There's a lot of tumultuous talk revolved around Boyd K's general conference talk going around on Facebook and the school place.
I kind of feel impartial.
However, I am bothered somewhat, and this is why I'm bothered.
Boyd K. stated that people are not born gay, and that it is a choice to be gay... and in conflict with the church.. and I suppose one could imply subsequently in conflict with God.
What bothers me is people will take this as doctrine. People will take this with their blinders on and say that the holy word has been spoken, and that's how it is.
So when good ol' Boyd said those words, were they the words of God? or the words of Boyd? ...I think they were the words of Boyd.
Yet... the word has been spoken. Carefully executed to stick in the minds of thousands of people after the prop 8 spectacle...even though other apostles have said exactly opposite of what Boyd said.
So here we go... and now I have to watch embarrassingly as I see dozens of people eager to not hide their "candle under a bushel" blindly side with Boyd's heavy words.
I just have a feeling that the church will steer further and further away from the words of Boyd twenty years down the road... much like they have with Bruce R. McConkie and his more controversial words.
I just have a feeling that the church will steer further and further away from the words of Boyd twenty years down the road... much like they have with Bruce R. McConkie and his more controversial words.
Thoughts?
3 comments:
Did you read the talk? I didn't get that out of the talk. I thought he was pretty sensitive. I felt like he was saying the choice to be unchaste is unpure, and to me he was talking about everyone, heterosexual or not. I do believe in biology and that some people are born gay. I also believe that you can be Christian, religious, LDS, whatever and not be a bigot. And also that having faith doesn't mean being a blind follower.
I was bothered he stated that you can't be born gay because "god wouldn't do that".
The transcripts of the talk going around online have been altered and modified so I don't know if they still include that part, but being in the impressionable position as a mouthpiece for the lord I don't think he has the right to be making statements like that.
I don't remember him saying that, and I don't think the official church transcript would be changed. I may have to look again to see exactly what he said but in the context and spirit of the talk I didn't think it was offensive.
Post a Comment