A different view of BKP's talk

[SoonerCoug]

So I was listening to BKP's talk, and I decided that it's actually a masterpiece.

There is more than one way to look at this. I think these 4 points constitute BKP's line of reasoning:

1. God is a loving God.
2. Homosexuality is against God's law.
3. There are many people that God created who have same-sex attraction (homosexuals).
4. If God is a loving God, then these homosexuals must merely have tendencies that they need to overcome. A loving heavenly father wouldn't give a person "evil" tendencies that they couldn't overcome.

Alternative number 4:

4. Since God created homosexuals, and since homosexuality is such a prevalent part of human biology, then either:
A) God is not a loving God
OR
B) Homosexuality isn't really against God's law
OR
C) God does not really exist.

Watch the video below. BKP is obviously very confused as to why these homosexuals exist. Since 1 and 2 are completely inflexible in BKP's mind, he can only conclude that homosexuals just have "tendencies" that they need to overcome. If BKP had even a few remaining malleable brain cells, then he might reconsider how firmly he should stand on the first two points. Unfortunately, he was programmed at a young age and it's too late for deprogramming.

To counter with the argument that there are other human behaviors or tendencies that are against the law would not be fair. Unlike many other things that are forbidden in the bible or in God's law, sexual orientation is essentially innate. Why would God make people that way? If I were a GA, I would have been up there asking the very same question.

[YOUTUBE]wDceBHOgm6A[/YOUTUBE]

Just to keep it clear as to what type of man we're dealing with, I thought I'd remind everyone of this gem from Apostle Packer in 1977:

We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, "Well, I know of exceptions." I do, too, and they've been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, "I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race." I say, "Yes--exceptions." Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman's near-scriptural statement, "We'd like to follow the rule first, and then we'll take care of the exceptions."

[SeattleUte]

I've been meaning to say something like this, but more tersely.

Of course, his logic is impeccable, if you buy into his cosmos. It's the progressive Mormons who are irrational.

By the way, Mark E. Peterson used the essentially the same reasoning in his notorious speach. Peterson's reasoning:

1. God is a loving God.
2. There are many people born into wretched conditions, or who have suffered persecution (e.g., Mexican illegals, Somalians).
3. If God is a loving God, then these wretched people must have done something in the pre-existence to deserve being born into such terrible situations. Why would a loving heavenly father tolerate undeserved evil and suffering?
4. AA's who want equal status with whites such as sending their kids to the same schools are acting contrary to God's will.

You don't believe me? Check it out.

Ironically, the same reasoning has caused untold suffering, helped rationlize many mass murders.