satan could be hurtful to some.

Thanks ARJ. It was worth reading.

ARJ,
I see what you mean, but I’m still not bothered. I’ve known all my life that procreation was central to the PoS. But I’ve never been offended by it. Now when people came up to us in the hall and say, “so, when are you having kids?” That was bothersome.

The best was about a year after being approved for adoption, but nothing hapening, we saw our old home teacher from the Singles ward 6 years ago. He looked right at me and said, “So, still no kids?” My wife responded without hesitation, “So still single?”

that did my poor battered heart good.

This is definitely an interesting observation about how vague the talk is. When my wife and I were watching this talk at home, right in the middle, my wife turned to me and asked, “Is this talk about what I think it’s about?”

I could only reply with, “I think so?” The fact that we couldn’t even pinpoint exactly what his bottom line was showed that there was something wrong with the talk.

I need to wait to see the actual transcript, but from everything I read, I actually am feeling strangely positive about this talk, and it’s because of the vagueness.

It seems to me that this talk doesn’t have to be about homosexuality *at all*. It could in fact be about, say, the impulse to be unfaithful.

Now, currently, with the church not supporting gay marriage or even gay relationships, certainly those things would fit the types of immoralities that Packer denounce, BUT if the church were to change positions regarding the sanctioning of some form of gay relationship (Not saying that’s likely or anything…) then NOTHING about this talk — from what I’ve seen summarized — would be invalidated. Still, the standard would be committed marriage with eternal fidelity, as was mentioned earlier.

ECS,

Yeah, I suppose you could take the kitten story that way. I don’t think the Church has ever made an attempt to address ambiguous genitalia in conference, and I hope that this wasn’t an attempt to do so. I would guess that such cases were not what President Packer had in mind, as they complicate the situation greatly.

I really don’t think that he meant to question why God would create homosexuals or even deny that homosexuality is an in-born trait. That section of the talk is so poorly worded that you could choose to take it that way, but I don’t think the text supports that interpretation. As I said before, I think he is saying that God does not put people into this life with temptations that they cannot overcome.

I think it is legitimate to take offense at what was actually said for a number of reasons. My point is that we need to be careful in reading it so that we discuss what was actually said.

arJ, I appreciate the close reading, but don’t agree with your take on what has been the most controversial sentences:

“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. . . . 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? Remember, he is our Father.”

As I understand it, your essential point is that the language “overcome . . . inborn tendencies” must refer exclusively to overcoming actual conduct and not also to overcoming those tendencies even in the absence of conduct. I don’t think the text unambiguously supports that narrow reading. He’s talking here not just about conduct but the “tendency” towards conduct. Indeed, just a couple sentences earlier, he says that even the “persuasion” to enter into a same sex relationship “must be wrong.” If he wanted to address strictly conduct itself, he could have easily done so. But the terms he uses are much broader.

Moreover, Packer makes no effort to hide the fact that he is not persuaded by the idea that people are born gay. He opens his discussion of this particular point with the qualifier “[s]ome suppose,” and goes on to say that these people “feel” like these traits are inborn. This is not how you characterize a position with which you agree.

Of course, to even get to this point in the analysis, we have to assume (as you argue) that when Elder Packer boldly declares “Not so”, he is strictly rejecting the second half of the preceding sentence (“cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies”) and not also the first half (“Some suppose that they were pre-set”). While that is not necessarily an unreasonable view, it is not the only fair reading. His declarative statement is, at best, ambiguous here. But this ambiguity is part of why Elder Packer’s words are so troubling and even dangerous. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, a little caution and clarity here would have been appropriate.

In short, if it was not his intent to challenge the “supposition” or “feeling” that some people are in fact born gay, he managed to seriously mangle his meaning and to create a tool that others will use for precisely that purpose. If this is in fact not what Elder Packer intended, he ought to just say so, particularly given the substantial coverage and attention this has received. But I’m not holding my breath.

Thanks for parsing this well. I think what sticks in my craw (if indeed I have a craw) is that it feels too harsh. As Winston Churchill famously said, “When you have to kill a man, courtesy costs nothing.” I’d like to hope we can be much more gracious in our wounding of others.

Regardless, Pres. Packer’s timing could not have been worse. Another gay suicide reported today. This one Mormon.

http://prideinutah.com/?p=4480

Religious leaders need to stop wondering why God would create homosexuals and start speaking out against this violence against homosexuals.

To quote Elder Packer, not so. ;)

Packer discusses two ideas in the first sentence, and then rejects those ideas in the second sentence. You can read his rejection as only dismissing these ideas as they relate to one another, or you can read his statement as a rejection of both ideas. This second interpretation is not a stretch of standard English at all. Moreover, the fact that Packer characterizes the idea that same sex attraction is inborn as the mere supposition and feeling of some lends further credence to the view that the second interpretation is in fact what he meant.

What if we remove the comma?

“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so.”

If he wanted to say that in spite of some being preset they can overcome he should/would have said

“Some suppose that [because] they were pre-set, they cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so.”

I understand giving him the benefit of the doubt but as it stands, the likelier reading is that he said gays are not pre-set which makes sense of his statement that HF wouldnt do “that” to anyone. do what? make them pre-set I would argue

arJ #24, I agree with you about the problems posed by the lack of clarity. But to ECS’s point, I’m not sure that Elder Packer would have avoided trouble had he expressed himself clearly.

Some suppose = some [falsely] suppose

pre-set = immutable, cannot be changed

what they feel = what they [falsely] believe

inborn = born that way

tendencies = inappropriate Mormon-speak for homosexual orientation

“the” impure and unnatural = same-sex sexual activity

If Elder Packer had been referring broadly to general sexual transgression, such as pre-marital sex or to pornography addiction, he wouldn’t have brought up the matter of immutability or inborn, as no one tends to believe that such issues are innate and immutable. Use of the word “tendencies” is the big clue that Packer is definitely speaking of gay people. So the only question is whether he is teaching that no one is born gay or whether he is simply claiming that gay people can change their behavior/orientation. I think Packer’s position is clear on both matters by these two phrases: “Some suppose” and “what they feel.”

In other words, I parse Packer to be saying that homosexuality is not innate and that it can be changed. (And that it is impure and unnatural.)

I agree with ESO and Randy. Elder Packer is clearly inferring many things here (and likely on purpose). We can then read into them how we like (as you point out). However, I am guessing that the more liberal Mormons will have issues with it, while the more conservative Mormons don’t. However, it is not unexpected but I am saddened by the callousness as are others here. President Hinckley often gave talks like this but in a loving, non-condemning fashion…

Tom O.,

Yeah, I suppose that the Church could assume control of “lawful” but I don’t see how we get there. My mission president tried to explain it once and got nowhere.

I’m with arJ. The wording is problematic and not at all clear enough to draw definite conclusions. Someone as smart as ECS should know this and not read meanings into it (I have no idea if Randy is smart, but I expect better of ECS). It may be that the language will be clarified. Until that happens, drawing definite conclusions based on mere assumptions about the meaning of this talk is not wise.

Part of me wonders if Elder Packer was intentionally ambiguous, in an effort to get it past the First Presidency while still saying what he wanted to say. In any case, the fact that we are pouring over every word and comma to try to understand what he meant is a good sign that he should have been more clear. I wonder if anything in the talk will change when printed in the Ensign.

ECS and others, this is the key passage:

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? Remember, he is our Father.

Paul promised, “God will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able, but will, with the temptation, also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (paraphrased I Cor 10:13)

I fail to see what is controversial about saying that people are free to choose which of their tendencies they act on. This principle applies to people who are attracted to the opposite sex and people who are attracted to the same sex. The quote from Paul makes it clear that he is talking about resisting temptations whatever form they may come in.

I’m with ARJ in general on this one. I think people are overlaying meanings to this talk that aren’t supported by the actual text.

Steven B,

It should be no surprise to anyone that Elder Packer and the Church in general consider engaging in gay sex “impure and unnatural”. (Of course while the impure part is a judgment call, the unnatural claim could be debated but that would sort of be beside the point here.) What I don’t see at all is any justification for the claim that Elder Packer was saying in this talk that same-sex attraction itself is impure or that SSA itself needs to be repented of. I only see him saying that we all must overcome whatever temptations we are faced with.

Geoff J. and others who find Pres. Packer’s teachings about homosexuality palatable, please read why anti-gay bullying is a theological issue: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/3479/why_anti-gay_bullying_is_a_theological_issue/

Here’s the most relevant part:

Anti-gay bullying is a theological issue because it has a theological base. I find it difficult to believe that even those among us with a vibrant imagination can muster the creative energy to picture a reality in which anti-gay violence and bullying exist without the anti-gay religious messages that support them.

These messages come in many forms, degrees of virulence, and volumes of expression. The most insidious forms, however, are not those from groups like Westboro Baptist Church. Most people quickly dismiss this fanaticism as the red-faced ranting of a fringe religious leader and his small band of followers.

More difficult to address are the myriad ways in which everyday churches that do a lot of good in the world also perpetuate theologies that undergird and legitimate instrumental violence. The simplistic, black and white lines that are drawn between conceptions of good and evil make it all-too-easy to apply these dualisms to groups of people. When theologies leave no room for ambiguity, mystery and uncertainty, it becomes very easy to identify an “us” (good, heterosexual) versus a “them” (evil, gay).

Additionally, hierarchical conceptions of value and worth are implicit in many of our theological notions. Needless to say, value and worth are not distributed equally in these hierarchies. God is at the top, (white, heterosexual) men come soon after and all those less valued by the culture (women, children, LGBT people, the poor, racial minorities, etc.) fall somewhere down below. And it all makes perfect sense if you support it with a few appropriately (mis)quoted verses from the Bible.

With dualistic conceptions of good and evil and hierarchical notions of value and worth, it becomes easy to know who it is okay to hate or to bully or, seemingly more benignly, to ignore. And no institutions have done more to create and perpetuate the public disapproval of gay and lesbian people than churches.

If anti-gay bullying has, at any level, an embodied undercurrent of tacit theological legitimation, then we simply cannot circumvent our responsibility to provide a clear, decisive, theological response. Aside from its theological base, anti-gay bullying is a theological issue because it calls for acts of solidarity on behalf of the vulnerable and justice on behalf of the oppressed.

But this imperative to respond reminds us that the most dangerous form of theological message comes in the subtlest of forms: silence.

LOL. No, I meant that in real life my power of persuasion is much more potent than online. Have we met, though? Let’s get together with ARJ next time we’re all in Utah together.

ECS: We’re giving Elder Packer the benefit of the doubt, when there is absolutely no doubt were Elder Packer stands.

Really ECS? Is the problem that the actual text of Packer’s talk isn’t as inflammatory as you wish it was?

Also, it seems to me that trying to use teen suicides as a political club is in extremely poor taste.

ECS, just let me know when!

Re:47, It should be clear enough for anyone with a brain. I am with ECS and Steven B. I think we all know what he was talking about. We can try to fool ourselves giving more generalized interpretations, but doing so requires quite a skill at dismissing too much context.

ECS #47,

It seems pretty clear to me that you are putting words in Elder Packer’s mouth. Where is your support for these accusations (meaning his actual words)?

Re: 52,

Boyd K. Packer, “To Young Men Only,” General Conference, Oct. 1976.

Re the Trevor Project training: a link is here if you’re looking for more information.

Stephen B #57: That is because Elder Packer doesn’t believe homosexual orientation to be part of the real world that we live in.

Interesting accusation. Do you have any evidence to support it or are you also just putting words in Elder Packers mouth?

Geoff J: See Comment 47, and you could try his words in “To the One”:

Please notice that I use it [homosexual] as an adjective, not as a noun: I reject it as a noun. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one.

ECS (#47),

I had never actually read the famous “little factories” talk. I think the most disturbing aspect of that is the open endorsement of physical violence against gays by an apostle.

Some of the language is strikingly similar to his talk from Sunday, 34 years later. In fact I would even say that the passage you quoted begins with some of the exact same ambiguities that are found in his current talk. From the, “There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits.” point on though he’s pretty unambiguous. I wonder if his view on the matter has changed at all in 34 years.

Geoff J:

I’m pretty sure that the burden of proof would be on those that say he has changed his views. The presumption is that one’s views are broadly consistent over time, and people who change their views usually find the need to repudiate or distance themselves from their old beliefs. This is especially true when the former views are written down for posterity.

I should add that, given the amount of grief that Elder Packer and the brethren have received generally about those talks (To the One and For Young Men Only), I would think that any softening of his views would have been shouted from the rooftops by Church PR.

I agree Geoff J.–while I’m not thrilled with what Elder Packer said, I don’t find his current remarks to be all that “conniption worthy.” It is broadly consistent with his prior views, and very mild compared to some of his past statements. However, he (knowingly or unknowingly) made his statements within a month of six highly reported gay suicides. I just wish that a lot more emphasis would be placed on loving the sinner–especially since the demographic of wavering gays in the Church is so small and the demographic of potential bullies is so much larger.

But that’s just the view from where I sit–the view from 50 E. North Temple may be much different.

Elder Packer meant precisely what he said, and he would be very displeased to think that someone would have the temerity to blunt his message by parsing it and creating vagaries of grammatical structure to alter the meaning. Elder Packer sees homosexuality as the embodiment of pure evil and always has. He adamantly denies that any homosexual relationship can, or ever could be based on real, genuine love. While a mission president, he told a missionary that he was absolutely correct he striking a companion who made a ‘pass’ at him and encouraged any other missionary having a similar experience to do the same. With his health failing, this could be Elder Packer’s attempt to instigate a course correction on what he sees as the Church ‘going soft on sin’, to use his expression. Since President Monson did not immediately take the stand after Elder Packer spoke and say that some of the foregoing remarks were Elder Packer’s opinion and not the official position of the Church, we can assume that Elder Oak’s,(et al), former statements of compassion, tolerance, acceptance and inclusion are now null and void. Brethren, the talk is what it is, let us not sit around like a bunch of Torah students parsing every word into an inyan and debating it ad infinitum. Rightly or wrongly, be prepared for the frigate of the restored Church to sit higher in the seas of mortality as a significant number of Saints abandon ship. Perhaps this was the intent of the talk all along; to rid the Church of all those liberals who are ‘soft on sin’.

I agree. Elder Packer’s talk was the same hateful, ignorant nonsense he has always preached about homosexuals. He hasn’t budged an inch, in spite of the Mormon Church’s PR campaigns meant to soften its image. His remarks contribute in a huge way to gay youth suicides–I know–I was in that dark place, but fortunately got through it. While it has huge, negative impacts on gay youth, his talk does bring focus to what the Mormon Church really is about and that the PR the church puts out is phony nonsense. Thanks to Elder Packer, more people will see that and reject the Mormon Church for the smug, self righteous, hateful organization that it is.

ExMoHoMoDon,

I can understand someone hoping that Elder Packer’s talk was hateful. The actual (not-hateful) text of the talk must be very disappointing to you.

arJ,

I’ve read the post, but not the comments.

This post is a decent try to put a charitable spin on Packer’s words, and I agree that it’s POSSIBLE that we’ve all misunderstood his intent because of his poor word choice. But I’m ultimately unpersuaded that this is the case.

“Some suppose that they were pre-set, and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural.”

I’m sorry, but “tendencies” is best read as “orientation” or inclination, methinks, unless some church leader wants to “clarify” Packer’s meaning in an interview. It will be interesting to see if and when Elder Oaks gives an interview in which he smooths this over and clarifies the Church’s stand to be consistent with what he (Oaks) has been saying for the past few years.

I agree with your analysis re: your final “big quote”. The key section is this:

“… 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.”

The “as if” speaks volumes. This is Elder Packer drawing conclusions about what proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to do. And it’s about the worst misreading I’ve ever seen.

Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.

Given the abundance of unmerited evils in the world, I am not sure this is good theology. Good theology or not, though, I guess I am uncomfortable with introducing a major theological proposition without much of an explanation.

The quoted statement of Paul is germane, but unfortunately does not quite support the implication that natural predispositions are divinely inflicted, i.e. “done” to people.

Elder Packer is an apostle, and could be entirely right on that point, of course.

ARJ, I appreciate you are giving President Packer the benefit of the doubt. But what strikes me here is the callousness. Read the talk in the context of Packer’s past statements, and in the context of the attitudes that still prevail among most members, then ask yourself: does this sound like the statement of a man who has real sympathy for those who struggle?

I don’t see Pres. Packer’s message as a lack of compassion for those who struggle, but rather a tremendous vote of confidence and a reaching out and a reinforcement of the fact that anyone who struggles can call upon the powers of heaven, exercise the God-given power of agency, and rely on the power of the Atonement to help them live the commandments and be on the path to all the eternal blessings that God has in store for us. All the anger puts those who struggle in the place of victims. Pres. Packer’s talk puts them (and all of us) in a place of being agents unto themselves to find the wherewithal to repent if necessary and find the peace of the gospel and the power of Jesus Christ to help them face their challenges.

I’m deeply disappointed to see so many people twisting his words as I have seen since Sunday. And I think *that* is what will make it harder for those who do struggle. The lens of pain and anger is a never a good way to view something like this.

Our leaders care deeply for us. That is why they teach us the truths that they do, sometimes perhaps more plainly than some would personally prefer. But we should not make them offenders for a word. God can help us see past whatever weakness in words that may exist. In truth, such weakness always exists because because are mortal. Remember Moroni in Eth 12? He was troubled to see the weakness of his writing; he worried that his weakness might get in the way. But God assured him that it was the receiver’s responsibility to read the words (receive the words) with charity and thus access God’s grace sufficient to compensate for any weakness that might be there.

I would hope that those who are angry or in pain can find a way to either walk away for now from this talk or reengage it with God’s help. If you need to, find another talk or talks that you can process right now without pain and anger (we all sometimes can only do so much and that’s ok). But leave place in your hearts for the message that can be there maybe another time when you can reengage the talk.

But please, please, don’t poison his talk for others by publicly criticizing him or his words. It won’t help you and could hurt others who would benefit from the power that can be found in his teachings.

MCQ, I can assure you that I listened attentively to Elder Packer’s remarks and did not find them to be ambiguous in the least. Indeed, it would be most uncharacteristic of Elder Packer to ever be vague and ambiguous in any of his addresses, especially when the venue is a General Conference of the Church. That is simply not his nature nor his style. I will grant, however, that due to age and ill health he might suffer from some ‘diminished capacity’. But honestly, I didn’t see it. He had the same characteristic quiet fire and measured cadence in his speech that he uses when speaking on one of his favorite topics. The only mitigating factor I saw was that he looked tired. You, yourself, conceded that Elder Packer knows how to speak unambiguously and that is, (or has been), his consistent pattern in the past. I totally agree. That is why I find your interpretation of his recent remarks as being ambiguous such a surprise. Certainly most will commend you for your apologetic zeal, but I still maintain that Elder Packer would not. Yet I acknowledge that you, also, are entitled to your opinion, as is every other Saint in Zion. From my perspective, to consider this talk an anomaly is almost tantamount to calling for him to be given Emeritus status. Elder Packer has a long established, (40+ years), pattern/style of speaking which he has had consistently throughout his ministry. Why, at this late date, and on this so vital a topic, should he now decide to deviate from his established pattern? Regardless of what either of us think, vis a vis the style of this speech, I do believe that we can agree that it has ignited a firestorm. How far the conflagration goes and the ultimate extent of it’s damage remains to be seen.
But this much you can you by sure of, by the time the DVDs and CDs are ready for commercial distribution and the Ensign is published, if the Church feels the need to soften (or clarify) his remarks, the changes will have been made electronically and in the printed word. (Just as was done many years ago to Brother Poelman’s talk.) Then, the only way to compare the broadcast original with the finished product will be with personal recordings of the talk made during the actual broadcast by individual Saints. By that time, these differences of opinion will have been forgotten.

58 – “Same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of a person’s essential person”

Define fundamental – an essential component.

Is same sex attraction an essential component of any individual? I believe the gospel says no. Why would you want to overcome something which is essentially part of who you are? I think when you look at SSA as the the world does, it’s very easy to see how if this is something that is an essential component of your identity, why on earth would you want to overcome it? I fully understand the viewpoint of many in the world with this regard. If someone views this as fundamental, ie essential to who they are and their character, how could they accept the church? I do not agree with this perspective. I think when you adopt the language of the world in describing this as fundamental your perception is already biasing toward a certain conclusion.

I for the life of me can not see anything I feel would describe as fundamental to who I am that I would want to overcome or not embrace and develop. So while I understand many in the world who adopt this viewpoint and thus their actions and ideology carry this conclusion out in practice and in philosophy, I do not understand why we in the church should adopt this view point. Can you help me understand why we should consider SSA as a fundamental or essential aspect of a person’s identity?

Aaron #77. I concur. See #17. The terms “tendencies” and “persuasion” are most naturally read as broader than a reference to mere conduct.

I don’t understand same sex attraction. But I know a young man who grew up in a loving home–no abuse issues—who is now an amazing individual. Handsome and kind and smart. In retrospect, I don’t think he ever had a physical attraction to girls. Girls tried because he’s so handsome, but aside from a couple of chaste but deep friendships just never had that same urge most adolescent boys have to grab at girls’ bodies. He tried. But, again in retrospect, the efforts read totally false.

Now, he’s in a bit limbo.

So his choices are to spend his life celibate and accepted or–and this is meaningful to me–to live a promiscuous lifestyle that characterizes gay life. Sorry, guys, but I think gays are more promiscuous. I’ve seen this first hand–it’s kind of insensitive to their partners.

Another young man grew up in a home that fractured in ways that affected all the children in negative ways, but basically had a good grounding in gospel life–in a good way. I don’t recall one time I ever saw or heard of him with a girl. Not the slightest interest. When he was a teenager, he ran away with a man. The impression I’ve had of him is that he is a person who needs to be a bit dominated. Sometimes now, he says he’s not sure if he’s gay or not. He talks about dating girls and wants badly to be active in the church. And he dates men.

My conclusion from my experiences is that A. Some people are definitely born with an attraction to their same sex. B. Others are confused.
C. The homosexual lifestyle is more immoral than the heterosexual lifestyle (although if these relationships were handled like heterosexual ones, would we encourage monogamy and commitmet? Is this a result of society’s disdain?)

I have a point here, hang on.

A woman in our ward lived next door to Elder Packer and she said he was the kindest sweetest man. She loves him. I don’t understand the discussion wondering what he really meant in his talk–it was pretty clear to me. The reaction to it is partly generational. Older folks agree with him (mostly, I’m generalizing). I wasn’t mad or disgusted, I just thought, “Oh….”

I do not know what God has in mind here. I do not know how homosexuality figures into His plan of life for us. I do know that some are born; I also believe some are made, who evolve, and enter into immorality based on expression of the gay lifestyle. (On the other hand, do we really expect them to remain celibate their whole life?? And if they can’t marry and make an honorable commitment, how can they be committed in a relationship?). I do not believe homosexuality is a habit, although it could be, in some cases. Like other sexual obsessions.

I remember telling my friend “I think it’s a sin” when she identified herself as gay. I told her, as tears filled her eyes, “I have mixed emotions about this, but I do not have mixed emotions about you. I love you and I will always love you.” Now, like Elna Baker, my list of sins has changed. I have a long list titled “no clue, God will have to figure out.”

So I guess I don’t agree with Elder Packer; but I don’t fault him, either. He’s an old man. And not entirely wrong when he speaks about the need for righteousness and obedience.

So I’ve said again and again, our task is to behave well and in a Christ-like manner. Not only with the many Mormon homosexuals who, like my friends, struggle with so much heartache and inner conflict, but with Elder Packer. It’s not right to hate him because he has an opinion. I don’t think he hates homosexuals as individuals. God’s been a bit vague here and the bible clearly condemns homosexuality.

I advocate patience and tolerance. Not only with our gay loved ones but with those whose solid convictions differ from what we think should be held.

And–that being said, I don’t know what the hell my convictions are. Not an inkling. When my young friends tell me about boys they want to date or share stories about their relationships, I sit silent and loving. This isn’t on me to decide or fix. Solomon couldn’t figure this out.

C:

Take one step back, and it may become a little more clear. Are your intimate feelings, feelings of attraction, feelings of emotional and physical connection, a fundamental element of your essential person? Do you feel that you would be substantially the same person without those feelings, or without the expression of those feelings? Can you even imagine being without it? Now try to imagine being told that this wasn’t a part of the real you, or even that if it is, you need to bury it deep inside of you and never let it express itself so that you can be “truly happy,” even if you feel miserable. It is advice and a worldview that is contrary to lived experience, and the only way you can come to the conclusion is if you start out with the premise that “everything that the Church teaches is correct in all its particulars.”

I know that I very well may be in the minority on this, but I believe it is the duty of every Latter-day Saint to question and push back (as respectfully as possible) on those elements of doctrine and dogma (not the Gospel or Good News of the Atonement of Jesus Christ) that, in the words of Eliza Snow, “make reason stare.” Maybe the doctrine is right and we will get a better understanding of why it is correct, or maybe it will change. However, the wheat of doctrine will never be sorted from the chaff of “the traditions of our fathers” if we do not have the fan in our hands.

85 – “Can you help me understand why we should consider SSA as a fundamental or essential aspect of a person’s identity?”

We should consider SSA to be fundamental and essential because gay people themselves tell us that it is so. I would think that they should know. Unless you prefer to rely on modern scientific consensus, or would that be too worldly of a perspective?

Steven B.

What modern scientific consensus?

The fact that homosexuality exhibits genetic markers similar to those associated with Alcoholism speaks only to hereditary influences, not anything to do with the fundamental human genome.

We don’t accept alcoholism as a valid way of life, in fact it is scorned and fought with 12 step plans and group therapy. And yet it exhibits the same “inherent” genetic markers as homosexuality.

The conclusion that these inherited characteristics are inescapable and fundamental because they are similar to other inherited genetic markers only invites more disputation of the “consensus’” validity and adds to the validity of Elder Packer’s comments.

I would chose a different path than current scientific thought.

I have a good friend that is gay and a recent convert to the Church. He met a man at Church who is also gay and has 3 children from 2 prior relationships. They formed a family and are living quite happily (though not always together) as Mormon Gay men raising a family in the Church.

Instead of the lashing out at the Church and hate for whatever reason, I wish more Gay members would take such an approach and figure out how to have a family and a partner within the Church system. Not to mention I wish the Church knew how to encourage such an approach, though that will not happen.

It really needs to happen within the gay membership, but all I hear is talk about leaving the Church for another Church and hating the Church.

The fact that Elder Packer can’t approach the subject from any other position except for repentance should not be surprising and therefore should not be upsetting. Taking so much time and bandwidth to revile him is hardly productive to the cause, though.

97 – I wish the same as you. But one of the reasons that this conference address has received such a strong reaction is partly due to timing, being delivered just as the nation is reeling from a disturbing series of anti-gay bully-related teen suicides.

Please explain. I don’t know how much more fundamental one can get than genetic.

Unless you focus solely on identity, which means nothing really. I mean I could identify as a number of things, but my identity holds no validity without a personality formed from genetic makeup, which forms a temperament, or baseline attitude, and then a personality formed through environmental and social interaction, which creates an identity.

For homosexuality to be fundamental, it must be part of the initial genetic creation.

100,

Whether it is pathological or not seems to be more a qualitative judgment than a scientific conclusion. A product of humanist psychology, to be sure.

Unfortunately that conclusion holds little water on its own.

Calling upon a “scientific consensus” to support one’s position is only a good idea when there is a quantifiable conclusion. For example, there is a consensus that cancer (or left-handedness, or ambidexterity) is genetic, yet there is still a probability that it is not an active marker.

Thus the problem with:

1) Calling upon a consensus that rests on a probability
and
2) Resting one’s position on that probability

The APA uses the following criteria to decide whether a personality variance is pathological:

The deviation must manifest itself pervasively as behaviour that is inflexible, maladaptive, or otherwise dysfunctional across a broad range of personal and social situations (i.e., not being limited to one specific “triggering” stimulus or situation).

There is personal distress, or adverse impact on the social environment, or both, clearly attributable to the behaviour referred to in the previous criterion.

Or to put it another way, do the gays and lesbians that you know have a decreased quality of life? Are they able to function in society and contribute meaningfully? If not, that is not pathological, it is simply variation.

#94:
What future do you envision, Nick?

I envision a future where churches are absolutely protected in their right to (1) preach whatever beliefs they wish, (2) allow or disallow membership for whomever they wish, and (3) perform or deny ritual ceremonies according to the dictates of those beliefs. I also envision a future where churches, including the LDS, mature with regard to the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, just as they matured with regard to the civil recognition of inter-racial marriages.

But “Mr. Packer”?

nasamomdele, let me explain. In all likelihood, neither you nor I recognize the claimed divine authority of the leader of the Catholic church. As such, neither of us are likely to refer to him as “His Holiness” or “Holy Father.” As you are aware, I don’t believe that LDS leaders actually hold special authority or titles from deity, either. That being the case, I’m not inclined to use those titles in reference to the men claiming them. Therefore, I use what our society considers the respectful form of address for any adult male, calling them “Mr. Monson,” “Mr. Packer,” etc. For you to take offense at this usage suggests that you are offended that I don’t accept your religion–something I know isn’t the case.

101 – “For homosexuality to be fundamental, it must be part of the initial genetic creation.”

Human sexuality is most likely entirely in the genetic code of humans. As such sexuality is fundamental to the human experience and condition. What is not entirely understood, nor is there scientific consensus, is how genes contribute to sexual orientation. The scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is determined primarily, if not entirely, by biology. It is generally thought to be a combination of genes and prenatal factors.

Because homosexual orientation is a natural (biological in origin) variant of human sexuality it is, like heterosexuality, a fundamental aspect of a person.

#110, Andrew, I don’t know if you’re right or not. It sounds reasonable. But…

Check the printed version of the talk.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html

Some important changes there!

[...] version spoken in conference and transcribed by a random John at Mormon Mentality: We teach the standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes and [...]

Amen, Steven. Well said.

Annegb

BTW Could you please tell us what research, including numbers, studies, interviews or any other pertinent information that lead to you making the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals? Do Paris Hilton, Hugh Hefner, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, David Vitter, Warren Jeffs, (or any polygamous leaders–mostly old white men who take numerous teenage girls as wives) make an appearance in your research?

Re: “homosexual lifestyle”

Annegb, now you’ve gone and done it. You said the magic words.

104,
My previous comment was in moderation I guess. But I just saw this of yours, “In a nutshell, it is a trait that is so bound up with one’s identity that eliminating it or sublimating it would change the person’s very being.”

Without going back down the path of essential/fundamental with my pending/lost comment, I’d just say that discipleship of the gospel of Jesus Christ is precisely supposed to result in a change in a person’s very being.

I mean, come on, gays talk about being able to get married, but how many gay men want to remain faithful to one man for life? You guys, be honesrt. And since we’re Mormons, let’s not talk about irreligious men. Let’s talk about the average Mormon man, who probably can count their sexual partners on the fingers of one hand. Can a gay Mormon man say the same thing? I know a couple who cannot.

So, for all the whining, could we expect the gay man to remain virgin until her makes a commitment? And if that commitment doesn’t work out–allowing for divorce, will they remain virtuous during their single period and then commit, or marry, their second husband? You guys, I don’t think so. Aren’t gays really asking for approval on –crap, I forgot the word for sex outside of marriage. Starts with an “f”.

If, in a vote for gay marriage, I were voting for fidelity–even fracturd fidelity like a lot of hetero marriages, I might feel more approving.

Which makes me think gays are a little dishonest and hypocritical. And not wanting the right to marry but public official approval of that word I can’t remember.

annegb,

Have you considered the factor that there has been no societal pressure for a legitimate alternative the to “homosexual lifestyle” that you describe? What if the standard that society promoted was monogamous, faithful marriage?

Long term we might see changes if society placed some value on such relationships.

Imagine if society denigrated heterosexuals and considered whatever they did to be some sort of degenerate behavior. What would the “heterosexual lifestyle” be in that case? Heck, what is it right now for a great number of people?

And everything you are saying about gay men could apply to any heterosexual man that doesn’t follow the law of chastity. You’re making it sound like hetero men don’t sleep around, are faithful to their partners, etc. And since your information seems to come from tv shows, how many hetero men on tv are monogamous?

I’m trying to find a single statement in your last few posts that couldn’t be applied to men in general. Nothing you’re saying has anything to do with gay men.

annegb

You need to get out more. Most of my wide circle of gay friends are in committed, monogamous relationships. Between May and November of 2008, 18,000 homosexual couples got married in CA before the Mormons stopped it. My ‘homosexual lifestyle’ consists of work, ballet school and the care of 3 children. The idea of uncommitted, recreational sex is not for me.

Have you ever been to Las Vegas on a weekend? Lots of promiscuous sex and it is heterosexual with a vengeance, including all the nude and nearly nude shows. Prostitution is legal in every county of Nevada except Washoe and Clark (Vegas and Reno–prostitution in Reno and Vegas is controlled by organized crime). I don’t see the Mormons trying to shut down ‘what happens in Vegas’, including legalized gambling which forms the backbone of neighboring Nevada’s economy. However, legal marriage in CA for homosexuals causes all the alarms to go off in SL.

Annegb was also born in Nevada, by the way.

Not meant to offend John. I like Nevada, I love visiting the magnificent scenery and I love Vegas, although I wouldn’t want to live there. Its too hot. ‘What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ doesn’t bother me–I am not setting myself as the Morality police who is in the business of telling other adults how to live. That’s up to the Mormons and others who apparently speak for God, but can’t agree among themselves what the message is, which apparently changes from time to time.

This was an article that got a share of attention a while back: “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret”

Opening sentence: “When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.”

Further down: “New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

“That consent is key. ‘With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.’”

So count New York Times writers and San Francisco State University social scientists along with Annegb among those who need to get out more and learn what homosexual couples are really like.

Well, I’ll try my comment in pieces and see what will go through:

This was an article that got a share of attention a while back: “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret”

Opening sentence: “When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.”

So count New York Times writers and San Francisco State University social scientists along with Annegb among those who need to get out more and learn what homosexual couples are really like.

John Mansfield, open marriages are more common in San Francisco for both same-sex marriages and mixed-sex marriages. Shoot, we’ve had a president who basically had an open marriage. Besides, drawing conclusions about individual marriages based on aggregated data runs afoul of the fallacy of division.

annegb, I think the word you’re searchig for is fornication, but I’m not sure it’s the word you should use.

I’m with those who think that, stereotypes notwithstanding, gay people are, on average, no more likely to be promiscuous than straight people. I think you can find very promiscuous and very faithful people on both sides of the gay-straight divide.

annegb, to answer your question directly, if all we were asking of gay people was to remain celibate before marriage and remain faithful to a lifelong (same sex) partner after marriage, then there would be (very stylish) dancing in the streets all over the world by our gay brothers and sisters. That’s exactly what they’re asking for, to be treated like everyone else. And that’s exactly what the Church won’t give them. That’s sad, and we ought to be sympathetic, not look for ways to further stereotypes.

I have a unique idea. Why don’t we let homosexual citizens have the same rights as heterosexuals (you know, as in Equal Protection Under the Law). Maybe Mormons could then cough up 21 mil to actually help people whose children don’t have enough to eat, or to stay in their homes, or to help people whose marriages are strained because of the recession. In San Francisco, we spend a lot of money on homeless issues, which draws many of the nation’s homeless here. There are hundreds of private agencies also trying to help out this huge population of homeless, many of whom are Vets–could somebody tell me what the Mormon Church is doing here to help this gigantic problem? I haven’t seen the Mormons anywhere, except when it comes to denying equal protection under the law to gay people.

re 124:

annegb, perhaps we could take this off the site at some point, because I think there’s a lot to address and I don’t really want to derail the Mormon Mentality discussion so much. But what’s interesting (and timely) is that I just got through reading one female Duke graduate’s “scientific” research about all of her partners during her college years.

It seems to me that straight people are just as promiscuous as gays, and there is ample research (e.g., any college campus, save PERHAPS BYU) that shows that yes, casual sex is a problem. Yes, infidelity is a problem. It is not a gay problem or a straight problem; it is a human problem. If you are unaware of the various ways that men can proposition women for casual sex (or women with men), then I don’t necessarily want to fill you in on all of those details, but I don’t want to leave you believing that it’s only gay men with such ways.

I think you vastly underestimate how many partners the average heterosexual man or woman has. The reason the church has to emphasize chastity for EVERYONE is because sexual immorality is a widespread problem for nearly EVERYONE.

But here’s what I think can account for some of the difference:

Society encourages women to be more discerning about whom they have sexual relationships with. Why? Because pregnancy is a very real possibility, and if they haven’t chosen wisely their partner, they may end up without support if the man doesn’t want to own up to his actions.

So, I think that if you wanted, you might be able to say that many straights are more discerning because of the risk of pregnancy. However, the fact that gay people do not have this risk wouldn’t mean that straights are less promiscuous than gays…because straight people can minimize this risk through contraception or through abortion. (Consider how many abortions there are in the country. That speaks highly to the sexual immorality of *STRAIGHT* couples.)

Now, let’s compare in a different way, with Mormons. (Since you wanted to stick toward Mormons).

The average *faithful* heterosexual Mormon man can look forward to marriage. He can look forward to a divinely sanction opportunity to seek companionship (and, well, sex) when he has married. Since the church encourages early marriage, then he’s looking at 21-22 (after a mission). But prior to marriage, he is still allowed to date to an extent (as long as he keeps things clean)

what about the average *faithful* homosexual Mormon man? His sexuality is seen as unnatural and disordered, and in no way can he seek companionship to whom he is attracted in a church-sanctioned way. There is no dating allowed. There is no marriage to look forward to.

So, the average *faithful* heterosexual Mormon man will have 1 partner; you’re right. But the average *faithful homosexual Mormon man will have 0 partners. I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of celibate Mormon gays; I’m sorry if you’re unaware of them. I can link to several of their blogs, where they struggle with Mormon expectations and commandments, but indeed, they follow.

But I think your analysis ignores a few things. First of all, faithful Mormon men aren’t the only kind there are. I’d suppose that there are plenty of men, heterosexual and homosexual, who have broken the law of chastity. I’m sure that any Bishop could tell you about that too. In this case, I think it’s anyone’s guess who “gets around” more, but still, I think things can be explained by more than promiscuity.

The issue is this: under Mormonism, the straight Mormon man repents (after some level of disciplinary action) and can look forward to marrying. The gay Mormon man may be excommmunicated, but even if he repents, he is expected to stay single and celibate for the rest of his life.

Do you see a discrepancy? I think there is reason to believe that many gay Mormons leave the church, but if they do, then is it any surprise? They are given no church-sanctioned way to be virtuous, yet find companionship.

Their options are solitude and sin. That’s it. They aren’t given any standards for what virtue would even look like, because all standards of virtue imply a man and a woman.

I think MCQ’s final paragraph in comment 144 is spot-on. If we had similar standards, then this would represent a great deal of progress. But we don’t have that.

Just thought I’d throw this out there from the the church website.
http://new.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

Not sure what the ultimate significance will be, but not the change of Tendencies to temptations as well as the ommission of “Why would he do that?”

“We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. 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.”

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.

Paul promised that “God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”14 You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.””

Ron, you’re a little late.

annegb:

to me, fornication = sex between unmarried people of the opposite sex, according to most legal definitions. But you were talking about gay men, so I thought fornication might not be the right word for you to use. Not that important though.

Plus it’s not my post. I have no authority here, just popping off.

MCQ 153,
The comment stream has gotten so big I apologize if I missed where someone already posted that.

“Maybe Mormons could then cough up 21 mil to actually help people whose children don’t have enough to eat, or to stay in their homes, or to help people whose marriages are strained because of the recession.”

Have you never been in a bishops’ storehouse, or one of the dozens of LDS Family Services offices? Filled a shift in a cannery, noticed people paying fast offerings? Twenty-one million would be fraction of the annual budget for all that, and it goes on year after year.

I’m so confused.

MCQ

Thanks for being willing to share….wait, I lost track, which ones can a single homosexual man do?

All I can say is there is a lot more than Packer being parsed in this thread. Politically and legally it is not an issue that the church feels, right or wrong, it can stay neutral on. I think this stems from a belief that the legalization of gay marriage will be used as a precedent to force churches to make further concessions on the issue.

And characterizing the church and its members as uncaring for choosing to legally participate in the democratic process is a cheap shot.

Predthesis,

That is the bullshit argument that has been whispered for years now. It isn’t going to happen in the USA. Anybody that makes that argument has no understanding of the Constitution ( no wonder it is hanging by a thread!) and has no concept of how the Church functions either.

Actually, arj, there’s a strong history of court systems distorting laws to mean whatever they want. One key objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that it would lead to hiring quotas, and that criticism was dismissed using the same terms you’re using. Gay adoption is another area, where there are now states with laws on the books stating that adoption agencies must offer adoption services to both gay and straight parents. The question of whether these are desirable is a separate issue, but the point is that the US court systems engage in this sort of thing frequently enough to make it a real risk.

Here is a more relevant application of your same example. Did the CRA cause the courts to force the LDS Church to allow black people into the temples?

Predthesis,

I wouldn’t mind if the government granted only civil unions or nothing to everyone.

arj, the adoption example is more to the point because we are talking about something with legal consequences. In a worst case scenario, LDS temples might have to stop performing marriages and simply seal the marriages that the church condones. I am not arguing that same-sex marriages should be prohibited based on this contingency but I have a pretty dim view of the US court system and it’s eagerness to unilaterally impose the will of judges on the American populace.

DKL, the problem is that many people, including many in the Church, ARE arguing that same-sex marriages should be prohibited for exactly that reason. It’s a BS reason, as arJ has pointed out, but it is being used that way right here on this thread.

(i’m going to take 5)

Didn’t I say more promiscuous than the average active Mormon?
Mcq, this is to you. This emphasizes the confusion.

Andrew, thank you for your thoughtful insights. Hmmm, is that redundant? Oh well.

I hope this gets resolved well in the end. I believe it will, but maybe not till the resurrection. It’s a real dilemma for people of my generation, maybe not so much the younger generation. For BKP’s generation, there’s no dilemma.

I’m glad not to be a lot of things that involve problems in life that I don’t think I could handle. I have enough problems. Being iconoclastic in a strict Utah Mormon community, for example. However, if the choice were anything or death, I’d pretty much pick death. Sorry guys, I’m still depressed, but more manageably so.

107. Nick Literski — while I probably would not refer to the Pope as His Holiness, I am not likely to call him Mr. instead of Pope. The failure to use “His Holiness” is similar to the failure of people to use “The Right Honorable” title, or to refer to a Judge as “The Honorable” instead of “Mr.” or to call a judge “sir” instead of “Your Honor” (though “sir” is becoming an accepted usage).

Other uses do cross over into insult.

144. annegb — I went to Jim Bridger and Rancho, before I left the state. Still think kindly of a number of people in Vegas.

“I do not know what God has in mind here.”

Well said.

Stephen, I think arJ is referring to this (from Romney’s wiki page):

“Romney married Ann Davies on March 21, 1969, in a Bloomfield Hills civil ceremony presided over by a church elder. The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple.”

Most people (in the states at least) don’t get to do that, though many would like to.

168
You might be interested in basing your arguments in legal and actual fact, which you have not. I suggest you consult a lawyer.

If there are so many Constitutional scholars who would disagree with my analysis, perhaps you could name one or two?

Perhaps you could name any instance, anywhere of any Church being forced to marry anyone they did want to perform marriage for. Name one, I don’t even ask for two.

I’m sure President Benson would have liked that.

annegb
I gotta say I admire your honesty, and I have no problem with you clinging to your faith.
I rejected Mormonism as hateful nonsense, and leaving was the best thing I ever did. I have no interest in dissuading anyone from following their own conscience, but claim the same privilege for myself, if I may borrow from the AoF. I only ask Mormons to stay out of my civil equality under the law, promised to me by the Constitution. Once I have achieved my full equal protection under the law, you all will never hear from me again.

Your failure to differentiate between that which makes no sense (on the one hand) and that which makes no sense to you (on the other hand) is demonstrative of your general tendency to carelessly impute unqualified objective truth to your own opinions.

Nevertheless, if you have any questions about my comment #190 that might help to clarify it in your mind, I’d be happy to answer them. But I understand if you’re just more comfortable dismissing it without understanding it.

What I am interested in is not encouraging your immense ego, and your interest in hearing yourself talk.

The medium is irrelevant–either way its still all about you.

[...] works). As soon as the words were out of BKP’s mouth, the faithful started earnestly trying to figure out what to make of it. Faithful Mormon parents of gay kids explained how hurtful the [...]

Kristine,

Do you have a reference for that? My understanding was that they got permission to allow her family to attend the civil ceremony. When was the change in policy made?

And I would think the support of the baby boom generation is the deciding factor, from a legal standpoint. Aren’t we the majority? If you go to the older generation, you have people like Elder Packer, who have no inner conflict about issues like same sex marriage. Those in generations younger than mine also have no inner conflict.

But we—we’re conflicted. And we rock the vote. Most of my friends are shaking their heads these days; we see the sadness and the tragedy that results from rigidity. But we were raised on the word “queer”—I don’t remember much gay bashing when I was a kid, or a teenager, because anybody who was homosexual was scared to death to admit it.

We weren’t about sodomizing people in gay bars because there were no gay bars. We were about being embarrassed to discuss the issue in public.

Going back to “parsing Packer” gays must realize that part of the onus is on them to overcome this type of impression. And boy, that isn’t done by parading half naked down the street playing with yourself. Not that I’ve ever seen that personally. Just on TV….

annegb
So you expect all gay people to live exemplary lives in order to extend equal protection under the law? Why don’t you have the same expectation of heterosexuals? Should heterosexuals only be given legal marriage rights when straight men stop abandoning and abusing wives and children? when the divorce rate among heterosexuals gets below 50 percent? how low should it have to go? when polygamous fundamentalists stop raping teenage girls? when straight men stop frequenting prostitutes, many of whom are underage girls?

Anne I honestly think you want to be fair, but in this post, your double standards are shall we say ‘naked’?

Oh, I thought you were taking your kids to ballet, sorry.

Yeah, Don, I guess that’s the expectation, especially since, according to you and Peter, these gay parade people are the exception. Why don’t you address the issue of gay pride behavior, though? Why aren’t there gay people condemning that behavior? Are there?

I think you gave me an ad hominem or nonsequiter argument by changing the subject. My question was about the parades as specifically regards Palladino’s experience.

I mean, why is it all my responsibility to change a perception formed from observation (albeit TV) and none of yours to try to change perception via education or example?

Besides anne, is this the same Palladino who sent pornographic and racially degrading emails to his friends? The emails included racially degrading content about President Obama, bestiality, and explicit pornography of women. Hitch your wagon to another star–I might not agree with you, but he is a freak and not worthy of inclusion on your posts.
Consult the Buffalo NY newspaper website for all the details.

nasamomdele,

While I like what you have to say here, I think that we have to recognize the differences between a PR problem created by a person in a strictly hierarchical organization who speaks for that organization versus a PR problem created by a couple of outliers in a parade.

And who are my people, McQ? How would I be doing Mormons favors–by agreeing with everything every gay poster here says and by rubber stamping ssm & and calling Elder Packer a creep? I don’t feel a need to be PC, if that’s what’s required “to do my people a favor.”

Don, you wouldn’t need to smear me with fundamentals evils–I think it’s evil, too. That’s the difference between me and you. You can’t criticize excesses. I can. How the heck hard is it to say that some gays are causing you some problems—NOT ONLY PEOPLE LIKE ME, who are labeled because we admit our problems with this issue. For you, it’s black and white. It’s not for me.

If you only entertain approving opinions, you’re never going to reach a place of resolution. And again I don’t think the whole responsibility is mine to just get more tolerant.

I don’t know anything about that Palladino guy–he’s not the issue. His comments about the gay pride parades were reasonable, I thought.

And I guess doctors and lawyers can behave just as badly as garbage men. Their professions are meaningless in the scope of this conversation.

“How would I be doing Mormons favors–by agreeing with everything every gay poster here says and by rubber stamping ssm & and calling Elder Packer a creep? I don’t feel a need to be PC, if that’s what’s required “to do my people a favor.” ”

I thought Mormons were your people, annegb. Maybe I was wrong. They are my people, anyway.

No actually, I’m not advocating any of the things you list there. But the problem is that just repeating stereotypes and telling people they need to behave better as a group if they want you to consider whether they deserve equal rights is not a helpful contribution to the dialogue.

People care, annegb, but we all have a responsibility to not allow ourselves the luxury of forming stereotypical impressions from suspect sources like TV and movies.

anne

The most important thing I can say at this point is that I think you are honest in your self examination and in your desire to really understand. Whatever differences I have had with you in the past are minor compared to that.

I have never called Elder Packer a ‘creep’ or anything else. I disagree strongly with certain specific things he has said, which I think are ignorant and hateful, and which encourage violence against and self hatred in homosexuals.

From my perspective you are honest, and that will be the most important thing in figuring things out for anyone.

Sorry, I only see how ignorant and damaging his remarks are, because I have been on the receiving end of it.

annegb, here’s the thing with stereotypes: When you judge an entire category of people by your interaction with a one or two individuals, that’s not fair or right. It dehumanizes people and doesn’t give them any credit for being individuals. You might know some Chinese people and some people from India and some gay men, and you have made some observations about those people, but those are characteristics of those individuals. You can’t take those characteristics and apply them to a whole category of people and say, for example, that all people from India are bad drivers, just because the one or two Indian people you know are.

Does that make any sense?

“No, because they’re really like that. It’s like saying the sky is blue. That’s not judging. But I’m very nice to them and like them one on one.”

All of them are really like that? Are you really saying that every single person from India and China has the same characteristics? Please tell me you’re not.

annegb, normal gay people do not think it’s ok to act flamboyantly immoral in public. Most are embarassed by it. But they also understand where that behavior comes from and they try to be understanding. People who have been told their whole lives that they should be ashamed of being gay sometimes act up when they get the chance to actually celebrate who they are.

MCQ,

I’d love for you to explain yourself in comment #212 after re-reading my comment. Please address what in my comments reflects on Mormons. Or am I being stereotyped?

I address the stereotype rather than express the stereotype. I would love if you could “understand where that behavior comes from and try to be understanding.”

I would also love to hear how the majority of a culture cannot be stereotyped legitimately. Cultures provide people with their behavioral norms. If you think that the way you think or react to comments on this thread are entirely unique, or that you don’t use a stereotype during you day, I’ve got something to sell you. Stereotypes are both useful and necessary.

Its like I said, PR is PR. Legitimate organizations and movements need to be conscious of what face they are putting forward.

Ignoring the bad behavior out of “understanding” does not help the gays that don’t appreciate that behavior. The behavior, and the tolerance of it out of “understanding” undermines their work toward carrying on normal lives.

I have a gay coworker that expresses these very concerns.

BEHOLD: Relevant Data!

annegb, I’m married with children and I’m straight, but what does that matter? Are you saying that the arguments I have been making can only be made by a gay person? You might be surprised to find that I know a lot of straight, active Mormons (including many in the nacle) who would say exactly the same things I have been saying here. Those are the intelligent, ones, of course.

arJ, that website is awesome! And very funny! That should be required reading for anyone who wants to make a comment on this subject. Everyone go read it and report back, then we can talk. annegb, you and nasa might want to read it twice.

Yeah, I thought you were an attorney. You were speaking in the first person, it seemed. Maybe naturally advocating.

See, my generation (generalizing) wouldn’t have considered same-sex marriage a civil right because it was considered immoral to have sex wirt members of uh, your own sex. It was shameful and wrong. I’m not condoning but you really must make some allowances for conditioning that isn’t bigotry. You probably have some bigotries in your closet as well, based on that premise. Everybody does. It can be about trivial things, but still…

You’re as sure of this issue as I am about the priesthood and the women’s right to choose. I get being sure. I’m just not yet. Of course I agree with you on the issues you cite, but we’re talking about BKP’s talk and eternal implications and also opinions formed based on experiences with the flamboyant. It’s a valid conversation to have and those who shut dialogue down with cries of “hatred” do no one any good.

One thing I’ve learned lately–this could relate to gays–is that sometimes those who perceive themselves as victims and being persecuted are pretty good at hating as well. When hate is bouncing off both sides, nothing is accomplished.

Although I pretty much now hate the victim who hates me, which is a personal matter unrelated to this post or any blogger or anything else. But if somebody, say, BKP, has and voices an extreme and hurtful opinion and people respond with extreme and hurtful responses, that’s all we end up with. If that makes any sense.

This may interest you anne. OKCupid polled their 3 million users about sexuality. According to them men and women, gay or straight, average out to have the same amount of sexual partners (six).

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

I love that site, jj, I think it’s good info and very entertaining too. Thanks for linking it.

nasa, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. The thing I was taking issue with in your previous statement was the same thing arJ noted, namely that there is simply no reasonable comarison whatever between any LGBT movement and the Church, simply because the Church is a very cohesive, hierarchical organization that has people who regularly are authorized to speak and act on its behalf. None of those things are true about the LGBT movement (if it can even be fairly said that there is such a thing). No one can be held responsible for the behavior and words of others in that movement (again, I use that term advisedly) because there is no way for anyone to exercise any reasonable element of control over anyone else in that movement.

That’s why your comment was disturbing, because it seemed to be imposing a level of accountability on gay people as a group that is fundamentally flawed and unrealistic in the extreme. If you’re waiting to give fundamental rights to gay people until the day when they all behave according to your notions of courtesy and propriety, then you’ll be waiting a long time. All I’m saying is that you should really ask yourself whether the standard you are imposing on them is fair.

MCQ,

You addressed my comment regarding stereotypes as well, to which I responded.

As for the standard of behavior- those are everywhere. They are called laws. One in particular relates to indecent exposure. Some of them regulate what magazines have visible covers at the supermarket.

My comment would only be disturbing if I was holding the LGBT movement to the Church standard that the Church is regularly held to in blog discussions. But that is actually fairly silly to assume.

Kristine,

I can tell you that in Brazil even people who lived within an hour’s drive of a temple would get married civilly and then get married in the temple the next day. I believe this was because the temple sealing was not recognized as a civil marriage.

I can’t imagine that the Romneys had any issue with either being unchaperoned or overnight travel. In any case I was completely unaware of that policy and I’m having a hard time finding any information via google other than your comments on the topic.

I wonder how much the defense of same sex marriage is just an expression born of fear and political correctness—and from heavy celebrity pressure. It’s popular to accept homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Or is the evolution from the fact that most of us have close friends or relatives who are gay and realize they are people and that they have been hurt by the publics opinions and mores?

My personal dilemma comes from my faith in the church (as opposed to the gospel) which I know for a fact to be an imperfect institution; my faith in Christ, who loves all of us and knows our most intimate inner struggles and the programming of a 50-60′s childhood where “queer” was the description for homosexuals.

And I think of ancient Rome and Greece where homosexuality was natural and normal and look what happened to them?

I’m incredibly conflicted about this. I would not want to be the prophet or a member of the 12 dealing with this. Although, of course, the Lord knows all the answers to my questions. I don’t have to figure it out.

Interesting questions, annegb.

There is probably a certain amount of trendiness that influences any debate, but for myself, after having a number of friends whom I respect tell me they are gay, and explain how they arrived at that conclusion, I became very disillusioned with the idea that anyone ever chooses to be gay. Whatever your ideas about the origins of homosexuality, you have to grant that the universal experience of practically every single gay person is that they did not, and would not, ever choose it if they had any choice at all. Once you accept that truth, for me at least, it becomes very hard to justify any sort of discrimination or condemnation of someone for homosexuality. You can condemn bad behavior, and you can have whatever standards of behavior you want, but if the attraction is not chosen, it can’t be bad or sinful in itself. That is the conclusion the Church has recently reached, and I think it is correct and an important step forward.

The debate over same sex marriage is really a separate question, though it is influenced by how you view homosexuality. I don’t think you necessarily have to be in favor of same sex marriage just because you believe discrimination against gays is wrong. This is where the Church is right now, and it’s a difficult balance. Eventually, I think the idea that same sex marriage is somehow dangerous and destructive to traditional marriage will be proved wrong and the Church will stop opposing civil marriage for gays.

Whatever your beliefs on these issues though, I think it’s probably not an accurate view to say that homosexuality was the cause of the downfall of Rome or Greece as powerful societies. All great civilizations come to an end eventually, and you can’t simply lay the blame for the end of complex civilizations like Greece and Rome at the feet of homosexuality. That would be very unfair and wrong in my view.

I think we do have a responsibility to figure this out. At least, to the best of our ability. Having faith in God doesn’t mean we can just ignore the great questions of out times. We have to actually try to figure out the answers and try to do the right things. He isn’t going to do it for us.

arJ, I’ll see if I can find something in print. My parents were married civilly first because of the travel, and they weren’t celebrities or anything and wouldn’t have gotten special permission.

Like Brazil as mentioned above, most European countries also require civil marriages, so the U.S. is one of few places where the exclusion of non-member families is such a big deal.

Mcq, what is the option here? What do you want people like me to understand about the church and its approach to homosexuality? Do you want people to stand up en masse and revolt? Do you want people to quietly decide the church is all wrong and leave?

I do not have that luxury. It took me years to decide the leaders were wrong with the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. In fact, maybe about ten years ago. And I wonder all the time what I would do if it was still a part of Mormon policy. I think that could be a deal breaker. But I grew up believing that the color of a person’s skin made no difference. I grew up believing that homosexuality is at best, unnatural and at worst, a sin.

What to do here? What is your goal and how do you reconcile your beliefs about homosexuality with the church’s “truth.”

“What do you want people like me to understand about the church and its approach to homosexuality? Do you want people to stand up en masse and revolt? Do you want people to quietly decide the church is all wrong and leave?”

Where are you getting that, annegb?

I said I think that that the Church’s current position on homosexual attraction is correct, though I disagree with the position the Church took on prop 8, and especially the way it undertook that campaign.

Even if I felt the Church was wrong (which it obviously sometimes is) I would not leave, nor would I advocate that others should leave. I happen to believe the Church is the kingdom of God on earth, so how do I leave? And why would I leave just because the Church is wrong sometimes? It is expected that the Church is going to be wrong sometimes, because it is run by imperfect people. That doesn’t mean anyone should leave. Nor does it mean people should “revolt” against leaders who are, without exception, good men and women who are trying very hard to follow God’s will.

To me, what it does mean is that you try to understand the issues the best you can and come to the right answer yourself, which will sometimes be in agreement with the Church and sometimes not. If you are not in agreement, then revolt is not going to work and leaving is not an option. The only thing you can do is engage in discussions with Church members and leaders. That is the only possible way to change things. As a result of having those discussions, if the Church’s position is wrong, then I think it will eventually change, after a lot of time, effort, discussion and prayer.

We have already seen changes in the Church’s approach to homosexuality, just in the last few years. We may eventually see more changes. We know the Church eventually changed dramatically on the issue of race. The Church has also changed somewhat on sexual issues like birth control. We know that the Church has evolved somewhat on the role of women. We know change is possible, even dramatic change. We can have a little faith and a little hope and keep working for what we think is right. On the issue of homosexuality, I’m not sure we know exactly what that is yet. But I’m pretty sure we know what it’s not. It’s not treating homosexuals as lepers or pariahs. It’s not trying to coerce them into straight marriages or reparative therapies. It has a lot to do with treating them as brothers and sisters and knowing we don’t know all the answers yet.

It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks!!!