Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, busybee said:

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.

If, in her communication with the Tribune, she did not intend to state or imply that all of the suicides had occurred since the policy was made public, I wonder why the Tribune felt obliged to do its fact-checking with the state agency that keeps track of deaths. Clearly, the Tribune reporter thought that's what she meant.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The problem is not what Elder Packer told the missionary. Physical force may very well have been called fot  the problem is Elder Packard gave a talk in General Conference telling young men it was ok to assault gay men WITHOUT explaining when such action was appropriate and when it was a criminal act. SOME young men MAY think it is ok to assault any gay person no matter what the action. THAT is what Elder Packard is condemned for as he should be. If he wanted to say you have a right to defend yourself against sexual assault he should have made that clear. He didn't. Now unfortunately many people are left with the impression that the Mormon church condones physical violence against gays. To my knowledge, Elder Packard never clarified what he was referring to, even in the pamphlet that was later published. 

He didn't say anything about attacking gay men. He said you are allowed to protect yourself. If someone is attacking me physically or sexually I'm not about to ask about their sexual preferences before exercising my right to self defense. It's absurd to think otherwise.

[Rock_N_Roll]

If I may, I’ll relate an experience of my own.  I was 14 or 15 years old when I heard the talk by Pres Packer.  Two years later, some friends and I were walking through a mall when we noticed two teenaged boys walking hand in hand.  This angered us so we came up behind the boys and violently broke their hands apart, pushing and shoving, and calling them all sorts of hateful names.  Now, 40 years later and still trying to come to terms with my own son’s SSA, I feel a great amount of shame when I think of the pain and humiliation we caused these young men.  Did we feel justified in our actions because of the talk we’d heard in priesthood two years earlier?  I can’t say for sure, but I know we certainly didn’t feel any kind of love for these brothers.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If, in her communication with the Tribune, she did not intend to state or imply that all of the suicides had occurred since the policy was made public, I wonder why the Tribune felt obliged to do its fact-checking with the state agency that keeps track of deaths. Clearly, the Tribune reporter thought that's what she meant.

That's a big problem for sure.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours 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. 

Thus, I agree with Californiaboy on this, Scott. 

I'm sorry but what reasonable person equates protecting yourself to attacking gay people?

[Daniel2]

1 hour 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.

I don't have time to respond in full at the moment.  I am astounded by ALL of the comments on all sides about my reference to the Packer talk...

In ALL that I said about the mental anguish, susceptibility to self loathing, and the twisted emotional state and contortion of well-intentioned LDS beliefs that many suicidal young gay teens and young adults experience which I attempted to describe, what came out of it was.... a loooooong discussion defending Elder Packer's comments by creating a Strawman which I never actually said....????  Wow.

Scott--your numerous comments above ABSOLUTELY mischaracterize what I said and do NOT reflect what I intended.  My intent was to describe the constellation of thoughts, twisted rationalizations, fears, failures, isolation, loneliness, and pain that young gay men are thinking and feeling.  Many are emotionally brittle and can easily misinterpret things that are well-intended (as my post said).

I will write more later--but it was NOT my intent to blame Elder Packer for suicidal thoughts and feelings.  His talk was ONE small portion of a laundry list of scriptures, practices, and beliefs--twisted and taken out of context--that gay men misuse and twist in their despair and isolation.  It WAS my intent to say how fragile young gay LDS men can be, and hope that we could find ways to be CLEAR and CAREFUL in how we minister to gay teens and young adults.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

26 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.

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

Once again--I did NO SUCH THING.  You twist my words and I did NOT say that.

[Daniel2]

41 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 make such accusaiton.

Please STOP making this false claim.  I'll even CFR it or ask you to withdraw these ongoing slanderous claims,

Edited February 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

I have a friend who had a gay senior companion.  He (my friend) did not know it at the time, but he suspected it.  The companion had some, shall we say, stereotypical affectations which might cause a blip on someone's "gaydar."  And he liked hugs.  Slightly-longer-than-comfortable hugs.  But my friend said that he did not want to jump to any conclusions, and the companion never did anything inappropriate (no "advances"), so he shrugged off the fleeting discomfort of the hugs and made the best of it.  They worked well together.  The senior companion "came out" a few months after he went home.  My friend, who was still serving as a missionary at the time, said that he was not surprised, and that he still had warm (but purely platonic) regards for the fellow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I just think the message at the fireside was kind of "off the cuff"... a revelation from an apostle to a group of young people should of worked.  I don't think Monson got a revelation..it was just part of a speech that slipped in.

And what do you base this conclusion on?

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

 

 

 

Avatar, I can agree that we can change our desires.  I refer to the Book of Mormon,

• “…Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state. (Alma 42:20)

•  3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

   4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

   5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. (Alma 4:3-5).

Our natures are carnal, sensual, and devilish - all of us regardless of gender.  However, we are not judged as a result of our natures, we are judged by our actions.  When Christ enters our lives we begin to hunger after righteousness.  If our nature changed at this point then we would never sin again or we would at least become perfect in an area of our lives where Christ touched us.  

Through Christ's grace we can become progressively more like him, but it is through his grace that we will be made perfect - in spite of our natures.  By becoming one our nature is made like his nature and our holiness is perfected through him.  

I understand the words of the prophet, but I also think and believe that, in this case, he was not speaking in absolutes.  Clarification is needed and I believe these verses assist in providing some of that clarification. 

 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the express permission of their parents. Are you as indignant about children under such circumstances being "denied" baptism becuase the Church won't defy the wishes of the parents? If not, why not?

 

I am not. It is good policy. 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

I would add that it also makes me question whether their ends are what they claim they are.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If he had stated that the companion was making sexual advances, didn't stop when asked, and so his companion had to hit and floor him - I wouldn't be criticizing.

As I've stated several times now, the criticisms I have seen come from his lack of disclosure at what prompted physical violence.

Are you suggesting that unless someone is making unwanted sexual advances there is never a reason to use violence to protect ourselves? 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I pretty much agree.  I think a retraction would be better, particularly given the considerable news coverage resulting from "the number."

Thank you,

-Smac

That's why I am less than inclined to  give her the benefit of the doubt. I've had too many clients act the same way.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Are you suggesting that unless someone is making unwanted sexual advances there is never a reason to use violence to protect ourselves? 

There are certainly times where physical violence is required to protect ourselves.  I've never suggested otherwise.

Elder Packer did not identify why physical violence was needed in this case.  But he condoned the violence.  That's the problem.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was not "off the cuff." He was reading from a prepared text.

Whatever..now i call it calculated.  Seems like a revelation should come or be announced to ALL members together..This is another revelation that was convenient at the time.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour 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.

With the scope of, wait for it, protecting yourself. Which by very definition precludes wanton acts of violence  and thus  leads to no confusion

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

With the scope of, wait for it, protecting yourself. Which by very definition precludes wanton acts of violence  and thus  leads to no confusion

I disagree that there was no confusion.  I remember being a teen in the 80's and the attitudes expressed by Rock-n-Roll in his post above were the norm.

[Avatar4321]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

And how is in reasonable to equate protecting yourself with attacking others without provocation?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Avatar4321

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And how is in reasonable to equate protecting yourself with attacking others without provocation?

What does a teenage boy consider "provocation"?  In my experience, it doesn't have to be much.

And Elder Packer's talk didn't mention any need to first make a verbal request and second, create some distance if possible.  These would be important points for young men to hear.

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

How do you know all 15 accept it as revelation?  Only Pres. Nelson has called it that.  We've heard from four others regarding the policy (including Pres. Monson) and they did not identify it as a revelation.  

This is what I find amazing..The President has not said a word.  He has authority to squelch some of or all the misunderstandings.  It seems that the LDS here would love to hear his voice???????

Edited February 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[Storm Rider]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What does a teenage boy consider "provocation"?  In my experience, it doesn't have to be much.

And Elder Packer's talk didn't mention any need to first make a verbal request and second, create some distance if possible.  These would be important points for young men to hear.

This is the advice you think is appropriate for your daughter when a boy makes a physical advance on her - at first tell him no, stop, don't do that.  If the boy continues then go to the other side of the car or get out of the car or walk away.  This is what is important for girls to respond to physical advances.  Hmm, awfully lot of classes girls and women don't need to go to to remain safe from unwanted physical advances from men.  

You really sure about this?

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Daniel 2, I wish this could go viral.  You've done a great service in sharing these very personal feelings of yours...maybe even saved a life.    

I agree..this should be published.  You are fair and speak to and from the heart.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

If I may, I’ll relate an experience of my own.  I was 14 or 15 years old when I heard the talk by Pres Packer.  Two years later, some friends and I were walking through a mall when we noticed two teenaged boys walking hand in hand.  This angered us so we came up behind the boys and violently broke their hands apart, pushing and shoving, and calling them all sorts of hateful names.  Now, 40 years later and still trying to come to terms with my own son’s SSA, I feel a great amount of shame when I think of the pain and humiliation we caused these young men.  Did we feel justified in our actions because of the talk we’d heard in priesthood two years earlier?  I can’t say for sure, but I know we certainly didn’t feel any kind of love for these brothers.  

 

I have never, ever felt inclined to do that sort of thing, and I see nothing in Elder Packer's address that could reasonably be construed to rationalize such a thing.