General Conference - Fall 2010

[BabyPeterzz]

Here is a letter to BKP from a local bishop.

It's long, but worth the read.

https://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

 

[KatieMCR]

Here is a letter to BKP from a local bishop.

It's long, but worth the read.

https://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

I just finished reading it myself, and was about to come post about it. It is an absolutely amazing letter. It should be read by everyone. I just don't understand how anyone (excluding beanguytownperson) can still not believe that sexual orientation is inborn. Here's a section of the letter that applies to Packer's recent talk.

At the crux of the issue of homosexuality and the Church are the three great interrelated beliefs: (1) there is an element of choice involved in becoming and remaining homosexual, (2) it can be cured, and (3) our children and youth can be recruited or enticed into homosexuality. Every time we have sought out help for our son and family on this issue from Priesthood leaders or General Authorities we have been summarily referred to the experts at LDS Social Services. Because the lives and well-being of so many trusting individuals and family members are at stake here, it would seem that much stock is put in the expertise of LDS Social Services in this matter. Isn't it fairly obvious, though, that the "experts" you rely on at LDS Social Services to professionally corroborate and support the doctrine and policy of the Church would support whatever position you have mandated to be the only correct one? Such is the level of respect for and faith in the office you hold. In all honesty, to disagree with a member of the Twelve on a matter of doctrine is tantamount to heresy. I'm sure you are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has denounced "reparative therapy" for treating homosexuals as both ineffective and damaging. I find it ironic that when a fundamentalist religious group shuns sound medical intervention as a doctrine we find it appalling and backwards - yet when that same sound medical advice denounces the practice of "reparative therapy" we call it "worldly" false doctrine. I guess it all depends on just whose ox is being gored.

In To The One you preach that homosexuality is not innate, but is a curable condition. Your fundamental proof: God wouldn't make a mistake like this. By preaching this, you set the impossible goal of "cure" as the standard to which my son must hold himself responsible, as must his family and all other Church members. Until he chooses to do what he must to be "cured," he hasn't done enough. He will never have done enough. He will always come up failing in the most fundamental aspect of his entire existence as a child of his Heavenly Father. He is a pervert, an aberration, and an abomination. There is nothing left in this life or the next. How would you deal with this if you were him? Homosexuality is not a "condition" that can be "cured." My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured - and my experience as a father observing my son from birth.

Perhaps the most hurtful aspect of To The One is your revelation that the fundamental reason why my son has not been "cured" is because of his selfishness. When I inform other people that this is actually what you preach in To The One, they are incredulous (members included). They respond "Obviously you have misread or misconstrued what Elder Packer said." You are well aware that this is precisely what is said. As one who knows my son and his heart better than you, your doctrine that my son's selfishness is at the core of his ability or inability to be cured of his homosexuality is offensive in the extreme, and evidences the lack of any meaningful inquiry into this issue beyond the application of pure dogma. In saying this it is not my intent to offend you. It is, simply, incredible that you could hit upon anything quite so insensitive and ignorant of the facts. Indeed, my son is the most unselfish and Christ-like person I know. This holds true for most of the LDS homosexuals I know well. They have to be to keep trying.

Your doctrine of "choice" and "curability" is also at the core of why the Church and its members in reality view my son and those like him as latter-day lepers. If homosexuality (1) is not inborn, (2) has an element of choice, and (3) can be cured - then it must be able to be taught or suggested. Others must also be susceptible to being enticed or recruited. Our children are capable of being infected by these people and not becoming mothers and fathers. It is, therefore, a frontal assault on the family. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" platitude cannot disguise the fact that in reality the members of the Church are taught to loathe and fear our son and those like him. This qualified and synthetic "love" is nothing more than the few alms hurriedly and begrudgingly parted with to salve the Christian conscience, while never once entertaining the idea of actually descending into the leper pit. We would never expose our children to this for it might infect them. If sexual orientation is a matter of choice, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual? When and how often did you reaffirm your choice to stay that way? Why aren't my other children, who idolize their brother, even the slightest bit interested in adopting a homosexual "lifestyle" or in homosexual experimentation? Why would anyone choose to be an abomination and an outcast? It defies reason.

Keep in mind this bishop is referencing material written by Boyd K. Packer. Now it was suggested here that Packer did not say that a person can change their sexual orientation. I 100% believe that is what he meant when he said: "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.”

This is why I, along with possibly 2,000+ other people, will be protesting tomorrow. Packer's words are so very harmful to LGBT mormon youth. The LDS church needs to realize the consequences their words carry.

 

[CONAN]

I'm sure you are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has denounced "reparative therapy" for treating homosexuals as both ineffective and damaging. I find it ironic that when a fundamentalist religious group shuns sound medical intervention as a doctrine we find it appalling and backwards - yet when that same sound medical advice denounces the practice of "reparative therapy" we call it "worldly" false doctrine. I guess it all depends on just whose ox is being gored.

Didn't read the whole thing but the APA is biased when it comes to homo stuff. Do a little research and check out their history and you'll see. Another poster tried using them as well one time only to get slapped down.

If sexual orientation is a matter of choice, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual? When and how often did you reaffirm your choice to stay that way? Why aren't my other children, who idolize their brother, even the slightest bit interested in adopting a homosexual "lifestyle" or in homosexual experimentation? Why would anyone choose to be an abomination and an outcast? It defies reason.

You could make the same argument for druggies then. I understand this guy being sensitive cuz he's got a horse in the race but he's losing it here hardcore.

 

[bigb]

I found that letter to be a very interesting read. It certainly provided a viewpoint that probably not many have heard.

 

[One Brow]

Didn't read the whole thing but the APA is biased when it comes to homo stuff. Do a little research and check out their history and you'll see. Another poster tried using them as well one time only to get slapped down.

Apparently, looking at a human condition and determining that it is a) not intrinsically harmful, and b) central to a peronality is sufficient for CONAN to think bias must be involved. This is purest nonesense, of course. It's much like a KKKer complaining that hospitals are using the same surgical procedures on members of different races.

You could make the same argument for druggies then. I understand this guy being sensitive cuz he's got a horse in the race but he's losing it here hardcore.

Drug addiction has known psychological effects that interfere with an individuals ability to function. Homosexuality does not.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Incorrect. Boyd K. Packer is a great man who is 80+ years old, and has the same mentality he had 50, 40, hell, 10 years ago. Ignorance does not = Bigoted.

Bigotry is bigotry, even if you're from the age of the dinosaurs where it was okay to assault purple T-Rex. I suppose McConkie wasn't a bigot because it was okay to consider blacks as sub-human 50 years ago.

 

[CONAN]

Apparently, looking at a human condition and determining that it is a) not intrinsically harmful, and b) central to a peronality is sufficient for CONAN to think bias must be involved. This is purest nonesense, of course. It's much like a KKKer complaining that hospitals are using the same surgical procedures on members of different races.

Apparently, you are one of those that got slapped down.

Drug addiction has known psychological effects that interfere with an individuals ability to function. Homosexuality does not.

0-2 here my man.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Bigotry is bigotry, even if you're from the age of the dinosaurs where it was okay to assault purple T-Rex. I suppose McConkie wasn't a bigot because it was okay to consider blacks as sub-human 50 years ago.

You're not very good at reading, are you?

 

[colton]

Drug addiction has known psychological effects that interfere with an individuals ability to function. Homosexuality does not.

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

 

[TroutBum]

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

Does your bishop know that you lied?

 

[Scat]

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

I read just last week that 1 out of every 4 gay men is HIV positive. 25% of the gay male population has HIV. That's pretty high.

 

[One Brow]

Apparently, you are one of those that got slapped down.

*chortle*. No doubt you remeber it that way.

0-2 here my man.

I'm well aware of your score-keeping abilities, and give them all the credence they deserve.

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

Holding hands with another man is more dangerous than holding hands with woman? There are no behaviors that are risker for homosexuals than they are for heterosexual couples engaging in the same behavior.

It's certainly true (or at least, seems true) that many young men engage in riskier behavior than young women do. That could easily be why homosexuals are the groups at highest risk and lowest risk for having AIDS (highest for men, lowest for women). There is nothing inherently homosexual about forgetting/refusing to wear a condom.

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

I read just last week that 1 out of every 4 gay men is HIV positive. 25% of the gay male population has HIV. That's pretty high.

I agree.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

You just offer reasons why it is so, but then reject the fact that gay men are more likely to have AIDS? No matter how many steps you put between gay and AIDS there IS a correlation.

 

[Archie Moses]

Why is it that homosexuals are more likely to have AIDS than heterosexuals?

 

[CONAN]

*chortle*. No doubt you remeber it that way.

I'm well aware of your score-keeping abilities, and give them all the credence they deserve.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Scat]

There are no behaviors that are risker for homosexuals than they are for heterosexual couples engaging in the same behavior.

It's certainly true (or at least, seems true) that many young men engage in riskier behavior than young women do. That could easily be why homosexuals are the groups at highest risk and lowest risk for having AIDS (highest for men, lowest for women). There is nothing inherently homosexual about forgetting/refusing to wear a condom.

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

I seem to recall a study that anal sex is inherently riskier because the possibility of injury and bleeding is much greater than traditional ******/vaginal sex. If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

 

[One Brow]

You just offer reasons why it is so, but then reject the fact that gay men are more likely to have AIDS? No matter how many steps you put between gay and AIDS there IS a correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

I seem to recall a study that anal sex is inherently riskier because the possibility of injury and bleeding is much greater than traditional ******/vaginal sex.

Even to the extent this might be true, blood doesn't flow through a condom.

If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

It's also not necessary for homosexuals to have anal sex, and certainly not necessary for them to do so without a condom.

 

[Scat]

Even to the extent this might be true, blood doesn't flow through a condom.

But it does make risky behaviour that much more risky.

]

If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

It's also not necessary for homosexuals to have anal sex, and certainly not necessary for them to do so without a condom.

Hence the reason I specified intercourse and not just sexual pleasure.

 

[franklin]

Why is the world going to end in a few years? Geez everyone be afraid? My parents were gulllible enough to fall for that scam of having to buy dehydrated meat from the church and then forcing me to eat the crap. I can tell you that listening to a talk about food storage would be as exciting as watching paint dry.

I don't know why I'm bothering... Since I'm somewhat into the sport of hording a bunch of cans that I'll most likely throw away, I'd like to offer up some ideas on why you're being a little naive on the whole food storage thing.

The world is 2 months away from famine pretty much all the time. One Irish potatoe blight incident and we're all gonna be fighting at the grocery stores. What about terrible weather worldwide for just one year? We have numerous continental incidents each year. Read up on the potential problems with genetically modified food. If all farmers grow the exact same strains then we lose genetic diversity. The lower the genetic diversity the higher susceptibility to catastrophic crop failure. Food storage is only a thing of the past for the past 50 years or so. It was a way of life the prior 100,000 years. Why be so confident now? Google "world grain stocks" or listen to investment guru Don Coxe once in a while.

The Mormon reasons aren't just end of the world as you suggest. They also councel getting out of debt and having savings. These, along with food storage, can really help when the banks take a **** on everyone's home equity. There's really more to it than "I hate Mormons and daddy made me eat crappy food.".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There is a joke, that helps people understand many of the issues here.

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

If you believe in God, and/or the Bible, you may remember one of, if not the first commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the earth. It is biologically impossible for 2 men, or 2 women to "multiply".

Marriage just happens to be the means God has to unify each "Adam and Eve" with any children they have through the "multiplication" process.

Why would God, who created Adam and Eve, and instructed them to be married and multiply and replenish the earth, think it ok down the road for an Adam and Steve to be married, and not multiply and replenish the earth? Wouldn't that basically be those people saying to God, we dont like your plan, or think it is good enough. Isn't that also basically the same thing lucifer did.... I dont like your plan, I think it should go like this.... which got him where he is?

I think we should skip what our own agenda is and really ask ourselves, "What does God want".
Ask it honestly, and sincerely without thought for any ulterior motives.
Then, kneel down and in prayer, sincerely ask God if what you think he wants is really what he wants.
If you are honest with yourself, and honest with God, you will get an answer.
If you only want to defend yourself, someone else, or are on a crusade... you may not be open to an answer and will probably get nothing, and be in the same place you were before you started.

What is God's plan for us here?
Can you learn about God's plan from the Bible?
Can you learn about God's plan from the Book of Mormon?
Can you pray about these things and find out for yourself?
Are Prophets real? Was Joseph Smith a true Prophet? Is Thomas Monson a Prophet today?
Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Lords true church?

If you actually go back to the basics and find out for yourself the answers to these things, it will help you resolve all of these issues discussed here in this thread. Many people with questions, or even arguments are wanting to argue point 10, when points 1-9 have not been agreed upon, or a common ground has not been reached. Difficult to reconcile differing viewpoints from different points on a map.