Choose The Right

First, a definition:


Prophet:

■a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God

■(the Prophet) (among Mormons) Joseph Smith or one of his successors.

■a person who advocates or speaks in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory

■a person who makes or claims to be able to make predictions

Now, it is well understood within the Mormon Church that prophets, seers and "revelators" are an important part of our belief structure. It is also understood and taught that the presidents and leadership of the Church, along with the Prophet (the current being Thomas S. Munson) receive divine inspiration directly from Heavenly Father on many matters.

Now. The issue I want to talk about arises from the belief that Everything said by the Prophets, presidents, seers, and "revelators" is the exact will of God. Humans are fallible creatures, and we can no more predict God's true intentions than we can weather systems far into the future. Directly from MormonWiki: "A "seer" sees with spiritual eyes. Because he sees the meaning of God's message to mankind, whether the message comes from scripture or from personal revelation, he can clarify and interpret the message for mankind." This does not mean he is infallible. It simply means that those chosen to guide us will have a better understanding of God's intentions. But not a Perfect understanding. Many things get lost in translation: that shows true from the teachings of Christ. To quote some scripture: Matthew 13:13 "Jesus said, 'This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see. Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' The reason Christ did this is because complex messages are hard for many people to understand in every day life. Jesus came to heal the sick, old, poor, and tired. He did not come to give us the full reasons and mysteries of God's intentions. That we must do on our own. And since there are so many people on this planet and so many different ideas, things will inevitably be unclear. Wires will be crossed, tensions will rise, and people fight. However, all this can be mitigated if we use critical thinking.

It is not our place as Man (or Woman) to define what God is, what His intentions are, and what is, without a doubt, the right course of action. Religion's job is to define the beliefs, not the facts. We may believe that Heavenly Father has a plan, and "know" that to be true in our hearts. But, logically, we have in no basis in fact. We must take that on faith, which is the cornerstone of religion. However, we live in a secular world, and not all share our beliefs. We must understand, then, that riots may ensue if we choose to promote our beliefs as absolute certainty. There is no such thing as absolute certainty... that is Why We Have Faith. And therefore, we can deduce that, from time to time, we are incorrect in our assumptions of God's intentions. No human being, save Christ, is or ever was perfect. Therefore, to promote what one says as perfection is ludicrous.

In the recent debate over Elder Boyd K. Packer's remarks at General Conference, there are certain facts. 1) Elder Packard did make a speech which referred to same-sex attraction as a "temptation", and then made several supportive statements of his argument. Below are the changes made:

Original: "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father."

Change: "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father."

Now, regardless of the semantics or whether the statement was taken out of context, the fact remains that the changes Were Made. Some will argue that it was changed to placate political and same-sex attraction groups; some will argue that Elder Packer simply wanted to clarify his statement. But this is not a clarification. This is a direct restructure of what he said. There is no need for this if he believes he was doing the right thing. I don not fault Elder Packer or the press or any other person in this situation. I simply say that Elder Packer should have no reason to change his remarks, and should understand that while he is a leader of the Church, he is a Man. Therefore, he is fallible. I will not pretend to know what the correct course of action is here. Should he apologize to the same-sex attraction community? Should he say nothing? Should he stand by his remark? All those are a personal choice. What I Can say, without a doubt, is that this controversy would be made much simpler if the groups involved talked of it plainly and openly. There is no need for attacks from either side, and no one should change their opinion. This what we do as humans: we disagree. To get upset over the issue is an understandable emotional response, but it solves nothing. Likewise, to support any serious change of the situation to an extent where the original intent is misconstrued is not correct either. Several Facebook groups and people on the internet have sprung up either in favor of or petitioning against Elder Packer. Again, this is understandable. But it does not make it right.

Elder Packer made his remarks. People disagree. Let those parties have a discussion. To make this a political issue is foolish; religion should play no part in politics. I am aware that it does... I am simply stating my view. And it is this:

1) When it is taught that people are infallible, it paints the wrong portrait of reality. People are not perfect. Nothing is faxed directly from God. We interpret it the best we can. We may believe that something is true, but belief does not imply fact.

2) Elder Packer stated a view that he believes. The transcript of that view was then Changed. This was a incorrect course of action. Elder Packer should have stuck with his beliefs, regardless of what they are.

3) People became upset over what Elder Packer said, and created a political issue and a media outrage over the situation. Why? Religion is not politics. The views of a religious leader should have no bearing in the media. The parties involved should meet together in private and discuss the issue. The only thing putting these debates out into the open does is to create more hostility and chaos. The situation was poorly handled by both sides, as well as the press. Do we not have freedom of religion and speech in this country? Yes. Can views be reported through the free press, and can we petition those views? Yes. Can we even assemble to contradict any views we believe are wrong? Yes. However... who ever said we need to make it a national issue? Cannot those things be handled in private? In the army, we call that "handling issues at the lowest level possible." I feel this was not done here.

4) If you support a cause, support by all means. But do not make counter attacks. They are petty and cheap. To rally support for an issue based on popular opinion and emotion is one of the major things that is wrong with this country. Instead of using logic and having faith in higher powers (the second of which is, of course, optional to those of you who do not believe in a God), we have appealed to our emotions here. That is especially dangerous in a sensitive issue such as this. Why can we not take the time to calm down and work this out logically? We do not need to jump into the fray of battle without thinking about the situation first.

Many people will disagree with my assessment. So be it. I point out a prime example and fact to promote my view: many years ago, Islamic Jihadists began believing that they were absolutely correct in their views of God, and began to persecute others who did not believe as they did. It ruined not only an entire country, but plunged our planet into a never ending war (which I am inevitably caught in). These radicals lied, changed their views to suit their needs constantly, and appealed to mass hysteria and fear. If we continue down these roads, we will do the same. Ridiculous, you say? No. Learn Chaos Theory. One small change in any environment affects many different factors and creates enormous outcomes. It starts very small... even sometimes with catalysts such as this. We cannot predict the future. And since we cannot, the right thing to do is remain calm and use logic when people have disagreements such as this. To do otherwise is to create a dangerous environment where nothing can ever get done.

Take this for what you will.







.