Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The criticisms almost invariably jump to the conclusion that he is "condoning" violence against gays -- as Daniel expressed it in a post yesterday, the one I called him on.

Since Elder Packer didn't state what prompted the violence, it's a reasonable conclusion that he was condoning it under a wide variety of circumstances.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any receiver of a spoken or written communication has the responsibility to try to understand it accurately. Refusal to try to do this is inexcusable.

You may see it as advisable to give the defamers a pass; I don't.

It was a speech.  Promoted as a publishable piece, on it's own.  There is no one to ask about it because the author is now gone.  The speech and it's lack of clarify on what happened has left holes that each has filled.  You have filled with your preferred assumptions while another has filled them with others.  It's not their fault that the story in the speech lacked clarity at this point.   

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It was a speech.  Promoted as a publishable piece, on it's own.  There is no one to ask about it because the author is now gone.  The speech and it's lack of clarify on what happened has left holes that each has filled.  You have filled with your preferred assumptions while another has filled them with others.  It's not their fault that the story in the speech lacked clarity at this point.   

Additionally, President Packer had every opportunity and the means at this disposal to clarify.  He chose not to.

[Storm Rider]

So if I say you need to defend yourselves - then that means that someone who protects their home and family is supporting the going through the neighborhood and attacking people?  Hmm, this kind of logic is pretty stupid - just as stupid as saying that Elder Packer supporting jumping on gays.  He was clearly, as in crystal, talking about those who make unwanted, physical advances.  Do we teach our girls to just grin and bear it?  Nor should we teach our young men to do the same thing.  

This line of conversation makes no sense.  An antagonist may want to take offense and stretch it all out of context, but the context is clear - protect yourselves.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

An unprovoked or an unwarranted (gratuitous) physical assault against another is by definition criminal behavior. This, in effect, is what the defamers in recent years have been accusing President Packer of condoning when they attack him for his 1976 "To Young Men Only" talk.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It was a speech.  Promoted as a publishable piece, on it's own.  There is no one to ask about it because the author is now gone.  The speech and it's lack of clarify on what happened has left holes that each has filled.  You have filled with your preferred assumptions while another has filled them with others.  It's not their fault that the story in the speech lacked clarity at this point.   

People of good will do not accuse a Church apostle of condoning gratuitous violence when there is no substantial reason to make such accusaiton.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So if I say you need to defend yourselves - then that means that someone who protects their home and family is supporting the going through the neighborhood and attacking people?  Hmm, this kind of logic is pretty stupid - just as stupid as saying that Elder Packer supporting jumping on gays.  He was clearly, as in crystal, talking about those who make unwanted, physical advances.  Do we teach our girls to just grin and bear it?  Nor should we teach our young men to do the same thing.  

This line of conversation makes no sense.  An antagonist may want to take offense and stretch it all out of context, but the context is clear - protect yourselves.  

It is obvious to any rational and sane person what Elder Packer was communicating. It is clear that there are those who cannot let go of this sacred cow of painting Elder Packer as a bigot and therefore refuse to use their brains.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since Elder Packer didn't state what prompted the violence, it's a reasonable conclusion that he was condoning it under a wide variety of circumstances.

Only if one is disposed to view him with hostility and hatred.

There is every reason to conclude that he was recounting an incident in which a young man was endeavoring to defend himself from attempted sexual assault.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People of good will do not accuse a Church apostle of condoning gratuitous violence when there is no substantial reason to do so.

The substantial reason is the talk itself.  that you reject their ideas concerning is irrelevant.  I suppose you continue to reject that their reading is possible all you want.  But that doesn't change the talk nor their impressions.  Claiming they are evil or lacking good will is just irrelevant. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So if I say you need to defend yourselves - then that means that someone who protects their home and family is supporting the going through the neighborhood and attacking people?  Hmm, this kind of logic is pretty stupid - just as stupid as saying that Elder Packer supporting jumping on gays.  He was clearly, as in crystal, talking about those who make unwanted, physical advances.  Do we teach our girls to just grin and bear it?  Nor should we teach our young men to do the same thing.  

This line of conversation makes no sense.  An antagonist may want to take offense and stretch it all out of context, but the context is clear - protect yourselves.  

the question is what is meant by making "unwanted, physical advances" in this case?  We don't know.  There's no clarification.  We can guess.  Some guess that the missionary must have done something more than just said his companion was attractive, it seems.  Others say it's possible the gay missionary only said his companion was attractive.  We simply don't know.  It's a shame.  But sadly, the whole unaddressed issue here remains.  Some LDS people over the years have perpetrated violence against gay people.  it's happened.  It's a shame.  I don't know that any of them felt supported by this talk, but any of them could have felt as much. 

[busybee]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

Because she used these statistics to accuse people/the church of being culpable in the suicides that were reported. That, I think, is the crux of the matter. It made a good club to beat people with. Damaging her case in the process. I would be loathe to take any statistics she uses in future at face value.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Fine, I'll take your word for it but it is still anecdotal and you cannot speak to the minds of the thousands of other young men who were listening.  Nor can you speak to how they recall it.  Nor can you speak to the many more thousands who read the talk that was published and distributed in pamphlet form.  Nor can you speak to the minds of those who have read it online.  Nor can you speak to the minds of those who heard it delivered in my stake several years ago.  And on and on.

I can analyze the text and apply the most reasonable and likely interpretation of the meaning given the context, speaker, occasion and subject matter -- which is what I have done and which is what has been done by others (see the FairMormon Answers article that Smac linked us to).

Again, nobody in my recollection raised concerns about Elder Packer's meaning until recent years when he has come under attack for this talk delivered in 1976. This says something about the bandwagon effect and groupthink mentality.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

the question is what is meant by making "unwanted, physical advances" in this case?  We don't know.  There's no clarification.  We can guess.  Some guess that the missionary must have done something more than just said his companion was attractive, it seems.  Others say it's possible the gay missionary only said his companion was attractive.  We simply don't know.  It's a shame.  But sadly, the whole unaddressed issue here remains.  Some LDS people over the years have perpetrated violence against gay people.  it's happened.  It's a shame.  I don't know that any of them felt supported by this talk, but any of them could have felt as much. 

The accusation that has been made is that an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ advocated or condoned the unwarranted infliction of physical harm upon another. That is a very serious accusation to make against a servant of God.

Such a thing is to be expected, I suppose, from enemies of the Church, but faithful Latter-day Saints should not be supporting it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The accusation that has been made is that an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ advocated or condoned the unwarranted infliction of physical harm upon another. That is a very serious accusation to make against a servant of God.

I can agree with that.  Sadly he never clarified, and as Rockpond pointed out he had plenty of opportunity to do so.  it makes it tough for victims of violence to deal with, I'm sure.  they are hurt, perhaps confused and wondering where it all comes from. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that Pres. Monson is in the condition to do such a thing.  More importantly, I think that what Pres. Nelson recounted is exactly what he believes happened. 

Maybe because it is exactly what hhappened.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It is obvious to any rational and sane person what Elder Packer was communicating. It is clear that there are those who cannot let go of this sacred cow of painting Elder Packer as a bigot and therefore refuse to use their brains.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Only if one is disposed to view him with hostility and hatred.

There is every reason to conclude that he was recounting an incident in which a young man was endeavoring to defend himself from attempted sexual assault.

I disagree.  I don't view him with hostility and hatred and yet I find his choice of wording to be lacking.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can agree with that.  Sadly he never clarified, and as Rockpond pointed out he had plenty of opportunity to do so.  it makes it tough for victims of violence to deal with, I'm sure.  they are hurt, perhaps confused and wondering where it all comes from. 

So since the pamphlet has long been out of print, and since the talk is rarely if ever discussed in a Church setting anymore, their hurt, if anything, comes not so much from what he said in the talk but from what antagonists are saying that he said in the talk.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I think there is a misunderstanding.  To quote myself, "Seek the Spirit and follow Him - that is what we all must do and learn to do better every day".  My intent when I wrote that was certainly not to point a finger at any single person.  It is directed to all of us, we all must seek the Spirit and follow him. 

I don't think our nature changes; we are who we are.  We may learn not to express parts of our nature, but that does not change it. 

That is completely contrary to what we are taught in the gospel:

 

 

Quote

 

The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.

“Human nature can be changed, here and now,” said President McKay, and then he quoted the following:

“You can change human nature. No man who has felt in him the Spirit of Christ even for half a minute can deny this truth. …

“You do change human nature, your own human nature, if you surrender it to Christ. Human nature has been changed in the past. Human nature must be changed on an enormous scale in the future, unless the world is to be drowned in its own blood. And only Christ can change it.

“Twelve men did quite a lot to change the world nineteen hundred years ago. Twelve simple men.” (Beverly Nichols, in David O. McKay, Stepping Stones to an Abundant Life, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971, p. 23.)

Yes, Christ changes men, and changed men can change the world. Men changed for Christ will be captained by Christ. Like Paul they will be asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6.) Peter stated they will “follow his steps.” (1 Pet. 2:21.) John said they will “walk, even as he walked.” (1 Jn. 2:6.)

Finally, men captained by Christ will be consumed in Christ. To paraphrase President Harold B. Lee, they set fire in others because they are on fire. (See Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 192.)

Their will is swallowed up in his will. (See John 5:30.) They do always those things that please the Lord. (See John 8:29.) Not only would they die for the Lord, but, more important, they want to live for Him. - Born of God, Ezra Taft Benson

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So since the pamphlet has long been out of print, and since the talk is rarely if ever discussed in a Church setting anymore, their hurt, anything, comes not so much from what he said in the talk but from what antagonists are saying that he said in the talk.

Close.  The hurt, it appears, comes from what was not said, rather than what was said. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The substantial reason is the talk itself.  that you reject their ideas concerning is irrelevant.  I suppose you continue to reject that their reading is possible all you want.  But that doesn't change the talk nor their impressions.  Claiming they are evil or lacking good will is just irrelevant. 

You've done a good job of distilling Scott's basic argument:  If someone doesn't understand and interpret Elder Packer's talk in the same what that Scott did, then it must be their hostility and hatred toward an apostle.  Or they are a member of the "gay rights lobby".

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

the question is what is meant by making "unwanted, physical advances" in this case?  We don't know.  There's no clarification.  We can guess.  Some guess that the missionary must have done something more than just said his companion was attractive, it seems.  Others say it's possible the gay missionary only said his companion was attractive.  We simply don't know.  It's a shame.  But sadly, the whole unaddressed issue here remains.  Some LDS people over the years have perpetrated violence against gay people.  it's happened.  It's a shame.  I don't know that any of them felt supported by this talk, but any of them could have felt as much. 

Well said.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It is obvious to any rational and sane person what Elder Packer was communicating. It is clear that there are those who cannot let go of this sacred cow of painting Elder Packer as a bigot and therefore refuse to use their brains.

This has come up on this board before. I have made essentially the same point that I and others have made here on this thread.

Sometimes, when I think the matter has been laid to rest, someone like Daniel resurrect the old accusation as he did in his post yesterday.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can analyze the text and apply the most reasonable and likely interpretation of the meaning given the context, speaker, occasion and subject matter -- which is what I have done and which is what has been done by others (see the FairMormon Answers article that Smac linked us to).

Again, nobody in my recollection raised concerns about Elder Packer's meaning until recent years when he has come under attack for this talk delivered in 1976. This says something about the bandwagon effect and groupthink mentality.

Others can also analyze the text and apply the most reasonable and likely interpretation.

You keep bringing it up but your recollection is not relevant.  You can recollect all you want but you can't speak to the mind of thousands of others.  You also live in a unique environment in the heart of Mormonism and you work for the church.  Sorry, you're experiences are not the same as others.

And, certainly understanding of homosexuality and how we should treat homosexuals has advanced in the four decades since the talk was delivered.

Finally, you can keep acting like this talk has completely disappeared except when resurrected by critics but I've cited examples to show that is not true.

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

the question is what is meant by making "unwanted, physical advances" in this case?  We don't know.  There's no clarification.  We can guess.  Some guess that the missionary must have done something more than just said his companion was attractive, it seems.  Others say it's possible the gay missionary only said his companion was attractive.  We simply don't know.  It's a shame.  But sadly, the whole unaddressed issue here remains.  Some LDS people over the years have perpetrated violence against gay people.  it's happened.  It's a shame.  I don't know that any of them felt supported by this talk, but any of them could have felt as much. 

Agreed, Elder Packer did not, for whatever reason, explain in detail what caliber of physical advance he was discussing.  However, he clarified that the advance was enough to merit the call to "protect yourselves".  That really does not sound like another elder saying, "Geez, Elder you have a mighty fine rear-end".  When I read it I get the distinct impression it was about something physical.  

At what point do we encourage our daughters to protect themselves?  Should we not also encourage our sons to protect themselves?  

I am unwilling to force Elder Packer's comments to encompass all forms of communication between a gay elder and a straight elder.  It seems like those with an agenda to push have be desperate to exaggerate his warning to the point of being silly.  We have gay elders and we have straight elders serving together every day in the Church without any problems.  

I don't think I ever sat down with my son and talked about what to do if another fellow reached out and touched him.  It just never came up.  I guess we need to have those conversations now when the gay lifestyle has become the favored protected class of humans.  I guess our sons should be encouraged in the same manner we encourage our daughters.  If the other person reaches out and touches you, slap the crap out of them and tell them NO and then to get out of there as quickly as possible and call the police or call home depending on the situation.