Packer's Promise

Jacob Bagley

Kathy Cowley

Writing 150

10/30/2010

Packer’s Promise

The Church recently made an official statement on the controversial talk by President Boyd K. Packer where he said, now famously, "why would God do that to anyone?" The statement was cool, reasonable, and had a strong emphasis on the fact that we have love for everyone, but cannot accept homosexuality in any form. Essentially, what this statement is, truly is, is the collected statement of a Church who holds to what the world would call “old-fashioned” beliefs, but refuses to leave them. It is our statement of why we stand for what we stand for, but not in a tone of mockery, but in a light of love.

Recent events have critically damaged much of what we as a church stand for; our inability to accept what is "new" has pegged us as old fashioned and outdated. What we stand for is the family, the happy home with loving parents who rear children

Homosexuality makes this impossible, and President Packer's controversial statement about our inability to accept it has once again made waves in the national arena. Almost immediately after it aired gay rights activists were demanding a retraction and proclaiming it as incorrect and false. The response to this then was a statement of our beliefs and our steadfastness in our love of everyone; as well as our denial of homosexuality as a lifestyle.

This is a very pertinent and “Hot Button” issue for many people in this day and age. I do not wish to offend anyone, but our Church, and the Church of Christ has always been against Homosexuality in all forms, and it will remain so because: 1. It mocks the plan our Heavenly Father has for us here on Earth, to learn of him, to become married to a member of the opposite sex for the purpose of creating children. 2. This life style is not conducive to the happiness of another person but is based upon selfish lusts and desires.

From an analytical standpoint, the opening three paragraphs are very mellow. Instead of focusing on our right to have an opinion, the church response shows how we are similar, not different. “While we disagree with the Human Rights Campaign on many fundamentals, we also share some common ground,” reads the article. The Church makes it very clear right from the beginning that we in no way seek to belittle or even encourage belittling and that we also share in the pain from the tragic death of gay teens. Rhetorically, this is essential for their argument, because we as a Church can only claim to be Christian if we hold to Christ’s code. We can condemn the sin, but not the sinners. Also, as the Church provides placating comments that seek to show similarities, it opens the possibility for greater acceptance and a wider audience as people will not be repulsed by off the bat claims of hellfire and damnation. You can see in the way terms of family, Jesus Christ, and love are brought up that they seek to create a softer image for the Church as opposed to the harsh opponents we are often cast as.

After the soft introduction, however, the Church wastes no time saying exactly what President Packer meant when he gave his talk: we do not accept homosexuality as a way for people to live, and we condemn the practice. This strong statement sets the tone for the rest of the article, laying out our design to restate Church doctrine. The strong statement of: “our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman.” Clear, well defined, and to the point; but not without reasons. The Church states clearly that is a doctrinal teaching, but then follows up with the claim that “ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves,” re-emphasizing our belief in agency. They also define places where we have sided with Gays and Lesbians in favor of their civil rights. Rights to property and employment. The Church uses these historic instances as evidence of our tolerance and ability to side with people opposed to us under circumstances that we also deem as incorrect. This evidence provides a strong example as to why they can make our claims in a spirit of love and tolerance; they can do so because they have proven they have the ability to remain firm and tolerant in the face of things they may or may not agree with. This consistency and the statement thereof provides powerful proof for their arguments.

Pictured: President Monson, LDS Prophet, sits in council with other church leaders

The closing theme for the statement is based upon the fact that the Church recognizes there are members of their society who struggle with these things, and that the Church offers them a spirit of hope and love. They speak about Heavenly Father’s eternal purpose to recognize the fulfillment and joy of all of his children, and speak about the need we have to love one another and grow closer together as a community. The purpose behind closing with a sense of unity can no doubt be to emphasize the need to draw strength from one another through these trying times, and to hold to what brings communities together. These statements make it hard to cast Church officials in a bad light, when they speak out for individual Church rights and the drawing closer together of those of the church and in the national community as well. These messages of tolerance, belief, faith, and integrity show that the church is not a mindless or ignorant discriminatory body but instead a firm foundation committed to ideals in the Latter Days.

These statements have the potential to be very offensive, but I want to say that we as a church do not judge or discriminate against these people either. As stated in Agency, we believe all men have a choice to live as they desire. We love these people and pray for their return to righteousness, and we befriend them and serve them as we can. I believe people of different views can disagree and still be friends; this is the foundation of our government in America, our melting pot. I stand absolutely behind every word in this article; I would never judge another person as “wicked” or “evil”. Judgment is reserved for those who have committed no sin, and I have committed sin, so therefore I cannot judge. I believe that it stems from pornography, which is the greatest evil of our age. I fight against pornography in all forms for the degradation and total abuse of these beautiful children of God used in such despicable and evil ways for the monetary gain of another.

Photo: Michael Otterson Delivers Address