General Conference Predictions

[Indy Coug]

Church backs up BKP comments. This was on the front page of today's DNews:

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comm...-marriage.html

Comments so far have all been enthusiastic about the hard-line approach. I would say more, but I don't want to appear supercilious.

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/officia...der-attraction

[Maximus]

Regarding your first interpretation, how is gay marriage any more immoral than gay sex?

So we as a Church completely support the rights of gay people to live together and have sex, but we find it an outrageous example of "legalizing immorality" to think they have the right to make a formal commitment to each other through marriage? Sorry if I find that completely and utterly illogical.

A married gay couple with a commitment to long-term monogamy is preferable morally to an unmarried gay couple. Isn't that obvious and isn't the outrage over gay marriage (when nobody supports becoming an Iranian-style state that makes homosexuality a crime) utterly illogical? Why don't we really stand up for our beliefs and campaign for putting gays in prison if we really have a problem with "legalized immorality"?

And really, how deficient in empathy and compassion does the Church have to be make this argument to gay people:

We really just hold you to the same standard as straight people No sex outside of marriage. But of course you can't get married to anyone to whom you're attracted, because gay marriage is immoral.

As far as the second interpretation -- that gay marriage "legitimizes" gay sex -- 90% of the educated modern world under the age of 50 already realizes that people who are born gay have the same right to a sexual relationship as those who were born straight.

The concept that we should shame gay people into celibacy only exists among callous religious fanatics and the elderly who think gay people are really just perverted straight people.

Same right? Sure. Does that mean it is moral in Gods eyes?

[Maximus]

Regarding your first interpretation, how is gay marriage any more immoral than gay sex?

So we as a Church completely support the rights of gay people to live together and have sex, but we find it an outrageous example of "legalizing immorality" to think they have the right to make a formal commitment to each other through marriage? Sorry if I find that completely and utterly illogical.

A married gay couple with a commitment to long-term monogamy is preferable morally to an unmarried gay couple. Isn't that obvious and isn't the outrage over gay marriage (when nobody supports becoming an Iranian-style state that makes homosexuality a crime) utterly illogical? Why don't we really stand up for our beliefs and campaign for putting gays in prison if we really have a problem with "legalized immorality"?

And really, how deficient in empathy and compassion does the Church have to be make this argument to gay people:

We really just hold you to the same standard as straight people No sex outside of marriage. But of course you can't get married to anyone to whom you're attracted, because gay marriage is immoral.

As far as the second interpretation -- that gay marriage "legitimizes" gay sex -- 90% of the educated modern world under the age of 50 already realizes that people who are born gay have the same right to a sexual relationship as those who were born straight.

The concept that we should shame gay people into celibacy only exists among callous religious fanatics and the elderly who think gay people are really just perverted straight people.

And again it is clear what the churches stance is. Gay sex is immoral, so is gay marriage.

[woot]

And again it is clear what the churches stance is. Gay sex is immoral, so is gay marriage.

I think the point is that BKP's talk, in addition to being wrong, was incoherent.

Oaks isn't much better:

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control.

At least he recognizes it as a fact. Shame the facts don't matter to him.

[Indy Coug]

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept AS fact that conditions prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny AND THAT THEY were born into them without any ability to control.

At least he recognizes it as a fact. Shame the facts don't matter to him.

Fixed it for him.

[jay santos]

I think I'm being a little harsh here about BKP. At least he's not giving the green light to violence against gay people anymore. In that sense, he's come a long way in the last 30 years. And this passage has some pretty good comedic value.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

You only hit your companion? Thank God. I thought you were going to say you masturbated.

[Maximus]

I think the point is that BKP's talk, in addition to being wrong, was incoherent.

Oaks isn't much better:



At least he recognizes it as a fact. Shame the facts don't matter to him.

And you know that that is true how? Either homosexual relations is okay in Gods eyes, or Oaks is right. I dont see a middle ground.

[creekster]

I think the point is that BKP's talk, in addition to being wrong, was incoherent.

Oaks isn't much better:



At least he recognizes it as a fact. Shame the facts don't matter to him.

That is an unfair characterization of Oaks' position. His statement in the article linked by JL makes clear the difference between tendency and feeling and behavior. When he says those can be controlled he is referring to behavior. While he chooses his words very carefully, he concedes that for some such tendencies are inherent.

[jay santos]

I'm getting sick of the Prop 8 Defense. Maybe Oaks and Packer can take it offline with the gays. Do we really need to be in the middle of it?

[Indy Coug]

I'm getting sick of the Prop 8 Defense. Maybe Oaks and Packer can take it offline with the gays. Do we really need to be in the middle of it?

LOL

[byu71]

Church backs up BKP comments. This was on the front page of today's DNews:

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comm...-marriage.html

Comments so far have all been enthusiastic about the hard-line approach. I would say more, but I don't want to appear supercilious.

It will be interesting to see if they back up the one sentence. The sentence that went something like " would God do that to someone".

I try not to ask questions like that or answer questions like that. Why, because there are so many things that happen to people that one could ask, why would God do that.

For almost any of them, leaders of the church would have some answer that involves we don't know why God let's these things happen, but we know he loves us.

The message Elder Packer delievered was, you are gay only because you chose to be, God wouldn't make such a terrible mistake.

It is not my position to advocate gay rights. I think things are fine how they are. It is tough on me though when I have comments like that standing by my side.

[scottie]

Church backs up BKP comments. This was on the front page of today's DNews:

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comm...-marriage.html

Comments so far have all been enthusiastic about the hard-line approach. I would say more, but I don't want to appear supercilious.

...and its implications for same-gender marriage are very clear and are based on principles of truth, respect and love for all of God's children.

Based on respect and love for all of God's children -- uh, what?!

[woot]

And you know that that is true how? Either homosexual relations is okay in Gods eyes, or Oaks is right. I dont see a middle ground.

The issue is that the church leadership is trying to argue for this exactly backwards. Homosexuals generally don't choose to be gay; whether it's nature or nurture, it is ingrained in them from a young age. From this, they could probably build an argument explaining the nature of god. BKP and the gang don't do that. They say "We believe that god wouldn't make people gay; therefore people aren't gay. They only have curable inclinations." It really is no different from believing the moon is made of cheese. It would still be possible for the church to claim that homosexual behavior is wrong without doing violence to the evidence.

There seem to be a great number of members struggling with this right now because they care about evidence. Why won't the church even pay lip-service to those people? Are they not welcome?

[creekster]

The issue is that the church leadership is trying to argue for this exactly backwards. Homosexuals generally don't choose to be gay; whether it's nature or nurture, it is ingrained in them from a young age. From this, they could probably build an argument explaining the nature of god. BKP and the gang don't do that. They say "We believe that god wouldn't make people gay; therefore people aren't gay. They only have curable inclinations." It really is no different from believing the moon is made of cheese. It would still be possible for the church to claim that homosexual behavior is wrong without doing violence to the evidence.

There seem to be a great number of members struggling with this right now because they care about evidence. Why won't the church even pay lip-service to those people? Are they not welcome?

Do you have me on ignore? I really don't think that you are fairly re-stating what Oaks or even BKP say. While some may imply that the inclination is cureable, I think you also see statements making clear that the BEHAVIOR is what must be proscribed. Even if they are wired to be gay, from the start, they can overcome the inclination by avoiding the behavior. How does that not allow for the evidence?

[CardiacCoug]

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/officia...der-attraction

A few incredibly unChristlike portions, in my opinion:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’
ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

Don't let your gay son bring his partner home for holidays because it would set a bad example for younger people? Really? Don't expect us to be seen with you and your partner in public? Who thinks that way anymore? Just the opposite seems true to me. It's a terrible example to tell your gay son he can't bring his partner to your home. It's a terrible example to not want to be seen with your gay son and his partner.

This next part is incredibly condescending and insulting to gay people, comparing them to criminals and saying they just want marriage to "feel better about themselves." Incredibly insensitive and showing that he knows very few if any gay people -- it has nothing to do with "feeling better" about themselves.

ELDER OAKS: In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation.

I guess we really do want to be known as the church that hates gay people. The church where parents don't let their gay kids come home for holidays. The church where parents don't want to be seen in public with their gay kids. The church that compares gay people to criminals and says they only want marriage to "feel better" about themselves. Very disappointing.