Elder Uchtdorf addressed SSA on Sunday

[creekster]

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.

No, I give him much more credit than most here. But really, woot, old friend, I just dont have the energy to go through this again. I think we said it all before. I choose to take you at your word that you think I presented a respectable case, which I appreciate, and I will happily leave you at your opinion,as you have left me at mine.

The question is what is the church's policy or approach. To that end, given some of the factors you and others noted (e.g. BKP's obviously poor health) I would put much more weight on Uchtdorf;s comments than BKP's comments. But I agree, BKP is not simple nor is he unaware. It very well could be that he meant exactly what you think he meant, but given the clearly ambiguous language and the subsequent revisions in the printed form, I tend to think that the Church will not follow the position you think BKP is taking.

[creekster]

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.

yes, I am dumb.

[old_gregg]

yes, I am dumb.

It's the typos. A few capital letters, some punctuation, and voila! Woot will be riding the Packer train (not a euphemism) for all to see.

[falafel]

"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 read that quote to (at least partially) to say that natural tendencies can always be overcome.

[Pheidippides]

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.

World champion persuasive speaker, right here. Jethro Tull sucks, by the way. If you can't see that you are a blithering idiot with no taste.

[RC Vikings]

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.

Creekster isn't dumb his fingers just don't work so good.

[Tim]

yes, I am dumb.

creekster, you're just so dumb!