The Church has released a statement in response to the petition circulated by Human Rights Watch. While BCC has a thread up discussing the full statement, I want to highlight my favorite part:
God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgement of our shared human dignity. We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.
I think that this message was also well stated by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf in both his Saturday morning session talk and his talk during the priesthood session.
Here is a video of the full statement:
It’s a welcome statement and a nice call to cool the rhetoric. Thanks for finding the video.
+1 for the good guys today. And a better-than-expected statement from Otterson, for sure.
Chris, thanks for sharing. I appreciated this clarification of doctrine while reminding us of the our primary obligation – to treat each other regardless of circumstance with Christ-like kindness and respect.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Just more PR damage control. Cool the rhetoric? Whose rhetoric?
Everyone’s rhetoric. There you go.
There is something wrong. Why wasn’t this nice wording and nice counsel and niceness part of General Conference? Why was the tone from Elder Packer so unkind in the first place? Why isn’t Michael Otterson the “mouthpiece” for the Lord? Over at “By Common Consent” many were rejoicing over this nice counsel, but why from the bureaucratic side of the church and not the “real” side of the church. Something has happened. Is the bureaucracy better than the “real”?
“Why wasn’t this nice wording and nice counsel and niceness part of General Conference?”
Ummm, it was a response to a petition that was, itself, a response to a general conference talk. There will be another on in April.
“Why was the tone from Elder Packer so unkind in the first place?”
His tone is rarely all that friendly. He has long since vilified academics and feminists (I fall in both categories.. I am not surprised that he said it and that he said it how he said it.
Explain what you mean by real?
By “real” I meant that Elder Packer’s general conference words, as with all the apostles and the prophet, are the “real thing”, the supposed doctrine and scripture and word of God that Mormons are to live by. In contrast, the words from Otterson sound like better and truer Christian doctrine to me.
Otterson is Mormon PR at its best. Complete, hypocritical nonsense. Why should he be parsing Elder Packer, and which version of Elder Packer’s talk are we to accept? Hope someone can explain.
Sorry Chris if my rhetoric isn’t cooled.
“Otterson is Mormon PR at its best.”
LOL. That is probably why they pay him the big bucks to head the media relations. He is a PR guy, officially, so calling him “PR” is…well…funny to me.
I do not accept any version of the Packer talk.
Too bad, there is a lot of good in the talk.
Stephen
Which version?