General Conference - Fall 2010

[Bronco70]

Katie - It's unfortunate that when some GLBT issue comes to the forefront, you immediately jump on the defensive, and generally start pointing fingers. While the GLBT community has undoubtedly endured more than their share of persecution, I think it does not help your cause to pick some other group to blame. Obviously, you have an ax to grind. But it is misguided to correlate the church's position on homosexuality with an individual's tendencies toward suicide. The church will always view homosexual behavior as immoral and improper, but will also always stick to the doctrine of loving one's fellow men, regardless of their condition. I've been LDS all my life, and I've never been taught that I should hate gay people. Some will hate, I understand that. But the blame lies with the individual, and the choices they make regarding those around them. I don't believe the church has ever taken someone's temple recommend away because they love and support their gay son or daughter.

You need to start differentiating between church directives and individual behaviors. You don't have to condone somebody's lifestyle to love and respect them.

 

[The-Joker]

I can now say that I have listened to Packer's talk. I watched a complete video of it on KSL.com. The quotes I read online were 100% correct. After watching the talk, my opinions are still the same. The only thing I will take back is my usage of the word hate. I will admit it was not a message of hate. I still feel that it is a hurtful message to any LGBT members of the church.

Got pride?

When has any LDS official used the term "hate" to describe anyone (without getting apprehended) let alone a large group of people?

I think you feel like the church has a special grudge against gays, and that's just not the case.

 

[colton]

It's not a message of hate at all.

I don't understand why some people think it's hateful to say that homosexuality is immoral. Mormons also believe that smoking and drinking alcohol is immoral. Does that mean we hate everybody that drinks or smokes? Nope.

As for the whole genetics or choice thing with homosexuality, I think everybody can agree that some people have more homosexual tendencies than others, just as some people have more alcoholic tendencies than others. Alcoholism runs in families, and it surely has a genetic component to it. Does that mean that people with those tendencies for alcoholism should be exempt from the Mormon belief to abstain from alcohol? Surely not. Likewise, just because someone may have more gay tendencies than others doesn't mean they have to succumb to those feelings. And I don't even know if tendency is the right word to use there, but whatever.

We all have our trials in life. I have my own. Some people are tempted and seem to be genetically wired with gay tendencies, others with alcohol, others with pornography, others with smoking.

It's hardly hateful for a church to just stand up for what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. The church still teaches to love everybody, but loving everybody doesn't mean we have to say that everything they do is morally correct.

This. +1

+2

Well said, Golfman.

Everything I've heard from the church (in recent years, anyway), is "control your behavior even if you can't control your tendencies". As opposed to, "Let your tendencies control your behavior", which unfortunately is what popular culture mostly teaches these days.

 

[KatieMCR]

Katie - It's unfortunate that when some GLBT issue comes to the forefront, you immediately jump on the defensive, and generally start pointing fingers. While the GLBT community has undoubtedly endured more than their share of persecution, I think it does not help your cause to pick some other group to blame. Obviously, you have an ax to grind. But it is misguided to correlate the church's position on homosexuality with an individual's tendencies toward suicide. The church will always view homosexual behavior as immoral and improper, but will also always stick to the doctrine of loving one's fellow men, regardless of their condition. I've been LDS all my life, and I've never been taught that I should hate gay people. Some will hate, I understand that. But the blame lies with the individual, and the choices they make regarding those around them. I don't believe the church has ever taken someone's temple recommend away because they love and support their gay son or daughter.

You need to start differentiating between church directives and individual behaviors. You don't have to condone somebody's lifestyle to love and respect them.

I agree with you. I have been working to separate the way I have been treated personally from the LDS church as a whole and its members. I know I still have work to do. I have been bitter towards the church for many years. I have been working to let go of those bitter feelings. It has helped that I have come into contact with many LDS members who treat me with respect, and do not judge me. If you knew my entire life story, you might understand why I feel this way. I still do not agree with what the church says about homosexuality. With that said, I cannot stay silent on this issue. If I feel something being said can cause harm to the LGBT community, I will challenge it.

 

[The-Joker]

I agree with you. I have been working to separate the way I have been treated personally from the LDS church as a whole and its members. I know I still have work to do. I have been bitter towards the church for many years. I have been working to let go of those bitter feelings. It has helped that I have come into contact with many LDS members who treat me with respect, and do not judge me. If you knew my entire life story, you might understand why I feel this way. I still do not agree with what the church says about homosexuality. With that said, I cannot stay silent on this issue. If I feel something being said can cause harm to the LGBT community, I will challenge it.

Can I ask (and I'm not being an *** this-time) if you think the position of the LDS church sets up any "salvation-seeking" GLBT person to fail in that goal of obtaining salvation (as dictated by the doctrine of the LDS chuch)?

 

[Deleted member 365]

I just knew that some angry fallen away member or ignorant critic who refers to the media for their facts on the lds church was going to hijack the thread. I actually did think that of Katie wanting to spread her hateful opinions on gay marriage and the LDS church. Glad that I was confirmed.... Unfortunately, I'm more interested in what people thought about General Conference than reading the 222nd thread discussing this subject.

Katie, you're not going to change anyone's opinion. You have yours and they have theirs. In fact, has anyone's opinion on this subject been changed on this message board... Ever?

 

[CONAN]

Someone - I think it was Mervyn Arnold, but I may be wrong (I'm more of a casual listener than a note taker) - railed briefly on "sleep overs". Apparently this is where children are being introduced to everything bad and lawless.

This has been brought up before and it is true to a point. Most families I know (including ours) have gone to the "Late-Nights" instead of sleepovers. Kids hangout til late and then go home.

 

[Stickler]

I just knew that some angry fallen away member or ignorant critic who refers to the media for their facts on the lds church was going to hijack the thread. I actually did think that of Katie wanting to spread her hateful opinions on gay marriage and the LDS church. Glad that I was confirmed.... Unfortunately, I'm more interested in what people thought about General Conference than reading the 222nd thread discussing this subject.

Katie, you're not going to change anyone's opinion. You have yours and they have theirs. In fact, has anyone's opinion on this subject been changed on this message board... Ever?

Dude, you're way out of line, in my opinion. I haven't found Katie to be ignorant or hateful in this thread; in fact she's been quite reasonable. When others challenged her on her use of the word "hate," she took a step back, considered things, even watched the speech. Then she said she was wrong to use the word hate, but stuck with her assessment that it is still hurtful to LDS acronym'd-up youth.

That is a perfect example of reasonable conversation and being willing to take other points into consideration.

Did you even read this thread before jumping in here to pile on?

 

[Archie Moses]

I haven't found Katie to be ignorant or hateful in this thread; in fact she's been quite reasonable.

I couldn't disagree more. Katie did take a step back, but only after being called out and asking her to explain her reasoning. She came into the thread, ignorant about what Packer said (hadn't listened to the talk) and was claiming he was hateful and his speech was a message of "hate". The definition of "hate" is strongly disliking something. If you were to ask Katie is she strongly dislikes the LDS church, what do you think her response would be?

Would it be reasonable of me if I went into _________ (insert religion of your choice) pointing fingers at them and calling them hateful because of their beliefs on morality?

 

[colton]

So, any other talks strike anyone?

 

[Archie Moses]

So, any other talks strike anyone?

I liked the talk by the guy that sounded like Count Dracula.

 

[Stickler]

I couldn't disagree more. Katie did take a step back, but only after being called out and asking her to explain her reasoning.

What's more important, a person's initial overreaction to something, or the fact that they listened with reason to the opposition and then, in fairness, adjusted their tune? For me it's the latter.