- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m just curious if anyone else caught the church’s broadcast commemorating the 100th anniversary of seminary, or perhaps saw it in person. While much of it was interesting, or at least harmless, the finale was BKP at his finest. Who would have expected an attack on “so-called” same-sex marriage at a celebration about seminary? I certainly didn’t. My wife claims I was hyperventilating, but I thought I was under control, more or less. I watched it, for some stupid reason. Agreed, it was tough to stomach. BKP is tough to listen listen too… just so much all about fear and guilt and the world going to hell in a handbasket. I cringed when he talked about the gay issue and “inclinations”, and made a point to say, almost like he was talking to the Q15 rather than the kids… that “we will not change…” To me it is equivalent to BY saying that “blacks would never hold the priesthood.” I’m afraid that he made it more difficulty for the church to evolve to meet the needs of the people, and I doubt that I will be alive when the church has to eat those words. But one day, yeah, that quote is going to be used against the church much like BY’s is today.
After hearing his talk, some of it wasn’t so bad, but some of it was…whew, no gay person is ever going to want to step foot in an LDS church if they heard it, I am thankful Pres. Monson is in reasonably good health. doug wrote:I’m just curious if anyone else caught the church’s broadcast commemorating the 100th anniversary of seminary, or perhaps saw it in person. While much of it was interesting, or at least harmless,
the finale was BKP at his finest. Who would have expected an attack on “so-called” same-sex marriage at a celebration about seminary? I certainly didn’t.My wife claims I was hyperventilating, but I thought I was under control, more or less. I didn’t listen to this but personally I would be surprised to hear Boyd K. Packer go through an entire talk without saying something like this. I guess he thinks this is directly related to seminary because it sounds like in his mind one of the main purposes of seminary is to protect the youth in the Church from being corrupted by the big bad world that has supposedly been completely infiltrated and taken over by Satan himself. So it sounds like he sees the fact that being gay is more acceptable and openly talked about now than the way it was when he was younger as just one more example of the supposed increasing moral degradation of the world. Basically, he thinks it is a choice that can and should be avoided/fixed simply by having faith and trying hard (I.E. “why would God do that?”) so I guess seminary is supposed to help prevent it by teaching kids what is right or wrong according to the Church so they won’t be so confused and caught off-guard by their own instincts or what the world thinks.
I would just be happy to protect my children from creationism in seminary. Now I have to worry that they might be turned into homosexuals?? (sarcasm) I find that Packer man difficult to sustain, even to love. He really makes me conflicted about my connection to the church. My only consolation is that he doesn’t have many years left. Don’t they say that the worst homophobes are those with repressed tendencies towards homosexuality?
SamBee wrote:Don’t they say that the worst homophobes are those with repressed tendencies towards homosexuality?
Didn’t I read something in
The National Enquirerabout BKP and Osama Bin Laden? No, sorry, that was someone else. sambee, we don’t deal in that kind of speculation here. Love you, man, but that’s over the line. I didn’t say he’d ever engaged in such activity, but he does seem a little too focussed on the whole gay issue. The way some people talk about BKP though, you’d think he’d been the prophet at some stage. He certainly gets as much coverage as some of them, and is frequently quoted. Whenever I’m asked to sustain our leaders, he’s the one I have to question myself about. I see him as old guard, and I don’t agree with a lot of what he says. He seems to be a kind of elder statesman.
Oh, and I also was disappointed. The rest of the broadcast was good. It didn’t need that tangent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.