Does Boyd K. Packer Understand The Gospel?

[_squawkeye]

I am not much of a fan of ol ParanoidBoyd but he is correct in his statement as to what the LDS Church believes and teaches and has taught for a long time.

Fits right into polygamy and the teaching that anyone who does not enter into the practice cannot reach the highest degree of glory. Can't be much simpler than that.

[_Brackite]

Is this about gay marriage? Saying a man and a man (or woman and woman) cannot attain salvation?

What if you are gay, yet follow the brethrens advice to simply not marry and deny your unholy urges? Will you not be saved for enduring to the end? Wasn't it enough that the cruel God you worship sent you to Earth with such an "ailment", and yet you stayed true to His unreasonable demands?

Hello Scottie,

Well, For LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, it is Not Good enough for a Gay Man to deny all of his unholy urges. In order for the Gay man to be good enough and righteous enough within the eyes of Boyd K. Packer, the gay man has to find a woman to marry and to start a family. Single Males Over the age of 35 Years old, within the LDS Church, are considered Second class Members and not righteous and not holy enough, within the eyes of the high up Leadership of the LDS Church.

[_John Larsen]

When I was a member I disliked Boyd Packer considerably. However, after I researched the Church and its doctrine as a former believer, I realized that Packer had a clear understanding of Mormon theology and expressed it in unambiguous terms. The reason many people don't like Packer is that he tends to state things too clearly--he removes the webs of ambiguity and doublespeak that have been tangled around weasel words and faith promoting stories. Boyd's real problem is that he is a relic from the old days when the Church was a Church and not just a business.

[_Trevor]

Boyd's real problem is that he is a relic from the old days when the Church was a Church and not just a business.

I guess you haven't been out of the Church quite long enough.

[_Brackite]

Is this statement really true? Is it really true for a man to really understand the Gospel, He has to believe that he needs to Marry a Woman, to be able to get to the highest degree of Glory and/or Heaven?

Yes.

To understand what the Gospel really is, let us go to the Scriptures, that defined for us what the Gospel really is.

I don't think there is any one single verse or verse set that describes all the requirements for salvation in the highest degree. For example...

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:11

Bottom line: If you want to be in and one with God, as per John 17. You will be married. Thus you can't obtain the highest degree of salvation unless you are married.

Hello BCSpace,

Not Every Single Male born on this Earth is supposed to get Married. There are quite a few Males on this Planet who should stay single in this lifetime of theirs.

And, Here is what the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians Chapter Seven Verses seven through nine, Within the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 7:7-9: (New American Standard Bible):

7 [a]Yet I wish that all men were (E)even as I myself am However, (F)each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is (G)good for them if they remain (H)even as I.

9 But if they do not have self-control, (I)let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


( Link: )

A MMMale does Not have to get married in order to fulfill the Gospel in full. The Scriptural Passage of 1 Corinthians Chapter 15, Verses one through four is a Great and Terrific Definition of the Gospel, From the Apostle Paul.

There are some People in this world who are not met to get married in this lifetime. Some of these People include quite a few Females. And some of the People in this world who are not met to get Married in this lifetime, also happen to indeed include quite a few Males.

[_Trevor]

It strikes me as more than a bit funny that this question would be posed here. Isn't this somewhat akin to meeting with a small group, most of whom are disgruntled people in various stages of financial bankruptcy, and asking them whether Warren Buffet understands economics and finance?

Where do you get your material? Fan of the Daily Show are we?

Thanks-Trevor-

[_moksha]

It feels like the tying of any heavenly status to marriage is still an offshoot of polygamy theology and I feel uncomfortable with that because I doubt polygamy's divine origin. Hope that does not make me a bad Mormon.

[_wenglund]

It strikes me as more than a bit funny that this question would be posed here. Isn't this somewhat akin to meeting with a small group, most of whom are disgruntled people in various stages of financial bankruptcy, and asking them whether Warren Buffet understands economics and finance?

Where do you get your material?

It pretty much writes itself here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

It feels like the tying of any heavenly status to marriage is still an offshoot of polygamy theology and I feel uncomfortable with that because I doubt polygamy's divine origin. Hope that does not make me a bad Mormon.

Shocking Mok, just shocking that you should dare to question polygamy.

It would be much more PC to say something like, "it's behind us".

[_harmony]

It feels like the tying of any heavenly status to marriage is still an offshoot of polygamy theology and I feel uncomfortable with that because I doubt polygamy's divine origin. Hope that does not make me a bad Mormon.

Shocking Mok, just shocking that you should dare to question polygamy.

It would be much more PC to say something like, "it's behind us".

Personally, I think we need more penquins in the church. The higher up, the better.