What I Believe About President Packer's Conference Talk

I haven't blogged for a while because I've been tweaking this post, debating if I should make it public. Like I've mentioned before, this blog is mainly a journal for me. For that reason, I dislike posting things that may cause ill feelings among people I love and trolls who don't even know me. But the complex issues regarding gay rights and the Church's moral stance have been thought provoking and troubling to me for some time, and President Packer's talk stirred the pot again. I've decided to touch on these issues and pray I will not be misunderstood.

Last week I read an article regarding the public's response to President Packer's talk on Meridian Magazine's site. Maurine Proctor writes:

The case is capsulized by Elder Dallin H. Oaks: “The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep.” Among the ways people respond to that difficulty is by stoning the messenger or reforming their idea of God and what he expects to something more palatable for them. But petition God as we might, he doesn’t change the nature of the universe for us, nor the eternal, moral laws on which it rests. Some might suppose it is more compassionate for God’s laws to be amendable to our weakest inclinations—whatever they may be—but it is from his love and his infinite justice and mercy that he is clear with us. Some choices and behaviors will ultimately bring us pain and hamper our eternal destiny. The Church cannot surrender to any demand that would have it reject biblical truth and revelation given by modern prophets. It cannot lie to sinners about their sin, no matter how strong the insistence is.

The author goes on to note that many see God as a butler, therapist, or guidance counselor, reminding me of what C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity—that we often see God as a senile grandfather who likes nothing better than to see the children having a good time.

It is difficult doctrine that God asks us to do hard things. As I've read many times on a Christian webzine, I believe that God's objective is not to make us "happy," according to our modern society's definition of the word, but to make us holy. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe this. I certainly don't claim to understand what it would be like to be told that the lifestyle that feels most natural and comfortable to me—the way I feel the most me—is a sin in God's eyes.

All I have is my own experience.

At times, my preferences and God's revealed will for my life have clashed. The most excruciating times have been when I've had to wrestle in prayer before God, wanting to submit to Him on some level, but not-so-secretly wishing He'd submit to me. The end result of such struggles are always more beautiful than I could have imagined, miraculously bringing the peace I never thought I'd have. While none of us asks for suffering, I believe there is something majestic in experiencing pain for a cause—the way Christ suffered for us.

In my life, the noblest cause is to know God better. I am overwhelmed with admiration for Latter-day Saints who choose to live the celibate life because they believe it will achieve spiritual strength and closeness with God. I believe that no heterosexual can fully understand the weight of what God is truly asking when He, through His prophets, asks His children to lay feelings of same-gender attraction on the altar and walk away. Those who accomplish this must have faith that their Heavenly Father will compensate them in some way, but they also know they may never experience the companionship and romantic love in this life that so many take for granted. I can't imagine what this must feel like.

Yet in a smaller degree, I do know the peace of surrendering my personal agenda, even my personal identity, to the God who knows the real me and not the flimsy image I've constructed for myself. Submitting to God and His laws in order to find happiness is certainly counterintuitive, but in my limited experience, I know His promises are real. I've tasted the peace.

I say all this to point out that I believe in the pure motives of Mormon leaders. I believe they want to invite everyone who is willing to seek that peace.

I had the opportunity at times to work with some of the Apostles and Seventy at close range for six years, so I'm not speaking out of mere respect for their position or admiration from afar but also from the experiences I gained interacting with them. I felt their love for God and their love for mankind as I sat in meetings with them and heard them discuss their concerns. While their words and policies are frustrating to those who disagree, I believe wholeheartedly that Mormon leaders have benevolent objectives: a desire to invite people to find lasting happiness and avoid tragedy. I believe they feel a weighty sense of responsibility to speak truth for the benefit of all who will listen, much like a beach lifeguard who spies sharks in the water and must warn the swimmers. To those who do not believe LDS leaders have any prophetic insight, this claim can seem condescending. Nevertheless, I hope it's clear that—whether there are, in reality, "sharks" threatening our society—Mormon leaders respond to what they see out of love. Suggestions that they mind their own business may sound to Mormon prophets much like swimmers who want to be left alone to enjoy their beach day, sharks or not. How could a conscientious lifeguard keep silent?

I believe Mormon prophets invite those who are willing to tread on the narrow path of self-denial because they know that ultimately other paths have even more painful pitfalls. I believe they speak clearly to give strength to those who truly want to adhere to biblical teachings but may lose courage in the face of mass secularization in the wider culture without the moral support of a large body of believers.

I do not believe that the leaders of my church speak boldly about the immorality of same-sex relationships in an attempt to change or control those who do not have any interest in changing. Mormon doctrine emphasizes that God's will cannot be forced on His children. The reason God gives us commandments is so the individual can be transformed through grace and obedience to those commands, but there is little transformative power in choices made out of coercion.

At the same time, I understand that many, many people feel that Mormons alone coerced gays out of getting married in California. The issue of whether marriage is a civil right will continue to be disagreed upon and debated, and I don't have the time or space to dissect that issue here today. I only want to say that I'm adamant in my belief that Mormon leaders do not wish to marginalize, demonize, or harm anyone.

For those who feel marginalized, demonized, and harmed, I express my sadness. I can't help but wonder if maybe there is no way around the pain for both groups when two of God's children disagree on something so fundamental. I hope that isn't true. I hope the future yields a more ideal solution. In the meantime, I echo what President Obama said back in May: "We can't expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives."

Even as I defend the Mormon Apostles I respect and uphold, and ask for a little empathy from those who don't understand where they are coming from, I admit it is sometimes difficult for me to avoid questioning the motives of some who promote gay rights.

Maurine Proctor relates a perspective that I have never encountered in my community, but, if true, worries me:

Laurie Higgins, the president of Illinois Family Council said, “I asked a prominent homosexual activist and blogger if he would accept enumerated anti-bullying resources [in schools] that made clear the distinction between moral disapproval and bullying. In other words, would he accept anti-bullying resources that explicitly stated that bullying refers to homosexual epithets and physical harassment, and that bullying does not refer to the belief or the expression of the belief that homosexual practice is immoral? He adamantly rejected such resources. . . .

According to the homosexual agenda, you don’t have to physically harass someone or fling an epithet at them to be considered a homophobe. Being friendly or tolerant isn’t enough to escape this label. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, you are by their definition hateful. If you are a member of a church that stands by the long-held Christian tradition, you are hateful.

To rob a faithful person of the right to legally express belief in a well defined moral code, without negative repercussions, seems like dismantling religion itself. I hope outlawing one's right to publicly believe and interpret scripture is not at the heart of most gay-rights defenders' agendas or activities. I can understand the annoyance at hearing public appeals to the Bible among people who do not believe in the Bible, but at the same time, there is no original thought or opinion on the face of the earth. Some may draw their conclusions from scripture, others from rabid radio commentators, family, friends, authors, television, Internet articles, cultural norms, college professors, or any other number of influences. I don't believe scripture should be ruled as an invalid resource in the formation of opinion while all other influences are fair game.

I also don't understand why some promoters of gay rights seem to want to reduce freedom of choice for other gays. Those who want to explore the possibility of reducing their feelings of same-gender attraction have a difficult road ahead of them. Doctor S. Brent Scharman writes:

Professionals willing to assist individuals in their attempts to change are under tremendous pressure not to do so—both from individuals and organizations. Some state and national organizations have even talked of taking away the licenses of those who participate in this work.

I feel that stripping the license of psychologists who allow their clients to determine the direction of their therapy is wrong. Reorientation therapy may lead to disappointment for the majority, but this is no reason to rule out the individual's right to try whatever he or she wants to try in the search for greater peace.

Now a final p.s. on the whole situation. This is the part of the post where I actually talk about President Packer's October conference talk wherein he originally stated that Heavenly Father would never make one of His children gay but later deleted that sentence. I agree with one of the comments left on Proctor's Meridian article by a reader:

I think your article is a little melodramatic on what actually took place. Based upon the corrected version [of President Packer's talk] posted on LDS.org it seems to be that Elder Packer's wording in conference was not the best for articulating what he was attempting to convey. The way it read was out of tune with the official church position of differentiating between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. As a gay Latter-day Saint living the law of celibacy as directed by our prophet, President Monson, I offer my testimony that there is a big difference between condemning sexual orientation (which is not a chosen trait) and condemning sexual behaviour. There is much pain experienced needlessly when we don't separate the two.

Amen.

President Packer changed the printed wording of his talk. What he said at the pulpit that has since been omitted is not, therefore, Mormon doctrine.

Ever notice how the spoken and printed versions of conference talks don't always match—especially when President Monson is telling stories and jokes in priesthood session? There is a difference between the spoken and published versions because the speaker approves what he wants to be, for lack of a better word, "canonized" in print. Often the speaker prepares a printed version, strays from it while at the pulpit, and requests that the original version be published. What happened to President Packer's talk occurs every single general conference. It's just that clarification rarely occurs on such volatile issues, and changes go largely unnoticed.

I understand why some of President Packer's listeners found his words insensitive. I'm grateful for the clarification that quickly came. And I pray for the day when all of us with opposing viewpoints can cease to feel threatened by each other because of our increasing ability to love and believe the best about each other, despite what issues may remain impasses. As Orson Scott Card pointed out, "Tolerance implies disagreement—it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably."