I recently posted this response to Mormons and figured it belonged here as well.  Religion is a very sensitive subject in general and I feel very passionately about it.  Anything related to Mormonism and its ways is of particular interest to me as I understand it intimately.   FYI the snippets I responded to are his REVISED talk, not the original.  The revisions are not any better and a web search will help you to find the original if you desire. Now, on to the posting:

There has been a lot of chatter floating around Facebook and in the media regarding a talk Boyd K. Packer gave at the recent General Conference session. This is the quote below from his talk and before anyone decides to flame me for taking it out of context, this is pasted verbatim from the talk and I encourage anyone else to read the whole thing to see what inferences I may have missed.  So the quote to start with (link to the entire talk is at the bottom):

“there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

There are both moral and physical laws “irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world” that cannot be changed. History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day.

Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it. We cannot change; we will not change the moral standard. We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God. If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must needs perish.” – Boyd K. Packer – General Conference 2010

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html

I guess I feel the need to speak out, knowing it may be a heated issue simply because of the irony and contradiction it poses.  How can a church which claims in the Articles of Faith (the summary of what as a whole they believe) first:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. - Church of Jesus Christ, Articles of Faith http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/12#12

Really?  Because in reading the above, and knowing how many Mormons support the statements made by your President it kind of sounds a little outside the scope of what you claim to believe.  Note the “of our own conscience” part.  Just because you believe these laws were decreed in heaven and your conscience tells you otherwise does not mean my conscience tells me the same thing.   You see, I have a conscience too and it tells me something completely different. I understand it might not “jive” with yours but that does not make it wrong and even if in your eyes it IS wrong, your beliefs claim to accept me as I am and to let me worship in my own way and as I see fit.   I suspect that “allowing” of others doesn’t extend very far, however it is a right and privilege afforded to me not only by your own claims of belief but by the laws of this great nation in which we live.  Which brings me to the next point:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. – Church of Jesus Christ, Articles of Faith http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/12#12

How can one claim to support the law when so obviously opposed to it.  Our forefathers decreed, in writing there should be a separation of church and state in this country. This includes changing and enacting laws which are voted on by the nation.  This is why we have the RIGHT to vote in this country so it is representative of our nation as a whole.  This includes people from all different belief systems and is representative of that belief.  When it doesn’t mesh with your philosophy of life, so be it.  Don’t participate in it.  No one is asking you to like the law, nor is anyone asking you to change who you are or even support it – simply to obey it or to let others have the rights which may be afforded by it.    By your own statement of belief, you support the laws of this fine country.  Even the ones you don’t agree with.

My absolute favorite quote within this talk is

A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

The statements made by Boyd K. Packer indicate laws against nature will be impossible to enforce… kind of like gravity and yet we have airplanes don’t we, we have space shuttles and space stations which defy those laws do they not?  Sure they are outside of this earth but don’t we have simulated gravity chambers here on this earth?  So the laws of gravity can be adapted and bent.

I suppose it’s left to the reader to interpret which laws of nature are up for debate here but I suppose off the top of my head I can think of one big one – gay marriage; and since homosexuality according to most religions is clearly a sin and against God’s will, it therefore must be against nature.  God didn’t design his creations to be homosexual, they are meant to be heterosexual.  Then that begs the question, why is there homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Approximately 1,500 species are known to have some form of homosexual interaction - http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx –  doesn’t it then stand to reason homosexuality may actually be PART of God’s design?  Or are all of these animals also unnatural creatures?  They don’t have the same “free agency” as humans do, nor is there a “devil” tempting them.  So again – how is that not natural?  Again just because it doesn’t fit with your way of thinking doesn’t make it unnatural.  There are also other variations of sexuality and dichotomy within the animal kingdom all of which go against the heterosexual theory.  Just to address the argument before it is made, “marriage and relationships are between man and woman and you are talking about animals who don’t wed.”  You are right, animals don’t wed.  That is a human ceremony we invented for our own edification.  Animals have relationships, just not that piece of paper to solidify it.  This argument is merely to dispute the nature of things. There are a variety of sexual orientations in the animal kingdom.  Of course this doesn’t even take into account the numerous studies on heredity and genetics which have verified the “choice” it is to be gay.

Okay, so maybe this talk isn’t referring to homosexuality.  Maybe it’s referring to something else – maybe the current state of marijuana becoming legal in California.  But somehow considering marijuana is by all rights natural, I suspect that’s not it.

If someone else can enlighten me as to what else it “could” be, I’m more than happy to discuss that as well.  What this all boils down to is hypocrisy, misdirection and misinformation.   I’m perfectly fine with people who don’t agree with some of the same concepts as I.  I’m also okay with people who wish to believe in whatever religion they choose.  But please, at least keep it consistent and respect what you believe.  Don’t disguise intolerance under the umbrella of Religion and claim it to be God’s law especially when by your own admission you believe otherwise.  Credibility is lost when what you preach and what you practice contradict each other.

I have no doubt there will be some heat over this from those I know and love.  I promise it’s not personal, it’s just my opinion.  Sometimes the other side of the fence needs to speak up a bit.  I’m not supporting any particular entity or organization, merely pointing out what I see as fundamental flaws in something I’m intimately familiar with.

No related posts.