Wikipedia

Talk:Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 3

< Talk:Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Section on gay-bashing (Re: Packer's talk - "To Young Men Only")

Latest comment: 9 years ago33 comments8 people in discussion

Several editors with an obvious agenda have been undoing changes to the section that states the church’s position on “gay-bashing.” There was a talk given in 1995 by apostle Dallin H. Oaks that spoke out against the bashing of homosexuals. However, this section completely ignores the talk given by apostle Boyd K. Packer in 1976 in which he condoned hitting homosexuals (so hard that it knocks them to the floor). A well-known Mormon historian (Michael Quinn) is not needed to interpret Packer’s talk – the talk can be quoted directly because it is pretty obvious what Packer meant.

To “condone” means to disregard, overlook, excuse, justify, or give tacit approval to something. Packer, after stating that he thanked the missionary for punching the homosexual, said: “I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.” It is only in the strange world of apologetics where this would not be considered the dictionary definition of condoning. Packer even follows his condoning remarks with an imperative – you must protect yourselves. Accordingly, although Packer's talk is mentioned elsewhere in the Wiki article, it is misleading to state only Dallin H. Oak's talk on the section of gay-bashing because it is a relatively recent stance the church has taken. If there isn't a consensus as to whether hitting gays constitutes “gay-bashing,” then perhaps the sentence should be phrased more literally as “hitting gays,” “punching gays,” or “violence against gays.”

Just in case there is still any doubt, try replacing the concept of homosexual advances in Packer’s talk with heterosexual advances. Pretend for a minute that Packer was telling young men to “vigorously resist” the advances of girls, and as an example he told a story where he thanked a male missionary for hitting a girl (so hard that he floored her) for trying to coming onto him; then, after telling that story, pretend that Packer uses the same rhetoric as his actual talk: “I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.” Is there really any doubt that this would be "condoning" violence against women?

After looking through old comments here in the Talk page, someone previously argued that Packer was simply advising young men to "protect" themselves. However, this argument does not hold up given the context of Packer's talk. Right before he starts into his gay-hitting story, Packer says: "There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist." Not once in his talk does Packer insinuate an involuntary or forced situation such as rape; the gay-hitting occurs merely because one male missionary companion comes onto another. Packer is basically saying that he "is not omitting" hitting a homosexual for simply approaching someone and inviting them to participate "in anything like that." This could even include one young man asking another out on a date. After telling his story, Packer proceeds by discussing how unnatural homosexuality is, and that it is a choice. Like it or not, this was a talk given by a Mormon apostle during General Conference and thereafter published as an official church pamphlet, and therefore it needs to at least be mentioned in the section on gay-bashing to give a balanced narrative of the church's historic stance on the matter.

The bottom line is this: Although there may be some debate as to whether Packer "endorsed" gay-bashing, what he did was the very definition of "condoning" it.

InfiLaw (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

   What you missing is that this page is about the entire The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Cnurch) not Boyd K. Packer, or Dallin H. Oaks for that matter. It is a WP:NPOV page on the polices of the LDS Church regarding Homosexuality. As far as I have read, the LDS Church dose not or ever has had a policy condoning "gay-bashing". Just like many religions, it believes Homosexuality is a sin, but they have always said that Homosexuals should be treated kindly just as every person. I believe they call it ,"Hate the sin, love the sinner". That is not "gay-bashing".
The cited references from Oaks is only used for convenience. It isn't hard to find may many more, including here, here, here, and... I can go on all day.
   Boyd K. Packer may or may not be guilty of condoning "gay-bashing", or even "gay-bashing" himself, I don't know. However, in his case, it would be no different than if Santos Abril y Castelló a Roman Catholic Church Cardinal made a statement saying "All Homosexual should be killed", then assuming that this mean that the entire Roman Catholic Church believes that all Homosexual should be killed. A Personal comment, even from a LDS Apostle or Cardinal, doesn't make Church policy, and this page is about LDS Church policy. In fact that LDS Church policy is exactly the opposite. See Establishing doctrine. It reads, "However, when the president of the church (the same applies to apostles) speaks, it is not always in his official capacity. At these times, the president may offer opinion and conjecture about topics which may or may not be church doctrine or inspired by God." Unless it is expressly stated and/or presented to the congregations as such, under Common consent, it is not LDS doctrine or policy.
   Also, your edits are not a NPOV. Your opinion is that, because of Boyd K. Packer's comments were "gay-bashing", therefor entire LDS Church is "gay-bashing". This is a Fallacy. Unless it can be shown that the LDS Church has or had a Church wide policy that I'm not aware of, then your edit is POVish and should be removed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that what a Mormon apostle says over the pulpit in general conference, and which talk is later published as an official church pamphlet, is only the "personal opinion" of one member and not an official stance of the church? Wow. This Wiki page is a joke that is being heavily monitored by dozens of Mormon apologists. Every single one of the sources you cited are new sources that have popped up within the past few years (with the exception of the 1995 Oaks talk, which is the first time that I am aware of that the church officially changed its stance and began condemning gay-bashing). You apologists are trying to whitewash Mormon's past stance towards homosexuals, and Packer's talk embodies that stance. It wasn't until gays started becoming more socially accepted that the church changed its stance. You are lying by omission if you leave this out. Since you all are disagreeing with my definition of "condone" without backing up your reasons for disagreement, I will write the facts exactly as they are without using the words "condone" or "gay-bashing," and you all need to provide evidence that packer didn't state these things before deleting my comments again: Packer thanked a missionary for hitting his homosexual companion so hard that he knocked him to the floor, and then he said that although he didn't recommend such behavior, he didn't omit it either. Anyway, your argument is simply ridiculous. If what the prophets and apostles say during general conference is not an official church position, why would any member ever listen to them? I suppose that you also believe that the church never took officially taught that blacks are cursed with dark skin; you probably believe that all prophets who ever said that were just speaking their own personal opinions or "theories" (as the church's recent essay "Race and the Priesthood" claims) and not teaching an official doctrine (despite the fact that the Book of Mormon clearly states that black skin is a curse).
InfiLaw (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the points that I and others have raised above, the part of your most recent edit trying to connect the church's work on Prop 8, the backlash, and a change in church leaders speaking out against gay-bashing is completely original synthesis (without a reliable source to back it up) and should also be removed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No, my most recent edit isn't necessarily trying to connect the two things, but it is pointing out another set of facts: that Prop 8 happened in 2008; that there was backlash; and that the church has spoken out against gay-bashing (and in support of gays) with increasing frequency since then. I never stated that there was a causal relationship - I didn't write that church leaders have become more gay friendly "because of" the backlash. I merely want to provide an accurate timeline of the events instead of the one-sided narrative that was previously on here. Mormonsandgays.org wasn't even a thing until a couple of years ago, for example. It is important to keep everything in perspective. Personally, I'd rather write that a lot of the stuff that is happening within the church in recent years is thanks to apostle D. Todd Christofferson, whose brother Tom Christofferson is openly homosexual (and in a same-sex relationship) yet still active in the church, but there are unfortunately no official sources that support this theory. InfiLaw (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have made several edits across the article, some just general clean up for things such as overlinking or where full names have continued to be used, even though they were already established in the article. I have also made an attempt toward the specific section that has recently been in question. It was already included in the article twice, so now it's covered three times. I believe one of the reasons the attempted edits were not only written lacking npov, but also leaned too heavily toward saying this constituted gay bashing (including any approval of the church - or one of its leaders) is the issue of who the "aggressor" was in the story Packer told. If he had simply endorsed hitting the companion once it was known the young man was gay, that is very different from responding to - or in the context of the talk - vigorously resisting. With gay bashing generally referred to as when an aggressor specifically carries out violence (in a "hate crime" sort of way, which is entirely unacceptable), just because a person who is a homosexual is slugged or hit does not automatically make it gay bashing. Additionally, I made an edit regarding the Prop 8 information before I'd seen InfiLaw's response just above. While I recognize what is said there, I am in agreement with FyzixFighter. It doesn't really have an appropriate place in the article because if nothing else there is at least some inference that any efforts toward increased tolerance or awareness only came because of backlash the church faced. That correlation is not supported, so I had previously removed that portion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, ChristensenMJ - your edits this time were extremely fair and addressed both sides. Although I still wish there was a way to include the Prop 8 timeline without making it sound causal, I understand the NPOV concerns.
Also, "To Young Men Only" is cited 7 times in this article, which is being made to seem like a lot here in this talk page. However, talks such as Oak's 1995 ("Same-Gender Attraction") have been referenced over 10 times, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. If a talk is relevant to a certain section, I don't see an issue with bringing it up more than once.
Lastly, as I mentioned above, I think there has been (and still is) a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding Packer's controversial story in "To Young Men Only." Packer prefaces his story by using verbs such as "entice" and "approach"; he never talks about forceful or involuntary contact. It isn't even clear that the gay missionary in Packer's story made homosexual advances on his companion. Packer provides absolutely no context. This is why his talk is so dangerous and harmful, in my opinion. The gay missionary might have simply come out to his companion, or told him he might be gay - we just don't know because Packer doesn't tell us. It isn't apparent - despite what many claim - that the gay companion actually made physical homosexual advances (or any "advances," for that matter). For example, I had a companion during my Mormon mission who told the elders (male missionaries) in my apartment (there were 4 of us at the time - two companionships) that he was struggling to suppress sexual thoughts when he saw us getting in / out of the shower. Accordingly, he asked us to try and hide our nakedness from him as much as possible. Looking back on it, I am almost 100% certain that that elder was gay. However, if I'd reacted by hitting him, my story would have matched the context of what is written in "To Young Men Only," and - in my opinion - constituted "gay-bashing."
InfiLaw (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and thoughts, InfiLaw. Just a couple of other thoughts. These were actually my first edits on the page, as the other activity was primarily reverting where dialogue either appeared to have taken place before, or was needed. As to the Packer / Oaks references, I probably see that issue very differently. My primary thought there in glancing back through that article is that, yes, the talk Oaks gave is referenced a lot, but for different pieces of it, quotes used and thoughts shared. My mention of it earlier on this page was more specific to the fact that this story in question from Packer is mentioned three times. It's not going to, particularly in an article this long, get to a state of wp:undue, but repeated inclusion of something may not always be in the best interest of the article and could be perceived as leaning strong toward lacking npov than may be needed or desirable. I understand the concerns outlined in the final paragraph above. With that, I wondered about the edit to explicitly state his "homosexual companion" - as that may not be any more valid than being unable to validate any advances or the nature of what brought about the contact between the missionaries. ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi everyone—I've been asked to have a look at the dispute here in an effort to stop or prevent edit warring. Ideally what we want is there to be a consensus on the way this subject is referenced and discussed. It seems to me that at least some progress towards that is being made here in this discussion, though I'm not 100% certain where users stand at this moment. What I've done is reverted the text pending more discussion on this.
This shows what I have removed by reverting. How do users feel about those changes being put back in? (Focusing on the issue in question and not the more minor issues of overlinking, etc.) If there is no consensus here that the changes should be made, they shouldn't be added in again, so please don't do it. If they are added in again prior to a consensus being demonstrated here, there will be other consequences. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I was actually okay with ChristensenMJ's last edits before you reverted the comments to (what I feel is) the one-sided view of the matter. Although Packer's talk is mentioned elsewhere in the article, I believe it is directly relevant to the church's stance on homosexual behavior and should therefore be included in that section because it directly addresses how an apostle of the church suggested that members "vigorously resist" such behavior.InfiLaw (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes InfiLaw I am say that "a Mormon apostle says over the pulpit in general conference, and which talk is later published as an official church pamphlet, is only the "personal opinion" of one member and not an official stance of the church." It has happened dozens of times. See Blood Atonement. Young activity preached this in conference talks. It was rejected and has never been doctrine.
By the way, I am not a "Mormon" anything. To accuses me of disagreeing with you because I am a "Mormon apologists", only shows how weak your argument is. Your edits are WP:POV and nothing more. I have no idea what the others are, but as far as I know they have always worked hard to maintain WP:NPOV, you are not.
Also I have requested page protection as it has become clear that you have no intention on waiting for or accepting a consensus on your edits.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ummm actually yes, I have been waiting for consensus in my edits since Olfactory arrived. Also, if you do not want to consider what an apostle or prophet says over the pulpit and which is subsequently published in official church pamphlets as an "official stance," I ask that this Wiki article remove all other references to talks given by apostles or church publications. Based on your logic, the church's only stance is what is currently stated by its leaders. Your argument is almost like saying that the Catholic church never denied the heliocentric model because they believe that the Sun is the center of our solar system today. I hope the others here can see through your flimsy logic and understand who is really diminishing the credibility of this article. InfiLaw (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@InfiLaw: the point is that we need a consensus that the edits are OK, not just that you are okay with them. So InfiLaw was OK with them; how did other users feel about them? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I prefer ChristensenMJ's fair edit here over what appears to be complete whitewashing by Olfactory, ARTEST4ECHO and FyzixFighter. Quotes from Packer as a Qo12 member are completely relevant to the subject at hand. Villaged (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously. But I am one of the people here so I am stating my stance on the issue (if it wasn't already extremely apparent). As you have probably noticed, I've held off from making additional edits since your arrival until a consensus is reached. I'd personally like to get the opinion of other knowledgeable disinterested parties, because it seems like there are about 5x as many Mormon apologists (or at least people who are partial to the Mormon narrative) on this Wiki page than there are other groups of editors. InfiLaw (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not edit this page at all, so how am I "complete whitewashing" anything. The edits made by InfiLaw are completely WP:POV and give WP:UNDUE weight to ONE talk by a person who cannot dictate church policy without an agreement by the entire LDS Church. Clearly InfiLaw has some Gay right agenda that he wished to add to this page, which is completely inappropriate. The statement is cited with mulitaple sources, he can only fine ONE.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You have consistently failed to address the main thrust of my arguments: that the church used to have a different position toward gays than it currently does. Packer's talk was representative of the church's stance before the 1980's. Hinckley's 1987 talk kind of addressed homosexual behavior, but the first official statement that the church made against gay-bashing that I am aware of is Oak's 1995 talk. All of your other "multiple sources" are from recent years and completely ignore how church leaders used to approach homosexual behavior. I do not have some "gay agenda." I was raised in the Mormon church and honorably completed a mission and served in leadership capacities, and I find it absolutely absurd and disingenuous that you are claiming that members do not act upon what they are told during general conference as if that is the inspired word of god and therefore an official church position. Either way, whether it is "official doctrine" or not, that does not change the fact that Packer said those things to the entire membership during general conference. To omit this information greatly changes the context of the discussion. InfiLaw (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have addressed it, you just choose to ignore it. Official Church policy and doctrine isn't dictated by one man in one talk. See Establishing doctrine, infallibility, and opinion and Blood atonement. Young, the President of the Church, preached Blood atonement for years and in general conference, but it was never an official church position. "As such, when speaking in his official capacity, the words of the church president are not considered "infallible".[19] Members of the church are not justified in their actions if they "blindly" follow the president.[20][21] The church has counseled its members that they should reject statements that contradict what is found in the standard works, "regardless of the position of the man who says it".

Arbitrary break

Packer's talk was NEVER the church's stance before or after the 1980's and this isn't a page on Boyd K. Packer's views. Using ONE citation to introduce a blatantly WP:POV statement is giving it undue weight. If you could cite the Official Church doctrine or the Church Handbook, then I could buy that the LDS Church had an official policy that said you should beat up gay people.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, as you have pointed out several time, you call the cited reference for the disputed section as "Current Policy". What you fail to mention is the Section is Titled "Current theology and policy". Why is it appropriate to alter the "Current theology and policy" to introduce what you claim is a "Gay bashing policy" from the 1980's. "Current theology and policy" is about the Current policy not the 1980's policy that never even existed anyway. Packer's comments are mentioned elsewhere and aren't current policy, so they don't belong.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am done arguing with you. It is insulting to both my intelligence and integrity to have someone claim that what an apostle says over the pulpit during general conference or in official church literature is not an official stance "of the church." Check out the pamphlet for "To Young Men Only" - it clearly states on the second page, "©1976 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc."*"To Young Men Only" (PDF). You apparently are not familiar with the Mormon church if you think it would put its name on something and publish it without its seal of approval. If the church had disagreed with what Packer said at the time, it would have pulled a Ronald E. Poelman and made him redo the talk to say something the church agreed with.
Also, I am not giving Packer's talk undue weight - the pamphlet was given to leaders to distribute to members. When I was a youth, a young man in my home ward "came out" and one of my leaders (I don't remember if it was my bishop or young men's leader, but it was some ecclesiastical authority) gave all the young men copies of this pamphlet. I remember reading it then and not really knowing much about gays at the time, but it stood out to me that an apostle had thanked a missionary for hitting his companion. This pamphlet was geared to youth - not adults - which makes it even more dangerous. Packer is extremely vague in his story, and it is not clear what a homosexual person has to do in order to justify being "vigorously resisted" (such as getting hit).
Lastly, I am not the only one who realizes that the church has been changing its stance since the backlash of Prop 8: "But Tuesday’s announcement again shows that the Mormon Church has been trying to change its tone on homosexuality since 2008, when it faced widespread condemnation for mobilizing members and raising money to help pass Proposition 8 in California, which outlawed same-sex marriage."*"Mormons Seek Golden Mean Between Gay Rights and Religious Beliefs". The New York Times. 27 January 2015. Retrieved 27 January 2015. Anyway, go ahead and make Wiki a one-sided source of information. It will only make people turn to other, more reliable source of information because it is pretty obvious when an article is being partial to one side. InfiLaw (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not one sided at all. The article is fair. Your denial of Packer's words, member of the Qo12, sustained as a seer, prophet and revelator, is showing me that you're trying to bend anything not to have balanced information in the article. I understand that he is "just one man" on one level, but within the Church, his words dictate policy until someone else contradicts him. I have not seen, nor heard any contradiction. Secondly, even if he can't dictate policy, as a Seer, Prophet and Revelator, his words also greatly influence many, if not nearly all, of the members of the Church, thus bringing about a soft/cultural policy change. 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Villaged (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because you don't believe that not everything that a prophet or apostle says, even in confernce, is considered to be doctrine or policy, it doesn't mean I can't cite it. See:
  1. Lu Dalton, Woman's Exponent (Salt Lake City: 15 July 1882), p. 31.
  2. Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 541; See Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941], p. 135; 64-04, pp. 162-63.
  3. Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, pp. 162–63, "The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address delivered to seminary and institute teachers, BYU, 8 July 1964.
  4. Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven.
Additionally you still fail to address the fact that is section is about the "Current theology and policy" of the LDS Church, not any imaginary policy from the 1980's. You keep saying that I am citing "Current" policy, AND....? That is what the section your editing is about, "Current policy".
You want to make the change, so per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you have the burden to cite that the statements made by Packer created a CURRENT (not past) "Gay bashing" policy of the LDS Church, or your edits are WP:POV AND Out of Scope.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
As for villaged, I agree with you. The article is fair, as it is. It seems to me that InfiLaw is attempting to add additional WP:POV statements in and inappropriate section of the article. Packer's views are already in the article, so it's not like I'm removing them. I have actually never even edited this page, other then adding more citation to appease InfiLaw, that I can remember.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you mis-read me. I'm stating support for putting Packer's comments in the article. There was a question of consensus. I'm lending my voice to that side. Villaged (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you are the IP editor, and that you did change the signature, then I guess I did. However, again Packer's comments are in the article, just somewhere else. The section that InfiLaw is attempting to change is about the "Current Policy", not any past "Policy". To add it a second time is giving it WP:Undue weight and is out of the sections WP:Scope, on top of it never being official LDS Church policy to "gay bash". It is InfiLaw burden to cite that the statements made by Packer created a CURRENT (not past) "Gay bashing" policy of the LDS Church if he want to add it. Currently the article address the issue in the "History" section. Other than adding additional "Current" citations, I have not change the working. Additionally User:FyzixFighter and ChristensenMJ were the individuals who reverted his attempt to add a WP:POV statement.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am that IP editor. I revert the IP back to my user name for consistency. Unless another Seer, Prophet and Revelator has contradicted Packer's talk in GC, it's current policy. As M. Russell Ballard explained in Fall GC 2014, "We will not and cannot lead you astray". 216.54.166.2 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Your making my argument for me, but you can't see it. Even assuming that you and InfiLaw are correct that statement in conference are policy. You say, "Unless another Seer, Prophet and Revelator has contradicted Packer's talk in GC, it's current policy". Another Seer, Prophet and Revelator has contradicted Packer's talk. It has been cited as such 5 times that LDS Apostles have stated the the current policy is the exact opposite of Packer's talk! Yet InfiLaw say that we should ignore those because the are "Current talks", and the are whitewash the LDS Church policy of "Gay Bashing". See:
  • Oaks, Dallin H. (October 1995), "Same-Gender Attraction", Ensign, retrieved 2011-08-17
  • "Church Responds to HRC Petition: Statement on Same-Sex Attraction". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 12 October 2010. Retrieved 23 January 2015. The Church's doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down
  • Oaks, Dallin H.; D. Todd, D. Todd Christofferson. "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction". mormonsandgays.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 23 January 2015. Senior Church leaders in this website represent the official position of the Church. Additional videos feature real people sharing real experiences from their own perspectives" and "We can all come together to foster a climate of goodwill and a determination to understand the workings of God in each individual life."
  • "First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 20 October 2004. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
  • "The Divine Institution of Marriage". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
Therfore Oaks, The First Presidency, and Christofferson have all stated that the Current policy doesn't allow physically harming gays, let along anyone. This is EXCATLY what you said unless "Another Seer, Prophet and Revelator has contradicted Packer's talk"--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of my reasons for my edits line up with User:ARTEST4ECHO's statements. First, the section in question is on the current church policy on homosexual behavior. Whether or not Packer's story established official policy or not is irrelevant since if it had, it would have been superseded by the later statements that have been listed above from Oaks, Hinckley, and others. Second, IMO there is no whitewashing of the Packer's story as it is mentioned in two other places in the article - it even has it's own subsection where the criticism about the story and the publication is explained (and referenced to a RS) and the rebuttal of that criticism is only one sentence. I still don't see a reason for a third mention and critique of the story, nor how it is relevant to the "Current theology and policy" section. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is actually the strongest argument that you two (ARTEST4ECHO & FyzixFighter) have made thus far, and it is a decent one. However, as 216.54.166.2 mentioned, it is extremely difficult to tell what actually constitutes "current policy." Packer is still alive and has never apologized for, clarified, or withdrawn his statements. Therefore, both Packer's 1976 statements, Hinckley's 1987 statements, Oaks' 1995 statements, and all subsequent statements about the topic exist in the same continuum. It is only once in a blue moon that the church will come out and throw its past prophets under the bus by disavowing what they taught - we got a glimpse of this when the church threw pretty much every prophet since Brigham Young until 1978 under the bus in its recent essay on race by calling their teachings "theories."*"Race and the Priesthood". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If nothing else, because it isn't 100% clear that the church has officially withdrawn Packer's statement, I propose that it should be mentioned but with the caveat that more recent, contradictory teachings appear to overrule Packer's statements. InfiLaw (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So... how does this process work? 216.54.166.2 and I agree with the edits that ChristensenMJ made (that's 3 people), and ARTEST4ECHO and FyzixFighter disagree with the edits (that's 2 people). Are changes made by a majority consensus, or does one or two people disagreeing with a statement prevent it from going up on Wikipedia?
Even if Packer's statements are not included even though ARTEST4ECHO and FyzixFighter have not shown that the church has officially disavowed his remarks, there are plenty of other "controversial" sources which describe the church's current position on the matter that have been conveniently left out of this article. With regard to the church's current position on homosexual behavior, this Wikipedia article currently states, "Although church leaders condemn the sin of homosexual behavior, they teach love for the men and women who experience homosexual attraction, including for those who pursue some form of homosexual lifestyle." However, this is only what the church claims and not what it is actually teaching. For example, in a church public affairs interview with Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, Oaks responded as follows when asked whether a gay child should be allowed to bring their partner home for the holidays:
"That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer. “I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership."’ There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all." *"A Mother's Story". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Although Oak's response is almost as vague as Packer's story from "To Young Men Only," he clearly suggests that Mormon parents should avoid having their gay children home with their partners because doing so might "endorse" such a lifestyle. In the link, this section is titled "Explaining the Church’s Position on Same-Gender Attraction," so this isn't just Oak's personal opinion or anything - he was doing the interview specifically to clarify the church's stance on the matter. It is hypocritical to claim to "love" people whole at the same time not even being willing to have them home for the holidays. It is interesting that this official statement on the church's position never made it onto the Wikipedia page while all of the other random talks and websites about the matter have been linked.InfiLaw (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what one might personally think of that particular scenario, Wikipedia is here to summarize what reliable sources have said. Wikipedia articles are not intended to include synthesis, nor should they contain original research to highlight whatever one might think is the truth. If a reliable source has pointed out that they see the Oaks statement as hypocritical, we can add that to the article, perhaps in a form something like "<x> has said that Oaks was hypocritical in saying <y> when the official stated church position is <z>." No matter what non-editors have said about truthiness on Wikipedia, we don't get to make personal observations within articles, because we editors cannot be considered our own reliable sources. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That would be great if that is how it actually worked, but organizations like the Mormon church and the Church of Scientology have legions of apologists who come onto Wikipedia and try to warp the facts in their favor. The Mormons are much better at it because they are decentralized and "unofficial," much like FAIR Mormon is. These organizations pretend that there is a debate over the facts when that is often not true (other than the fact that they personally disagree with the facts). As I mentioned above, these apologists added a bunch of random quotes from church websites and talks while conveniently leaving out an extremely relevant interview with Oaks that was specifically titled "Explaining the Church’s Position on Same-Gender Attraction." Anyway, I am not attempting to include synthesis or original research; I am merely trying to quote church leaders, and many of my edits are getting blocked without any evidence from the apologists here that the church has ever disavowed the past statements of its leaders (it is synthesis to assume that they have). On the actual Wikipedia article I wouldn't have stated that Oak's talk was hypocritical (although that is my personal view); rather, my point was that Oak's remarks were relevant and should be included instead of only referencing non-controversial talks and websites. InfiLaw (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So I'm not one of the legion of apologists. I look at the Packer section, and I think it's fair. What am I missing? Villaged (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The policy, approved last week by leaders of the church, which claims more than 15 million adherents worldwide, added same-sex marriage to the list of acts considered to be a renunciation of the faith and thus subject to church discipline, including excommunication.

It also prohibits natural or adopted children of gay married couples from being baptized in the faith until they turn 18, leave their parents' home and personally disavow same-sex marriage or cohabitation. 

Headline-1: Hundreds of Mormons plan to resign in Utah same-sex policy protest

QUOTE: "The policy follows a landmark ruling in June by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.

"We don't want to see anyone leave the Church, especially people who have been struggling with any aspect of their life," Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the church, said in an email.

The church this year announced support for U.S. laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in housing and employment." -- AstroU (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

  Done -- How many children (of homosexual/GAY people) are we talking about? Ten? -- AstroU (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Article size

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In my opinion, this article is becoming too large for an encyclopedia. It needs to be split or condensed. Not every mention of the topic by the LDS Church needs to be included, so especially the timeline section needs to be reduced. I am interested to find out if other editors feel the same way about this article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think this article has crossed the line into an indiscriminate collection of every single mention of the topic from LDS sources without regard to the importance, impact, or significance of that mention. On the other hand, what the criteria for inclusion would be isn't clear to me. Some possible aspects to consider would be coverage in non-LDS sources, the source of the quote (eg, 1st Presidency versus a Seventy), and how often the statement has been referenced/cited in the LDS community. Essentially, we need to identify the notable mentions of the topic in LDS sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints/Archive_3&oldid=1120700460"