Mormon Bishop Says Church Responsible For Gays’ Emotional Wounds

[Jaybear]

No, a leader stated clearly that if a homosexual made a physical attack on you, then striking him is an acceptable reaction.

Not true. Packer spoke of vigorously responding to an enticement, not a physical attack.

One doesnt need a prophet of God to tell you that its okay to respond in kind to a physical attack.

[ERayR]

I don't think you can, reasonably, claim this, unless you know everything that has ever been said and done by every single member of the church...

This is not an issue of every member of the church has said it is about official church policy.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[cdowis]

Are you kidding? BYU named its basketball arena after a man that profited handsomely from selling pornography.

Mitt Romney was also on the Marriott Board.

You forgot to mention that the church owned the Hotel Utah for a period of time, and the hotel served various items to their guests, including coffee and alcohol.

He did not "sell" porn. As I understand, he owned the holding company and the individual hotels chose to provide various programs on their television cable network. He indirectly profited from it, just as an LDS owner of a restaurant may profit from the sale of wine and coffee. It is not a focus of the business itself, but a necessary service for guests which expect it. He is not in the business of forcing his morality on his guests.

[cdowis]

Have you seen the laundry list of actions that were once verbotten, but now are apparantly accepted by God. Even in your Church, prophets once spoke out against birth control, masturbation and oral sex. Now, eh, not so much.

The times have changed. I remember going to high school when they were constantly reminding us not to run in the halls.

Now, you don't hear that anymore from the church leaders? Now we have abortion, rampant immorality, porn.... The times have changed and that is why we have living prophets to warn us about things more serious than "running in the halls."

[Sky]

Not true. Packer spoke of vigorously responding to an enticement, not a physical attack.

One doesnt need a prophet of God to tell you that its okay to respond in kind to a physical attack.

A person’s virtue and chastity is worth protecting – even through physical force if necessary – regardless of whether it’s male-male, male-female, or female-female. That’s how I read Packer’s comments.

And honestly, we really don’t know all the particular details of the situation he was describing. We will never know. So maybe we ought to refrain from judging or reaching any sort of final conclusions.

[Jaybear]

You forgot to mention that the church owned the Hotel Utah for a period of time, and the hotel served various items to their guests, including coffee and alcohol.

He did not "sell" porn. As I understand, he owned the holding company and the individual hotels chose to provide various programs on their television cable network. He indirectly profited from it, just as an LDS owner of a restaurant may profit from the sale of wine and coffee. It is not a focus of the business itself, but a necessary service for guests which expect it. He is not in the business of forcing his morality on his guests.

You apologists skills need work.

Lets address your points:

1. Individual hotels chose to offer porn.

WRONG. Marriot branded hotels,whether corporate owned or franchised, can only sell porn if allowed by Marriot corp.

You do understand the concept of branding.

2. He "indirectly" profited from it.

Meaningless distinction. Movie rentals are a distinct profit center of a hotel. As is room service, restaraunts, and the gift shop.

3. It was a necessary service.

Not all hotels sold porn. After Mormon Mitt Romney left the board, the board voted to end porn sales. Guess it wasn't so "necessary" after all.

[Jaybear]

A person’s virtue and chastity is worth protecting – even through physical force if necessary – regardless of whether it’s male-male, male-female, or female-female. That’s how I read Packer’s comments.

There was no ambiguity. Packer says if "enticed," vigourously defend and he cites an example of a young man beating up a homosexual with his approval. For all practical purposes, he is giving the green light for young men to beat up gays IF they think they are coming on to them ... enticed to commit immorality.

And honestly, we really don’t know all the particular details of the situation he was describing. We will never know. So maybe we ought to refrain from judging or reaching any sort of final conclusions.

Not relevant. At issue is not what actually happened in the incident, but what lessons one would reasonably expect young men to draw from the speech.

[frankenstein]

No, a leader stated clearly that if a homosexual made a physical attack on you, then striking him is an acceptable reaction. Just like when a women is raped it is acceptable for her to do all in her power to resist the attacker. Are you suggesting that we teach our children to just stand there and let the abuser have his way with them? Get real!

Nope you are incorrect storm rider a leader did not clearly state what you claim. Here is what the leader stated

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it.

At most, what can be construed is that if a man entices another man; according to elder packer committing a physical assualt on that person is an option.

[Sky]

There was no ambiguity. Packer says if "enticed," vigourously defend and he cites an example of a young man beating up a homosexual with his approval. For all practical purposes, he is giving the green light for young men to beat up gays IF they think they are coming on to them ... enticed to commit immorality.

Not relevant. At issue is not what actually happened in the incident, but what lessons one would reasonably expect young men to draw from the speech.

Somehow I don’t think Packer was advocating punching somebody’s guts out simply for making a homosexual advance. There is more going on with this story. But critics like you always seem to spin it around in a way that puts Packer in the worst light possible.

I know that Boyd K. Packer has a good heart and that he does his best to serve the Lord. He is an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. I know that he loves and cares deeply about people – including homosexuals. He wants to help. He doesn’t deserve the ridicule and scorn that has been heaped upon him throughout all these years.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankentein:

I accept that Bro. Packer is just as subject to error and engaging mouth before starting brain as we all are. It is long past time to forgive him and more on.

Besides violence just begets more violence.

[frankenstein]

Frankentein:

I accept that Bro. Packer is just as subject to error and engaging mouth before starting brain as we all are. It is long past time to forgive him and more on.

Besides violence just begets more violence.

Yes.

I brought up the quote to counter ldsfaqs claims. I posted the quote to counter storm riders assertion about the statement. There are some unpleasant things in lds church history. Do i think there are some in the church who took it as gospel truth...yes I do. Do I think the quote provides a basis for the claim of institutionalized violence yes it does , but I would that since such a message was not repeated, though I have not read the pamphlet, that there Ian not much of claim to institutionalized violence....mostly just misguided folks.

Some historical notes my mission president said that when he served a mission at 19 that companions had to share a bed.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

That some took it as Gospel Truth is most unfortunate. All I can say is fallible people being fallible is something I'm probably going to change that any time soon.

[cdowis]

You apologists skills need work.

I do not claim to use any "apologist skills". Just common sense and logic.

Lets address your points:

1. Individual hotels chose to offer porn.

WRONG. Marriot branded hotels,whether corporate owned or franchised, can only sell porn if allowed by Marriot corp.

You do understand the concept of branding.

The Marriott Corp could dictate which channels an individual hotel could show? They could tell them to show the Cartoon Channel, and restrict specific channels.

Perhaps.

2. He "indirectly" profited from it.

Meaningless distinction. Movie rentals are a distinct profit center of a hotel. As is room service, restaraunts, and the gift shop.

You are very skilled at making antimormon assertions.

You assert that the church praises Marriott when BYU named a building after him. First, BYU is not "the church". It honors those who contribute large sums to the university, both member and nonmember. Since some of that contribution came from the Marriott's "porn sales", then BYU is also guilty of profiting from porn. Those students who use his facilities also benefit from the porn business, do they not?

Suppose that I am a majority owner of MC (mastercard). It makes money from transactions, including porn, marijuana, alcohol, perhaps even abortions. So I guess I would, according to your assertion, also profit from porn. My children would then profit, and even my church contributions.

As I said, your antimormon skills are finely honed.

3. It was a necessary service.

Not all hotels sold porn. After Mormon Mitt Romney left the board, the board voted to end porn sales. Guess it wasn't so "necessary" after all.

In the hospitality industry it is necessary to provide a wide array of services, including entertainment. Businesses often make business decisions on what products to add or remove, depending on circumstances.

[Jaybear]

Somehow I don’t think Packer was advocating punching somebody’s guts out simply for making a homosexual advance. There is more going on with this story.

When he says "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it."

I wouldn't use the term "advocating" but rather "condoning".

But critics like you always seem to spin it around in a way that puts Packer in the worst light possible.

Yeah, right its my "spin." that makes the statement look bad.

Sounds to me like you are the one who is repudiating the advice given by your prophet, by pretending he meant something else.

[frankenstein]

Cdowis as a mastercard share holder or whathave are you providing the goods for sale? Marriott provided or made available the goods for sale which is different from derivative payments. Maybe your MBA classes did not cover that.

[Sky]

The Marriott Hotel Corp. could choose to not offer porn on their TV Channels. That would be the moral thing to do. Omni Hotels did just that. If Omni can do it, Marriott can do it too.

But it’s unfair to make the LDS Church look bad because Marriott Hotels offer porn. I don’t know of any organization that is more anti-porn than the LDS Church, but be that as it may, the Church can’t control the business decisions of a hotel chain. They are separate entities, even if the guy in charge of Marriott happens to be LDS. Excommunicating him would be going too far.

As a side note - I’ve earned paychecks at stores that sell coffee, tea, and alcohol. And I pay my tithing.

Does this make me unworthy? I don’t think so. Has the Church lined up to excommunicate me? No.

The scripture “to be in the world but not of it” seems particularly apt in cases like these.

[Sky]

When he says "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it."

I wouldn't use the term "advocating" but rather "condoning".

Yeah, right its my "spin." that makes the statement look bad.

Sounds to me like you are the one who is repudiating the advice given by your prophet, by pretending he meant something else.

Excuse me, but I’m not pretending anything. I just interpret Packer’s statements differently than you do. Is that a crime? And how do you know exactly what he meant? Don’t you think that’s a little presumptuous of you? Too bad he is not here to defend himself.

[ldsfaqs]

I really don't understand anti-mormons obsession with distorting the truth.

If Marriot could control whether porn was in their rooms or not, they would have. I have a feeling when they lost control that they had to compromise, either allow porn, or not allow a Book of Mormon in the room. Which would you rather have?

Plus, it's not like they are offering porn for free or something. To get porn on ANY hotel channel, you have to pay for it. Freedom of TV entertainment is not the same as a hotel offering something. You have to pay for movies also.... So what?

BTW.... Marriot has now removed porn access from their rooms, or at least some.

[Minos]

Jaybear and Frankenstein have been thread banned for off-topic provocation accompanied with insults. Now everyone stay on topic and away from porn.

[Pahoran]

Really Clever Monologue there pahoran, typical of your style i.e. make claims that are unrelated to what you quote and put words into another's mouth. It's a good thing that I never mention being "accepting", but it is your style of response to create diversions. I stated that there are members of the LDS faith on this board who need to repent of manner in which they speak to or about persons who identify as homosexual or persons who claim ssa. But I am sure that calling an entire group of people "immoralists";

Which "entire group of people" was that?

Did I apply that descriptor to everyone who self-identifies as "gay?"

Why, no; I applied it to those who advocate for immoral causes.

That would, of course, include "gay" agitators. It would also include so-called Mormons (Latter-day Ain'ts) who oppose the Church's stand on moral issues. The term, incidentally, was coined by Friedrich Nietzsche and applied, by him, to his own philosophy.

But thank you for admitting that your snide little back-handers were directed at me.

suggesting they can not be trusted with children;

Hey, if you want to trust your children with people who describe themselves as being unable to control their sexual urges, that's up to you.

or suggesting that every homosexual male is a pedophile is exactly what the LDS Church requests of its members and behaviour and language is an ensign to the world for upholding the moral standards of the Church; though, I could be wrong.

As indeed you are wrong in your description of my position.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Nope you are incorrect storm rider a leader did not clearly state what you claim. Here is what the leader stated

At most, what can be construed is that if a man entices another man; according to elder packer committing a physical assualt on that person is an option.

Thank you for the correction, my memory was bad. With your correction we all understand exactly what was said. I was never " enticed" by a gay person, but there was one that was overly aggressive at my gym. I did not strike him (I was just too stunned), but just stared at him as if he had lost his mind. I would not blame any one that would have reacted violently. Some things are just not done and when they are done it is clear that the individual has moved far beyond civilized society.

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

Violence just inspires more violence. Just say no and walk away.

[jo1952]

Indeed. Yet his flying out to speak to this group in my mind is suspect. I don't think we want anyone, especially Bishops, buying into the often embellished and insinuative stories of maltreatment whose object is to implicate and denigrate the Church and ultimately change it's doctrine through grassroots pressure.

Personally, I do not see this Bishop's actions as a manifestation of "buying into the often embellished and insinuative stories of maltreatment whose object is to implicate and denigrate the Church and ultimately change its doctrine through grassroots pressure". I see his actions as a manifestation of a sincere effort to emulate Christ's love. After reading the Mormon Stories Podcast complete presentation of the Bishop's comments, I am inclined to believe that they are spot on.

To all posters:

I do not feel that the Bishop is in danger of falling away, any moreso than any of us are. In fact, perhaps he is closer to becoming "one" than many of the rest of us.

This entire issue over gays is a huge stumbling block for mankind. I am so very thankful that it is Christ who will be our Judge as He can see the intent of our hearts and will Judge us fairly and perfectly because He has personally experienced the very struggles we all personally contend with. Also, we will be judged as individuals; not in groups, or as members of any particular group. Inasmuch as I do not recall hearing of anyone being translated recently, that it is fair for me to believe that none of us has reached perfection. Paul, who "died daily" due to the thorn in his side, had much to teach us which I believe we can apply to this extremely difficult subject.

Much love to all,

jo

[jo1952]

When he says "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it."

I wouldn't use the term "advocating" but rather "condoning".

From your anti-LDS pov I can see where you could come to the conclusion you have. From my pov I believe that Elder Packer was "not omitting it" because he was telling us the details of the event which had been recounted to him while he was serving his mission. Part of that event included the fact that the missionary had punched out his companion. Now, if Elder Packer had left that part of the story out, and an anti-LDS later dug up the complete story of that incident, I have no doubt that the anti would then have gladly pointed out how Elder Packer had "omitted" the violence. Elder Packer chose to include this aspect rather than "omit" it from the story. IOW, the "omitting" has nothing to do with advocating or condoning the violence; he was merely telling us what had transpired. To me he made that clear by first stating that he did NOT recommend that type of action.

Regards,

jo