General Conference - Fall 2010

[Archie Moses]

It wasn't a message of direct hate... it wasn't a message inciting hate... it was a message that has a tendency to lead to hate.

Example: How do you feel about pedophiles? Society doesn't tell us to "hate" them, but considering the stigma that comes from acting in such impure and unnatural ways, what ends up happening to our views about pedophiles?

Sure, maybe you don't hate them, but a lot of people do... and what Packer did was promote the same sort of feelings, albeit on a much lesser scale. Now, if Packer had said the same thing about pedophiles, no one would complain - because pedophiles HURT others. Being homosexual, in itself, hurts no one. So my question: Why did he have to go there in his speech?

This isn't even worth responding to. Comparing gays with pedophiles is a joke.

Please, feel free to explain how Packer's words "incited hate". It didn't.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Most gays are pedophiles. It's science.

 

[G-O-A-T]

This isn't even worth responding to. Comparing gays with pedophiles is a joke.

Please, feel free to explain how Packer's words "incited hate". It didn't.

First off, I explicitly said that his message didn't incite hate.

Next, since you don't want to take the time to consider my analogy at all, consider this example. Lets say the pope, while addressing the world's catholic community, puts your picture up, your name and address, and tells the catholic world that you are impure and unnatural... but that he still loves you, even though you aren't going to heaven. How are YOU going to feel? How do you think your catholic neighbors are going to treat you? With love? Really? Yeah... it would suck to be on the other end of the speech then, wouldn't it.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow, ..., once again resorted to personal attacks and political rhetoric.

Feel free to quote one personal attack, if you can.

Yep, you're all fear-mongerers.

Classifying a point is not a personal attack. I never described you, only your words.

By the way, when you use arguments that amount to fear-mongering, no logical response is possible, because the argument itself is not logical. Present a logical argument, you'll get a logical response. Present emotion-driven nonesnese, you'll get called out on it.

I'm still waiting for you to refute the idea.

Refute the idea that the US government will force the LDS church o recognize gay marriages? Easy. It's called "the First amendment". QED.

 

[Archie Moses]

First off, I explicitly said that his message didn't incite hate.

You did, but then you wrote:

it wasn't a message inciting hate... it was a message that has a tendency to lead to hate.

Which to me, pretty much means "incite". Incite: To move to action; to stir up.

Next, since you don't want to take the time to consider my analogy at all, consider this example. Lets say the pope, while addressing the world's catholic community, puts your picture up, your name and address, and tells the catholic world that you are impure and unnatural... but that he still loves you, even though you aren't going to heaven.

No one was individually called out during Packer's speech. Immoral acts of impurity were.

Packer also talked about looking at porno is a sin and is bad. How does that make people feel that look at porn? Probably bad, unless they don't believe in the church and its teachings. Does knowing that people may feel bad keep Packer from delivering his message? No. Does it mean it was a speech that was going to lead to hate towards those that look at porn? No.

Jesus Christ taught us to be "perfect" even as to him. Since no one in the world is perfect, do you think Jesus was teaching something that's going to lead to hate? I mean, he pretty much called everyone out on something that can't be accomplished, right? People feel bad all the time because they "sin" or aren't "perfect", but Jesus wasn't a hateful speaker. Same thing with Packer and his speech.

 

[Bronco70]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the church doesn't HAVE to sanction the marriage of anyone... if the church doesn't want to perform homosexual marriages in its privately owned, privately funded temples, it doesn't have too.

Nope. In that respect you are 100% completely correct.

But I'm not talking about gays being married by the church. I'm talking about a specific element of LDS doctrine that requires a chaste life. The church definition of chastity, to my understanding, is; complete fidelity to one's lawful spouse, and no sexual relations outside of such a legal marital relationship. Adherence to this and other principles is required to fully participate in the ordinances of LDS gospel.

So... if you have a gay couple who is abiding by every other church guideline, why should they be denied these ordinances? Therein lies the paradox. I've always understood (and I am completely open to the possibility that I am way off) that to the church homosexuality was, more or less, a subset of the Law of Chastity (see above).

I understand that to 99.9% of gay people, this is irrelevant and unimportant. But there is a handful who want to be full-on mormons, and be gay too. This is a potential loophole that leaves the possibility of legal action.

What I saw happening (in prop 8) was the church trying to mesh its own religious views into state sanctioned law

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Archie's getting all Beantown-level smart on us.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Most gays are pedophiles. It's science.

Why are you still here?

 

[KatieMCR]

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

The LDS church was responsible for Prop 8 being on the ballot to begin with. They used one of their front groups to get it on the ballot. They then contributed money from their own accounts, and told members to donate money. They even had to pay a fine due to their contributions to the campaign. They shouldn't be involved in politics in that way. Anyway that's really off the topic of the current controversy.

 

[Bronco70]

The LDS church was responsible for Prop 8 being on the ballot to begin with.

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. I said that before. Nobody is denying...

They even had to pay a fine due to their contributions to the campaign.

More correctly, they were fined for a minor procedural oversight in the filing of their paperwork. This is just another example of how you like to twist information to suit your agenda.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Nope. In that respect you are 100% completely correct.

But I'm not talking about gays being married by the church. I'm talking about a specific element of LDS doctrine that requires a chaste life. The church definition of chastity, to my understanding, is; complete fidelity to one's lawful spouse, and no sexual relations outside of such a legal marital relationship. Adherence to this and other principles is required to fully participate in the ordinances of LDS gospel.

So... if you have a gay couple who is abiding by every other church guideline, why should they be denied these ordinances? Therein lies the paradox. I've always understood (and I am completely open to the possibility that I am way off) that to the church homosexuality was, more or less, a subset of the Law of Chastity (see above).

I understand that to 99.9% of gay people, this is irrelevant and unimportant. But there is a handful who want to be full-on mormons, and be gay too. This is a potential loophole that leaves the possibility of legal action.

I honestly don't believe that any court in the U.S. would force (let alone even hear the case) the church to accept an individual as a member of the LDS, or any church. So, what I'm saying is, is that no matter how much a gay person wants to be a mormon... they can't force the church to allow them to be mormon. 1st amendment constitutional rights are the source of this belief.

It's like if you owned a business... the state can't come in and force you to hire someone (unless you are a state funded business)... or can't come to your house and make you be friends with some random guy. The church is a private entity and should be treated as such... and will regardless of state marriage laws.

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

No, mormons alone didn't get prop 8 passed, but didn't they get fined for their involvement with prop 8? I don't remember the details anymore, so I might be wrong... but I thought they paid for commercials supporting the passage of prop 8 also. That to me is getting far too involved with state law... it's one thing to ask individual members all vote a certain way, it's another to broadcast your propaganda to the general public.

As for the minority voters who drove the referendum through... they should be lambasted! But they aren't because they weren't the voice that everyone heard telling people to pass prop 8... that was the LDS church's role.

 

[KatieMCR]

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. I said that before. Nobody is denying...



More correctly, they were fined for a minor procedural oversight in the filing of their paperwork. This is just another example of how you like to twist information to suit your agenda.

I twisted nothing. What paperwork did they file incorrectly? Paperwork about their contributions to the Prop 8 campaign.