Greg Smith's Defense of Boyd K. Packer

[Guest]

No one's ever shown criticism of the Church in this (or any) area to be valid or of any significance.

[_Bob Loblaw]

No one's ever shown criticism of the Church in this (or any) area to be valid or of any significance.

FIFY: "No one's ever shown criticism of the Church in this (or any) area to be valid or of any significance to people like bcspace, who desperately need to believe in the unbelievable."

[_Shulem]

The changing of the word tendencies to temptations is unjustified and I can prove it. You will note that the written report deleted the statement, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

I'm glad you caught that, Paul. I had missed it because I was so focused on the deleted question. But that is important, "tendencies" was changed to "temptations."

If anything, that makes what Boyd Packer said even stronger (from his point of view).

These are not just "tendencies" some mistake for being inborn, they are actually "temptations."

Tendency is a neutral word.

Temptation is not neutral, but used for tendencies toward that which is evil.

(Funny I don't recall Greg Smith addressing this change in his paper. Maybe I missed it. It does not seem to support his argument, though.)

Good catch, Paul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks.

It becomes really obvious that the deleted part is the smoking gun. Look how it makes the change from tendencies to temptations totally not work at all based on what Packer was really saying and expressing -- I'll substitute or change the one word in the original talk:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn TEMPTATIONS toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father."

Gotcha ya, Packer! According to Mormon doctrine Heavenly Father allows mankind to go through horrific temptations even to the breaking point and many sons and daughters of God feel helpless and defeated in the process and Heavenly Father allows this.

Packer really meant TENDENCIES because he is a homophobe and a gay hater. The Mormon church is just trying to cover this up.

Paul O

[_palerobber]

it may have just been edited for tone.

and no, supporters of equality (and empiricism) did not 'hail the change' as someone upthread said. the talk was just as harmful and counterfactual in either form. though it definitely did lead people to speculate whether the 1st presidency was keeping a close eye on Packer. a friend of mine talked to a Q70 not long after who dismissed the talk as Packer's 'last hurrah.'

[_son of Ishmael]

I think the reason that BKP really beleives you can "pray away the gay" is because it worked for him.

[_palerobber]

another possible reason for the redaction is that they want to leave available the position that God makes people gay as a test.

[_consiglieri]

Thanks.

It becomes really obvious that the deleted part is the smoking gun. Look how it makes the change from tendencies to temptations totally not work at all based on what Packer was really saying and expressing -- I'll substitute or change the one word in the original talk:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn TEMPTATIONS toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father."

Gotcha ya, Packer! According to Mormon doctrine Heavenly Father allows mankind to go through horrific temptations even to the breaking point and many sons and daughters of God feel helpless and defeated in the process and Heavenly Father allows this.

Packer really meant TENDENCIES because he is a homophobe and a gay hater. The Mormon church is just trying to cover this up.

Paul O

Good points, Paul.

You know, I think the people who redacted this talk could have done a better job. I mean, it is obvious they took something out referring to God.

Otherwise, the statement, "Remember, God is our Heavenly Father!" comes out of nowhere with no antecedent. It makes no sense the way it stands.

If we didn't know what had been deleted, it would be an interesting exercise in textual criticism.

How many times has this sort of thing happened with the scriptures?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_palerobber]

[Packer] was saying that Heavenly Father would never allow someone to be born gay and have those kinds of natural tendencies. That's exactly what he was thinking and saying. The gospel of Mormonism makes it quite clear that Heavenly Father has every intention that mankind suffer temptations and even sin [...]

this brings to mind the JST of Matthew 6:13 (from "Lord's Prayer")...

KJV: And lead us not into temptation...
JST: And suffer us not to be led into temptation...

although to me this is a distinction without much difference. under LDS cosmology, god has effectively 'lead us' into temptation by the very dicision to have us born into this world and tested.

[_sock puppet]

I can see no difference the omitted question makes in the meaning of this passage. It is clear in both that Elder Packer is saying homosexuals are not "preset" and their feelings are not "inborn." He also says in both that it is the "temptation toward the pure and unnatural" that can be overcome, meaning he believes a homosexual can choose (or be trained) to be heterosexual.

In short, I am at a loss as to why Greg Smith spent so much time and research trying to explain that Elder Packer did not mean what he obviously meant.

Because I come to the same conclusion, I am at a loss as to why those with a homosexual agenda hail the change.

If you don't see a difference, then maybe you ought to ask yourself why your Brethren and those that do their bidding at the Ensign felt the need to make the change? And what they thought they were accomplishing? Or was it just a masturbatory exercise, wasting your tithe dollars on the salaries of those involved in making the change? And what does a change, meaningless or not, say about the honesty and integrity of those in control of your church?

[_Sethbag]

Part of the problem is this verse in 1 Corinthians:

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

This verse can serve as both a comfort and a cause of misery. As a believer, I was convinced by this verse that any temptation I faced was within my power to resist and overcome. About the worst temptation I faced was playing with my little factory, but such "is common to man", and I knew that it was overcomeable, just apparently not by me. Thus the second part, that this verse was a cause of misery. As I faced my inability to "overcome" masturbation, this verse convicted me - it was by definition a sign of weakness in me, since this verse promised that God would not do that to me, ie: God would not put me in a position of temptation that I couldn't resist if only I were righteous and pure of heart enough.

I think Packer still thinks this. By definition, God will not put a person into a position where the temptation for them to sin is not within their capability to resist. Homosexuality (or at least, homosexual acts) must, then, be amenable to resistance by a suitably pure or righteous individual. Thus, Packer concludes that when scientists say that homosexuals are born that way, they must be wrong. An innate tendency toward homosexuality certainly smacks of "temptations beyond that which ye are able" and, as he mentioned in Conference, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" He wouldn't, of course. The Bible says so.

Interestingly, the Book of Mormon doesn't necessarily agree:

28 But that ye would humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive, patient, full of love and all long-suffering; [emphasis added by yours truly]

The Book of Mormon leaves room for someone to be tempted beyond that which they can bear, but only as a consequence of their not being watchful and praying enough. I guess the question still remains whether this is compatible with the notion that a newborn baby with latent homosexual tendencies that will eventually express themselves has fairly had the opportunity to be watchful and prayerful enough.

Still, as the scientific consensus drifts toward "innate homosexual tendencies" as conclusively demonstrated, my guess is that the church sees this potential conflict with LDS doctrine coming, and wants to leave a little bit of wiggle room. My guess is that they may be leaning toward the idea that homosexuality may indeed be innate, but still overcomeable. At least, the whole "you can be a gay Mormon as long as you never have sex with anyone you love and never masturbate, and never kiss passionately, hold hands with, or in any other way express physical attraction to a person of the gender you are attracted to" seems to be evidence of this.