The Gospel According to Jeffrey

First of all, if you’ve somehow missed the first four parts, I invite you to start at the beginning . Enjoy! At some point this morning, a friend wrote me to see if I had noticed the major differences between President Packer’s spoken Conference address. Curious, I decided to listen to the audio of the discourse while reading the official transcript. I didn’t have any trouble with the obvious verbal slips that anyone can make (misread words, etc.), but I thought it rather interesting that one of the paragraphs I cited in Part III —the one that had so many people up in arms—had, in fact, been slightly changed. Spoken version: “Some suppose that they were preset, and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.” Printed version: “Some suppose that they were preset, and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and the unnatu

I’ve had quite a few people contact me about this post, both those few who took the time to comment on this blog and many others with whom I’ve discussed and debated on other sites. I think a fitting conclusion to this topic, however, comes not from me, but from a self-described “(Gay) Mormon Guy,” whose treatment of President Packer’s discourse is more powerful and poignant than anything I could ever hope to write. Please check out what he has to say about President Packer’s talk. You won’t be sorry. Update: I thought this was the end, but of course, people just can’t let it go. Check out The President Packer Postulate Revisited   for even more on this long-dead horse. ;-)

If you’re just coming in now, you may want to check out the first two parts of this discussion. As always, I’ll wait. ;-) So now we come back to President Packer’s discourse, and particularly the passages people are complaining most vocally about: “Some suppose that they were pre-set, and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father. “Paul promised, ‘God… 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’ ( 1 Corinthians 10:13 ). You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer the addiction, and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church.” (President Boyd K. Packer, Cleansing the Inner Temple , 180th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Why are people so up in arms about this? He’s right

Missed Part I? Check it out here . In the last few decades, our society has grown increasingly tolerant of homosexuality. Despite the best efforts of various (primarily religious) organizations, none have been able to fully stem the tide of this acceptance. This failure stems partly from a lack of knowledge: since most religions don’t even know why homosexuality is wrong, their arguments against it are generally along the lines of “because God said so,” with no further explanation—in other words, fairly useless. Unfortunately, this is not the most significant problem with fighting this battle. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four , the government—best known to the masses by the omnipresent “Big Brother”—takes control of the people using an extremely simple, yet amazingly effective, tool: the English language. By slowly removing words from the language, these words likewise retreat from the public consciousness. What few words remain, the government subtly changes to meet its ow

This past Sunday, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave an amazing discourse in General Conference, entitled Cleansing the Inner Temple . In this talk, President Packer had the audacity to state that—surprise!—sin is bad. A lot of people didn’t like it that he said that, and even many members of the Church are calling for President Packer to apologize for his comments, particularly with respect to homosexuality. Now, before I continue with this post, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “gay-basher.” I have friends and family who identify themselves as gay. Some of them are probably better people than I am! And while I don’t agree with their decision to live that way, I love them and treat just like I do anyone else. (As I told one such friend: if I stopped being friends with everyone who did something I don’t agree with, I’d be a very lonely man, wallowing in a pit of self-hatred.) ;-) Demonizing others is wrong. Persecuting others is wrong. Hurtin

“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father….” Much has been said on the Internet regarding the definition of the word “goodly,” with the general consensus leaning toward “wealthy.” (Just Google “ goodly wealthy ,” and you’ll see what I mean.) If I might add my own humble opinion to the fray, I would indeed agree that this is the correct definition (despite its pop-culture alternative). So if this be the case, it helps us understand more about the culture in which Nephi is writing—not because his parents were wealthy, but because of the phrase which immediately follows. In our day and nation, education—at least basic education—is considered nothing less than a civil right. In this way we have greatly improved the situation of much of our society. Not so in Nephi’s time and place: the wealth of his parents was inexorably tied to Lehi’s learning, and both that wealth and the learning with which it is associated bear di