Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[busybee]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, not exactly.  

Where are the statements "she actually made"?  Do you have direct quotes from her that these suicides all took place within the 3 month period mentioned?

 

Affirmation quoted her as saying so. She is on the Board. Affirmation says it and she doesn't correct them = she said it. She had every opportunity to correct what they had said, but didn't. Until the proverbial hit the fan. Now she's back-pedalling. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Thus speaketh the one who recently accused me and virtually every other member of the Church of having culpability for these suicides.  

 

Where did she do this?  Do you have a quote by her? (I sincerely would love to see it, if so...a direct quote, not secondary )

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, busybee said:

Affirmation quoted her as saying so. She is on the Board. Affirmation says it and she doesn't correct them = she said it. She had every opportunity to correct what they had said, but didn't. Until the proverbial hit the fan. Now she's back-pedalling. 

Ummm....she is correcting it.  Many asked for clarification and she's giving that.  Not much different from the clarification later by church leaders regarding the policy. Or do you call that back-pedalling too?

How about giving her the benefit of the doubt here?

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You personally can make the decision to decline to be part of spreading or consenting to what is quite likely a misinterpretation of meaning.

Scott it's completely reasonable to take what Elder Packer said and think, "oh man, he didn't think it was a big deal that a missionary punched out another who was gay.  After all it appeared the missionary who confessed thought it was going to be a big problem.  But, if the missionary who confessed was first attacked he wouldn't have reasonably felt like it was a big problem for him to protect himself.  Thus, it appears, Elder Packer did not think it a big deal for a missionary to instigate violence upon another because he was gay."

The problem is not the others are misinterpreting it.  It's that the original telling isn't clear enough to spell out when violence is not a big deal--like when defending oneself. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's weird that the context of time frame slipped in.  Who first got that impression?

Wendy may have stated that they were reported to her during that time frame and then the message got misconstrued.  I feel she's tried to clarify that this didn't mean they actually occurred during that time frame.  I believe her and I don't understand why others won't give her the same consideration.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

To be clear, Montgomery did not write the blog post. 

But did she not make the announcement of the numbers at the Affirmation conference?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be fine if it didnt' leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence.  Sadly, I can't interpret it for everyone, Scott. 

Physically resisting spectacularly inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances is, in your view, "unsolicited violence?"

"Unsolicited?"

If a woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a co-worker, or her boss, or if a young woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a family member in her own home, would you accuse this woman or this girl of resorting to "unsolicited violence?"  (Let's keep in mind, again, that Elder Packer's remarks pertained to the victim of spectacularly inappropriate sexual advances.)

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the precise nature of the sexual misconduct alluded to by Elder Packer.  I can understand his reticence to get into the nitty gritty details of what happened to the missionary he was interviewing.  It's not like sexual harassment by an LDS missionary against his companion is acceptable as long as it consists of only __________________ [insert a specific description here].  Sexual harassment by one missionary against another is categorically inappropriate and wrong.  So it could have been unwise for Elder Packer to have provided more precise details, and thus give the impression that some, shall we say, "milder" forms of sexual harassment are okay, but that there is some arbitrary line which cannot be crossed.  All forms of sexual harassment between missionaries are inappropriate.

Alas, we'll never know to what degree this missionary was subjected to unwanted sexual advances by his missionary companion.  But do we really need to know?  Elder Packer knew, and, "after learning a little more" about the incident, advised the missionary that "Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."  He then went on to instruct the youth of the Church: "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."

Elder Packer's recommendations are heavily qualified.  He concedes that physical violence in resisting unwanted sexual advances may be necessary.  He characterizes such a think as a last resort ("I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it.  You must protect yourself.").  And although the details of the situation described by Elder Packer are not disclosed, Elder Packer appears to placate the missionary, who we know used substantial physical force to resist unwanted and spectacularly inappropriate sexual misconduct by his companion.  I therefore think we can reasonably extrapolate that the misconduct by the missionary's companion was serious enough to warrant the "last resort" of physical resistance/violence.

I therefore reject the suggestion that Elder Packer's remarks "leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence."  They do nothing of the sort.  My mind is reeling at the absurdity of this characterization.

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Physically resisting spectacularly inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances is, in your view "unsolicited violence?"

"Unsolicited?"

Of course I didn't say that, Smac. 

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a co-worker, or her boss, or if a young woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a family member in her own home, would you accuse this woman or this girl of resorting to "unsolicited violence?"  (Let's keep in mind, again, that Elder Packer's remarks pertained to the victim of spectacularly inappropriate sexual advances.)

Look.  If a woman reported to a boss that she was worried she did something wrong when she attacked someone at work.  there may be a problem.  If say, Elder Packer called a gay guy telling his companion he finds him attractive as "spectacularly inappropriate sexual advances" then I'd disagree with Elder Packer in this case. 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the precise nature of the sexual misconduct alluded to by Elder Packer.  I can understand his reticence to get into the nitty gritty details of what happened to the missionary he was interviewing.  It's not like sexual harassment by an LDS missionary against his companion is acceptable as long as it consists of only __________________ [insert a specific description here].  Sexual harassment by one missionary against another is categorically inappropriate and wrong.  So it could have been unwise for Elder Packer to have provided more precise details, and thus give the impression that some, shall we say, "milder" forms of sexual harassment are okay, but that there is some arbitrary line which cannot be crossed.  All forms of sexual harassment between missionaries are inappropriate.

Alas, we'll never know to what degree this missionary was subjected to unwanted sexual advances by his missionary companion.  But do we really need to know?  Elder Packer knew, and, "after learning a little more" about the incident, advised the missionary that "Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."  He then went on to instruct the youth of the Church: "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."

Elder Packer's recommendations are heavily qualified.  He concedes that physical violence in resisting unwanted sexual advances may be necessary.  He characterizes such a think as a last resort ("I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it.  You must protect yourself.").  I therefore reject the suggestion that Elder Packer's remarks "leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence."  They do nothing of the sort.  My mind is reeling at the absurdity of this characterization.

-Smac

I think it a stretch to allege sexual harassment from what we have here.  And thus, I find this whole explanation wanting, Smac.  The difficulty is anyone can read this and think that the missionary who struck the other struck without much reason at all.  He could have been hit on, in some almost innocent way for all we know. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, some LDS young men, since this talk, have been violent to those who are gay.  I'm not saying they felt justified in their attacks.  I'm just saying we simply don't know the mind of another--and often don't know why they do what they do.  As Californiaboy suggested the problem is not with what Elder Packer said to the boy on that occasion.  it was that the talk itself did not spell out reasoning that would justify violence.  His only explanation was that the boy that got knocked out was gay.  The reporting missionary felt badly about it and was surprised he wasn't a big deal.  If the missionary who punched him out was attacked, why would he feel badly?  It wouldn't make sense. 

Seriously?  People feel guilty for being attacked all the time and for whatever response they choose to give.  Maybe the kid thought he had done something to provoke whatever his companion had done and therefore it was his fault he ended up hitting the guy.

The hitting was linked explicitly imo to protecting oneself.  This is no justification for violence simply because someone is gay.  At worse, someone might take it as suggesting it is alright to hit someone who is making verbal suggestions, but there is likely much more going on if someone goes there then just being aware of this talk.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Scott it's completely reasonable to take what Elder Packer said and think, "oh man, he didn't think it was a big deal that a missionary punched out another who was gay.  After all it appeared the missionary who confessed thought it was going to be a big problem.  But, if the missionary who confessed was first attacked he wouldn't have reasonably felt like it was a big problem for him to protect himself.  Thus, it appears, Elder Packer did not think it a big deal for a missionary to instigate violence upon another because he was gay."

The problem is not the others are misinterpreting it.  It's that the original telling isn't clear enough to spell out when violence is not a big deal--like when defending oneself. 

I've already said I wish, in retrospect, there had been greater clarity.

But for those who understand the role of an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ and have observed Elder/President Packer for many years and have come to know his heart through his numerous sermons and actions as an apostle of the Lord, it is not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he would be advocating gratuitous violence against another -- for any reason.

I don't accept it.

As I said, those who have hostile inclinations toward the Chruch of Jesus Christ and/or President Packer might be inclined to put a misinterpretation on his words. But that says more about them than it does about him.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it a stretch to allege sexual harassment from what we have here. 

Then why in the world did Elder Packer say that it was appropriate to protect himself?  Do you really think that just the companion being gay would be something the elder would need to be protected from in Elder Packer's view?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/2/2016 at 11:41 AM, smac97 said:

Physically resisting spectacularly inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances is, in your view "unsolicited violence?"

"Unsolicited?"

If a woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a co-worker, or her boss, or if a young woman were to physically resist unwanted sexual advances from a family member in her own home, would you accuse this woman or this girl of resorting to "unsolicited violence?"  (Let's keep in mind, again, that Elder Packer's remarks pertained to the victim of spectacularly inappropriate sexual advances.)

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the precise nature of the sexual misconduct alluded to by Elder Packer.  I can understand his reticence to get into the nitty gritty details of what happened to the missionary he was interviewing.  It's not like sexual harassment by an LDS missionary against his companion is acceptable as long as it consists of only __________________ [insert a specific description here].  Sexual harassment by one missionary against another is categorically inappropriate and wrong.  So it could have been unwise for Elder Packer to have provided more precise details, and thus give the impression that some, shall we say, "milder" forms of sexual harassment are okay, but that there is some arbitrary line which cannot be crossed.  All forms of sexual harassment between missionaries are inappropriate.

Alas, we'll never know to what degree this missionary was subjected to unwanted sexual advances by his missionary companion.  But do we really need to know?  Elder Packer knew, and, "after learning a little more" about the incident, advised the missionary that "Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."  He then went on to instruct the youth of the Church: "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."

Elder Packer's recommendations are heavily qualified.  He concedes that physical violence in resisting unwanted sexual advances may be necessary.  He characterizes such a think as a last resort ("I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it.  You must protect yourself.").  And although the details of the situation described by Elder Packer are not disclosed, Elder Packer appears to placate the missionary, who we know used substantial physical force to resist unwanted and spectacularly inappropriate sexual misconduct by his companion.  I therefore think we can reasonably extrapolate that the misconduct by the missionary's companion was serious enough to warrant the "last resort" of physical resistance/violence.

I therefore reject the suggestion that Elder Packer's remarks "leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence."  They do nothing of the sort.  My mind is reeling at the absurdity of this characterization.

-Smac

Out of rep points for today, so I will simply say "Bravo!" in case I don't get back to this post tomorrow.

(Twice now in three days, I've run out of rep points to award. That has never happened to me before. Have to say it's all because of this thread.)

Edited to add: Finally got back and made good on my rep-point IOU.

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Her "clarification" sounds an awful like the "clarification" the church issued after their initial policy statement.    This all sounds too familiar.  Just the opposite side of the fence.  I assume your same rath is directed at church leaders.

The Church did not issue inaccurate statistics.  I think there is enough of a significant difference that such a conclusion is inappropriate.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

She also stated this:

" 6) Because a loved one messaged me during November, December and January doesn’t mean that is when their loved one died. It could have been much earlier. I didn’t ask for death dates. I actually didn’t ask them anything, other than what I could do to help them. "

 

Which means it could have been years ago.  32 possible suicides spread out over ten years rather different than 32 in three months.  Such statistics should never have been used to claim there was a spike in suicide deaths by her.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know, except to suggest it might be because the attacks did not really surface until many years after the talk was delivered and the pamphlet was out of print (although, as I noted, it is today accessible on lds.org). That, and the fact that the attacks were largely coming from those who were hostile toward the Church and toward President Packer. There's something to be said, you know, for refusing to engage in a back-and-forth with those who have ill intent. 

He also may have felt there were plenty of instances in his own or others' talks and council from the Church that made explicit that limited violence was to be reserved for protection of oneself from physical harm.

To take the instance of one hit (that Elder Packer was not aware of so it would seem had not been reported to higher ups which something that injured his companion would have) that is linked to protecting oneself and expanding it to a extended beating or at the very least an attack that was intended to harm someone for any reason is ignoring the context imo and that is not the problem of the speaker, but the person who does it.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was there when the talk was delivered. I know how it was received. I remember the pamphlet being distributed thereafter. There has never been any question as to Elder Packer's meaning -- whether or not he was advocating gratuitous violence -- until recent years when the gay rights lobby has come to the fore.

He was an apostle. He was no criminal, and he did not condone criminal behavior.

I'm sorry Scott but you and your recollection of an address you listened to some 40 years ago is anecdotal, at best.  You can't possibly speak to the minds of the thousands who were listening nor can you speak to how the pamphlet was understood in the decades after that event.

You are the one throwing in words like "gratuitous" and "criminal behavior".  Don't put words in my mouth and fabricate a fake enemy, the "gay rights lobby" to try to make some kind of point.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which means it could have been years ago.  32 possible suicides spread out over ten years rather different than 32 in three months.  Such statistics should never have been used to claim there was a spike in suicide deaths by her.

And let's remember that she specifically told Affirmation that these 32 suicides were both "documented" and that they had occurred "since the release of the new policy."

I am not going to let this go.  I an not going to let enemies of our faith, who seized upon this fabricated statistic (yeah, I'm calling it "fabricated" now) as a weapon against the LDS Church, to now turn around and airily wave away the increasing pile of evidence debunking it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You got his name right the first time. It is Elder Packer, not "Packard."

And as I said above, I was present on the occasion when the talk was delivered. I well remember the distribution of the pamphlet. There has not been widespread public misconstrual or mischaracterization of his meaning until recent years, when there has been an unseemly effort to vilify him in public.

It wasn't a matter of people deciding to mischaracterize his meaning, it was the increasing realization that he and the Church were getting it wrong when it came to issues surrounding homosexuality.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious.  If a general authority were to encourage a young woman to resist unwanted and profoundly inappropriate (predatory?) sexual advances, even to the point of using violence to protect herself, would you take exception to that?

FAIR has a pretty good article on this issue.

An LDS missionary making unwanted sexual advances on his companion (who has to sleep in the same room with him and spend 24/7 with him) would seem to typify the concept of "sexual harassment" that we see so often discussed in the context of women.  Are you suggesting that the victim of such profoundly inappropriate behavior just . . . let it happen?  Or that he should resist it but not to the point of using violence to protect himself?  What if he is physically capable of protecting himself from unwanted sexual advances?  Should he nonetheless refrain from protecting himself simply because the sexual aggressor is a homosexual?  Just trying to figure out the rules here . . . 

-Smac

 

But Elder Packer didn't say that there were "unwanted sexual advances".  You're reading into his comments.

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

According to her, they were not an accurate portrayal of what took place and of how the suicides were reported.  Have you read any statements from her that all of those suicides took place within the months mentioned?

I've asked that question several times and I'm going to assume you can't produce any since you haven't.

It sounds like she was not the one who wanted this to go public and once it did, she tried to clarify some misconceptions.  

She talked to DN and Salt Lake Trib.  They reported her as saying this.  What stopped her from calling them as soon as the articles went up (since she was apparently aware of them) and telling them they got it wrong?  Why at the time of the interviews did she not make it clear that the suicides as reported to her did not have death dates attached since she was aware of how they had been reported as in the last three months...(add-on:  she claims she did and yet both newspapers got it wrong)? Why did she wait for five days to offer a correction knowing what the discussion was, even though her husband was giving explanations on how the numbers could be accurate but without the additional information she now gives that no death dates were attached when that is an essential fact required in reporting these numbers?

After allowing the

Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Out of rep points for today, so I will simply say "Bravo!" in case I don't get back to this post tomorrow.

(Twice now in three days, I've run out of rep points to award. That has never happened to me before. Have to say it's all because of this thread.)

Yes... way to go Smac... create a strawman and then shoot it down.  Rep point!

[Storm Rider]

On 2/1/2016 at 8:58 PM, california boy said:

Once I make a quote, it seems to use the same quote thereafter.  I have seen other people mention this.  Sure hope it can get fixed.

If I hit return twice I can finally get below the quote and type.

Smac, what makes this so strange is the silence from those pushing the agenda.  Worse, they repeat the statistic and they continue to support this exaggeration.  Why should I be led around by the nose by those who use such base forms of propaganda.  

It puts a very bad taste in my mouth when this group comes up.  I realize they are willing to do anything to achieve their ends.  

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, busybee said:

Affirmation quoted her as saying so. She is on the Board. Affirmation says it and she doesn't correct them = she said it. She had every opportunity to correct what they had said, but didn't. Until the proverbial hit the fan. Now she's back-pedalling. 

After five days of allowing the numbers to spread out there while she was aware of it and even though her husband was taking the opportunity to support the numbers as given.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But Elder Packer didn't say that there were "unwanted sexual advances".  You're reading into his comments.

Context matters.  I agree.  Here's the context:

Quote

I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] 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. You must protect yourself.

Elder Packer prefaced the remarks under discussion with references to "physical mischief with another man," which is "forbidden by the Lord."  He also stated "There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist."  The bracketed word ("homosexual") is not in the original text.  But are you seriously suggesting that he was referring to something other than homosexual conduct (or, perhaps, offers or overtures thereof)?  Then what was he talking about?

The missionary's response was to resort to physical violence.  Are you suggesting that his actions precipitating this were welcome?  Where are you getting such an idea?

"Unwanted sexual advances" seems like a pretty apt description of what Elder Packer was describing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Context matters.  I agree.  Here's the context:

Elder Packer prefaced the remarks under discussion with references to "physical mischief with another man," which is "forbidden by the Lord."  He also stated "There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist."  The bracketed word ("homosexual") is not in the original text.  But are you seriously suggesting that he was referring to something other than homosexual conduct (or, perhaps, offers or overtures thereof)?  Then what was he talking about?

The missionary's response was to resort to physical violence.  Are you suggesting that his actions precipitating this were welcome?  Where are you getting such an idea?

"Unwanted sexual advances" seems like a pretty apt description of what Elder Packer was describing.

Thanks,

-Smac

What a reasonable adult would conclude from his remarks is not the issue.  The talk is addressed to teenage boys.