But, what if Elder Perry said exactly what he was meaning to say? After all, it wasn't off the cuff. The talk was written down, typed out and approved before we ever heard it. Did something slip by whoever was proofreading?
(The thought of someone proofing makes me laugh. "Elder, did you mean to say 'Hamster' or 'Gangsta'?)
What if Elder Perry believes that anything outside of eternal marriage -- a marriage being between a man and a woman worthy to enter the temple -- is not good enough? He is a prophet. Do we go with their flow until they say something we do not like?
"We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established..."
"A family built on the marriage of a man and woman supplies the best setting for God's plan to thrive - the setting for the birth of children who come in purity and innocence from God. No one is predestined to receive less than all that the Father has for His children."
"The only legitimate, authorized expression of the powers of procreation is between a husband and wife who have been legally and lawfully married."
It doesn't sound like anything was overlooked, nor does it come across as providing a little wiggle room. I can't with a good conscious, say that he goofed or used the wrong word, or went overboard.
“The holy prophets have not only refused to follow erroneous human trends, but have pointed out these errors. No wonder the response to the prophets has not always been one of indifference. So often the prophets have been rejected because they first rejected the wrong ways of their own society...
"Prophets have a way of jarring the carnal mind. Too often the holy prophets are wrongly perceived as harsh... Those prophets I have known are the most loving of men. It is because of their love and integrity that they cannot modify the Lord's message merely to make people feel comfortable. They are too kind to be so cruel. I am so grateful that prophets do not crave popularity.”