Elder Uchtdorf addressed SSA on Sunday

[scottie]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50537493-78/uchtdorf-church-lds-sex.html.csp

Published Oct 25, 2010 08:40PM

Mormons may not know until the hereafter what causes same-sex attraction, but “God loves all his children” and expects everyone to do the same, an LDS Church leader said Sunday.

...

Good job, Elder Uchtdorf.

[Ian Anderson's Flute]

Boyd K. Packer stated that same sex attraction is a CHOICE and God would not allow someone to be born with same sex attraction. Packer's stance contradicts Uchdorf's. So the question is, who is right?

Since Boyd K. Packer's talk was read from the pulpit in General Conference, it would seem his stance carries more weight. I don't even know what "SSA" is, but it doesn't trump General Conference.

[DU Ute]

Boyd K. Packer stated that same sex attraction is a CHOICE and God would not allow someone to be born with same sex attraction. Packer's stance contradicts Uchdorf's. So the question is, who is right?

Since Boyd K. Packer's talk was read from the pulpit in General Conference, it would seem his stance carries more weight. I don't even know what "SSA" is, but it doesn't trump General Conference.

Is your username some sort of euphemism?

[EuropeanFootballMale]

Since Boyd K. Packer's talk was read from the pulpit in General Conference, it would seem his stance carries more weight. I don't even know what "SSA" is, but it doesn't trump General Conference.

SSA is the topic, not the venue.

[creekster]

Boyd K. Packer stated that same sex attraction is a CHOICE and God would not allow someone to be born with same sex attraction. Packer's stance contradicts Uchdorf's. So the question is, who is right?

Since Boyd K. Packer's talk was read from the pulpit in General Conference, it would seem his stance carries more weight. I don't even know what "SSA" is, but it doesn't trump General Conference.

You're late to the party. BKP's talk was discussed at great length here in another thread. Some of us, including myself, disagree with your interpretation of what BKP said. I don't think it is at all inconsistent with what Uchtdorf said.

[UtahDan]

This talk seems to be clearer that we don't know why some people are gay. Has anyone asked, I wonder?

[Ian Anderson's Flute]

You're late to the party. BKP's talk was discussed at great length here in another thread. Some of us, including myself, disagree with your interpretation of what BKP said. I don't think it is at all inconsistent with what Uchtdorf said.

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

Packer stated that those who feel that sexual tendencies are preset are wrong. The context was homosexuality, you're reaching way too far if you argue otherwise. There's no other way to interpret his statements.

Uchdorf stated that we currently do not know whether sexual tendencies are preset. Those are two very different positions.

Furthermore, if those statements are not contradictory, why were Packer's statements changed in written publications?

[hostile]

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

Packer stated that those who feel that sexual tendencies are preset are wrong. The context was homosexuality, you're reaching way too far if you argue otherwise. There's no other way to interpret his statements.

Uchdorf stated that we currently do not know whether sexual tendencies are preset. Those are two very different positions.

Furthermore, if those statements are not contradictory, why were Packer's statements changed in written publications?

I don't know the answers to your questions, but if you haven't already decided on an avatar, can I make a suggestion?

[creekster]

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

Packer stated that those who feel that sexual tendencies are preset are wrong. The context was homosexuality, you're reaching way too far if you argue otherwise. There's no other way to interpret his statements.

Uchdorf stated that we currently do not know whether sexual tendencies are preset. Those are two very different positions.

Furthermore, if those statements are not contradictory, why were Packer's statements changed in written publications?

Dude, go find the thread(s). I can see you are still fired up about it, which is great, but I am not going to rehash it all for your benefit. Maybe someone else will. They were the day after conference, as I recall.

[Ian Anderson's Flute]

Dude, go find the thread(s). I can see you are still fired up about it, which is great, but I am not going to rehash it all for your benefit. Maybe someone else will. They were the day after conference, as I recall.

There's no need for me to go find that thread. There's no interpretation needed from those two quotations, they're very clear, and they differ. If you can't see that, you're dumb.

[woot]

Dude, go find the thread(s). I can see you are still fired up about it, which is great, but I am not going to rehash it all for your benefit. Maybe someone else will. They were the day after conference, as I recall.

You present a respectable case, but seeing as how BKP's language has scarcely changed since the 70s when he most definitely was arguing exactly what it seems he was arguing in his recent talk, I don't think there's any way to deny it now.

That's just me, though. I don't expect you'll agree.

[creekster]

There's no need for me to go find that thread. There's no interpretation needed from those two quotations, they're very clear, and they differ. If you can't see that, you're dumb.

If you cant see more than one interpretation in BKP's words, then you are simple.

See how persuasive that is?

I have no interest in discussing this with you after your impressive performance here, in just a few posts. Have at it.

[creekster]

You present a respectable case, but seeing as how BKP's language has scarcely changed since the 70s when he most definitely was arguing exactly what it seems he was arguing in his recent talk, I don't think there's any way to deny it now.

That's just me, though. I don't expect you'll agree.

condemning him based on his past eh? As you will.

[woot]

condemning him based on his past eh? As you will.

No, seriously. Compare the two talks. They are the same points made using almost identical language. Do you suppose he was being ironic in using the same words to mean different things, while fairly obviously meaning the same thing both times? At some point you have to wonder if you're just not giving him enough credit.

[Ian Anderson's Flute]

You present a respectable case, but seeing as how BKP's language has scarcely changed since the 70s when he most definitely was arguing exactly what it seems he was arguing in his recent talk, I don't think there's any way to deny it now.

That's just me, though. I don't expect you'll agree.

No, it's not just you. Packer's stance has not changed since the 70's. Creekster won't agree because he chooses to disregard facts and would rather "interpret" literal phrases to whatever he wishes them to be.