While every GA was hiding under Prophet's skirt, Packer boldly proclaimed what he thinks of Gay issues. You might hate him but we all have our opinions & convictions. As much as I oppose him I can't make him evil because of his ideals. Packer stated basically where the Church stands. Most of us know all this. Just because a Regional rep or a GA sheds some tears, what will that change?
This man didn't kill a single soul. While we might dislike his convictions & fight like hell against Him, He is standing firm as we are. Good thing too we live in a reasonably equal society where is no danger of stoning because we are Gays or taking sides.
quinlansolo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This man didn't kill a single soul. While we might > dislike his convictions & fight like hell against > Him, He is standing firm as we are. Good thing too > we live in a reasonably equal society where is no > danger of stoning because we are Gays or taking > sides.
So you cross a line by killing people, but it would have been OK for Hitler to espouse his hate just the same, as long as he didn't actually kill people. He could hate Jews and call for people to discriminate against them and shun them, as long as he didn't kill them. And then you could applaud him like you do Packer.
KKK rallies must go down well for you, they stopped killing people, they just hate them publicly.
I don't applaud evil, nor do I look up to people who are hateful because they have the guts to do it publicly.
As far as I know, Stalin didn't physically kill anyone either but he ordered the deaths of millions. So, do you admire Hitler and Stalin for their ideas of ordering the deaths of millions?
Its the actual opinions and convictions that burn my fern!
Like everyone else, Packer is entitled to his opinions and convictions. When he goes public, however, said states of mind as well as the promulgator become fair game.
Packer, as well as his superiors, wish to impose his opinions and convictions - neither of which are well thought out - on the rest of society and do so under the guise of god's appointed.
I have no respect for an out-and-out fraud's opinions or convictions.
Timothy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 01:35PM by Timothy.
Boyd K Packer is an ass. He is more fixated on male genetalia and how its used for than any other person or group on the planet. Millions starve and are exploited around the world but he is more concerned about whether or not a 12 year old masturbates.
At least Packer says what he thinks - unlike every other General Authority who wraps their talk with the cloak of deniability.
Boyd - you are a very sick man and have been for decades.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 11:33AM by kookoo4kokaubeam.
We live where we can have opposing views. That is not the case everywhere in the world.
We do not have to agree, but it seems to me we can disagree in a civil manner. The despicable name calling is appalling. One would think adults could act like adults.
I don't agree with the LDS Church teaching and positions, but they are not alone. My guess is that there are large groups of other folks silently nodding their head, and applauding his statements.
I don't think long standing notions and beliefs are changed by loud name calling, signs, and protests.
We are not all going to agree on everything.
Mr. Packer was stating the LDS party line, which appears has been softened in the actual transcripts, but easily reviewed in youtube. He won't be around much longer, he is old and ill. He may not be in top form either.
And as always with the LDS Church, they will rely on the living prophet, and apostles as those that speak for the church, not the deceased ones.
I believe there was quite a bit of loud name calling, signs and protests (see Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm X, etc.) that had a huge impact on changing certain long standing notions and beliefs.
Packer's statements aren't about free speech. They're about imposing the mormon cult's will on the rest of society and doing so under the guise of god's appointed.
No one has to respect that. No one who disagrees should remain silent on the issue. Free speech is a two way street. If I'm not mistaken, loud name calling, signs and protests across the country helped the California Supreme Court overturn voter approved Prop H8. Might want to keep an eye on that as well.
In fact, I can not think of a single successful major social movement that involved protesting that did not include a significant amount of civil disobedience (breaking the law), and confrontation.
The Boston Tea Party, The Civil Rights Movement, India struggle for Independence.
History is FULL of examples where minds have been changed using confrontation, name calling, yelling, etc.. To say different is to admit ignorance of historical reality.
than some signs and name calling to make major changes in societal norms. They didn't have the Internet, the media, etc. Those are more effective, in my view. Different times require different methods. That's how I see it.
I would remind that the "media" (that would be radio, television and newsprint) was most certainly around during the Civil Rights Movement. I'm also fairly certain newspapers were around during the Women's Sufferage Movement.
Loud name calling, signs and protests are suddenly outdated and useless because of the internet? I don't think so! The internet only serves to enhance the guaranteed "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Rational thought and expression would be a great way to resolve disputes IF humans were rational beings. Sadly we're not, so we'll have to rely on face-to-face confrontation to change societal norms.
Timothy
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 12:52PM by Timothy.
> > Loud name calling, signs and protests are suddenly > outdated and useless because of the internet?
Anyone that thinks "loud name calling" is outdated because of the Internet is embarrassingly ignorant of the realities of the nature of much of the debate on the Internet. Clearly, the Internet has not degrease the use of name calling. From what I have seen, the Internet has enabled a vast increase in the name calling.
Than they would pay attention to 100,000 people becoming fans of an anti-BKP facebook page.
To get 4000 people to physically show up is one thing, but to be able to get that number with only 4 days notice should make anyone stand up and take notice.
In the 60's they certainty DID have "Media". They had television which broadcast the name calling and confrontation around the world.
Now it is done on the INTERNET, how has that changed the reality that the Boston Tea Party, the Civil Rights Movement, The Anti-Vietnam war rallies (agree with them or not, they were successful at making social change), India's struggle for independence, and countless other social change movements have been brought about by confrontations of all sorts?
So, pray tell, how has the "Internet" changed that in any way shape or form, other than to give a larger voice to smaller groups of people?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 02:40PM by MJ.
I, myself, have long suspected that they hadn't changed their stance. Packer's talk reaffirmed that for me.
BUT whether or not we could say he is speaking his beliefs, THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING and THERE ARE PEOPLE SUFFERING because of what he says. How many gays do you think were in the audience Sunday? How many children of gays? (My daughter being one.) How many parents of gays?
Until you've been in the trenches, you have NO IDEA how much suffering is going on over this one issue. I will call him any name I want. He is a pervert (like someone else said--he focuses on male genitalia). He is a very sick man.
Many of the Packer Backers I've encountered on Facebook try to excuse their fraudulent leader's comments by saying he (Packer) is merely reciting what god told him.
How convenient that is for spiritual leaders. "Hey, its not my fault all those gay kids commited suicide!" they say, "I'm just tellin' you what god tells me to tell you!"
I call bulls**t on that!
The man himself is responsible. He is no more god's spokesperson than I am. Its not just what he says. Its the damaging effects of what he says. Who in their right mind respects that?
Timothy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 12:21PM by Timothy.
What you point out makes it all the worse. When you know that millions of people are going to listen to you and act on what you say, you should be obligated to be extremely careful about what you say.
If I say in my group, "You all ought to just get it over with and kill yourselves", that is one thing. If reverend Jim Jones says it, it's quite another thing.
Similarly, punishments for sex abuse is harsher if you are in a position of trust. Mandatory reporter laws obligate some people to a higher standard of care than others, etc.
If millions of people are going to hang onto your every word, and act on it. You are a much bigger douche bag for telling them hurtful and harmful things.
I was just listening to KUTV noon news in Utah and they showed Boyd speaking. It occurred to me--what others have said--that he is gay. Maybe he is telling US that HE DID IT--so YOU ALL CAN!
DNA and Timothy--you are so RIGHT. He is not speaking for God anymore than I am.
I've talked about my interaction with him before. It was BKP who really started my journey out of the church. His response to me taught ME that I was not anything to him. There is no "worth of a soul" in the church. That is what all those who eat up every word he says don't get--he doesn't give a sh*t about any of them.
...the church plays a stupid game of "opinion vs doctrine". Indeed, the church's "authority" entirely rests on a paradoxical foundation of prophets who supposedly speak or spoke the word of God with bet-yer-life-on-it certaintly, yet REGULARLY the church backs off what they said to save itself from the obvious- that the guys were WRONG while supposedly speaking for the Lord.
If the brethren of yesterday didn't know the difference between a revelation and an opinion, why should I think the brethen of today do? And they don't.
Packer's or any other GA's problem isn't that he's insecure about gays, it's that HE THINKS HE SPEAKS FOR GOD! AND MILLIONS OF LOYALISTS DO TOO! So his WRONG opinion trickles down as the word of God and gays have to tolerate being considered infidels to a moral authority that DOES NOT EXIST.
I wouldn't say I applaud him, but I will say I like my bigots out in the open where others can draw a good bead on them. Metaphorically, of course.
If it weren't for my fear for the faithful gay members internalizing his words and hurting themselves as a result, I'd be inclined to hope Packer keeps yapping his flap and digging LDS, Inc. in deeper and deeper.
They are under the public microscope and are too stupid/out of touch/married to their status quo that they can't see the tide turning against them. If they were smart, they'd just STFU.