Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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. 

It happened.,.its a shame..and then it was condoned. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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.

No worries Scott.  Faithful Latter-Day-Saints don't even know.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not. It is good policy. 

If you're worried about children having their baptism delayed (you would say "denied") because of the new policy, why are you not equally incensed about children who have their baptisms "denied" because their parents won't permit it?

You are not being consistent here -- unless, as I suspect, you are in reality concerned with the "rights" of the adults in the respective situations, and you are using the theoretical children as an excuse to make your case.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

My impression of your earlier remark about Elder Packer's talk is what it is, but I grant you the right to clarify your own meaning as you see fit.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It happened.,.its a shame..and then it was condoned. 

What happened and what's a shame? That a victim used force to defend himself against attempted sexual assualt? Such defense should be condoned.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No worries Scott.  Faithful Latter-Day-Saints don't even know.

I'm not clear on your meaning here, and I'm not certain you are clear on mine.

I'm saying faithful Latter-day Saints should not be supporting an unwarranted accusations against an apostle that the apostle condoned a criminal act.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

Which leads to the compelling conclusion that the violence was warranted.

Why? Because it is not in character for an apostle of God (especially one with Elder/President Packer's gentle nature) to condone unwarranted violence against another.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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.

President Nelson's talk was widely carried by satellite broadcast and Internet streaming. It received extensive news coverage focusing on the portion of talk that mentioned the policy. And it got wide exposure on social media.

[rockpond]

In the context of this discussion, I think the experience of the David Eccles Hardy family is an important one to consider.

Here's a link to the open letter send to (then) Elder Packer:  http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

Though the letter is now 16 years old, Brother Hardy really captures the essence of the struggle.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

I repeat, I have never been disposed to the sort of thing that was described in his post, whether it be back in the '80s, whether it be during my teenage years in the '60s and early '70s, or whenever. I reject the assertion that such an inclination was "the norm" -- not in the crowd I ran with, which for the most part was active members of the Church, the kind who would be apt to be in the congregation when Elder Packer gave his general conference talk or who would have been likely to receive a copy of the pamphlet that was distributed later.

If you're saying that's how you would have behaved, so be it, but don't project it on others.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat, I have never been disposed to the sort of thing that was described in his post, whether it be back in the '80s, whether it be during my teenage years in the '60s and early '70s, or whenever. I reject the assertion that such an inclination was "the norm" -- not in the crowd I ran with, which for the most part was active members of the Church, the kind who would be apt to be in the congregation when Elder Packer gave his general conference talk or who would have been likely to receive a copy of the pamphlet that was distributed later.

If you're saying that's how you would have behaved, so be it, but don't project it on others.

 

It's not how I behaved but the sentiment was common among the LDS young men in my ward and stake.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

Not for one who understands the role and character of an apostle of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not how I behaved but the sentiment was common among the LDS young men in my ward and stake.

More's the pity. It wasn't where I come from.

 

Notice to posters: This thread has run its course. Get in your last words before it is locked.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not for one who understands the role and character of an apostle of God.

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

More's the pity. It wasn't where I come from.

 

Yep... when you can't defend the actual text of what he said... blame those who just don't understand his role as an apostle or who don't have the same recollection as you.  This is an irrelevant argument, Scott.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that Pres. Monson is in the condition to do such a thing.

Physical condition? Mental condition? Position of authority? What (or who?) exactly is stopping the president of the Church from correcting an apostle who is spreading misinformation about Pres. Monson?

Quote

More importantly, I think that what Pres. Nelson recounted is exactly what he believes happened. 

But you've already suggested that the other apostles must know that Pres. Nelson's belief is based on fantasy. What exactly is stopping them from correcting him? Are they all somehow afraid of Pres. Nelson?

Speaking of correcting, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that what you're trying to do here is to accuse Pres. Nelson of lying, but then you don't really want to appear to be accusing him of lying, so now you're insisting that he really believes his lie. Am I off-track?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

Yep... when you can't defend the actual text of what he said... blame those who just don't understand his role as an apostle or who don't have the same recollection as you.  This is an irrelevant argument, Scott.

Just have time before the thread closure to contradict you. My argument is right on point.

And I have defended the text of what was said.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Physical condition? Mental condition? Position of authority? What (or who?) exactly is stopping the president of the Church from correcting an apostle who is spreading misinformation about Pres. Monson?

But you've already suggested that the other apostles must know that Pres. Nelson's belief is based on fantasy. What exactly is stopping them from correcting him? Are they all somehow afraid of Pres. Nelson?

Speaking of correcting, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that what you're trying to do here is to accuse Pres. Nelson of lying, but then you don't really want to accuse him of lying, so now you're insisting that he really believes his lie. Am I off-track?

Yes, you are off track.

I was referring to President Monson's state of health.

And I think that Pres. Nelson believes that Pres. Monson had the mind and will of God revealed to him.  Whether or not that is true, I am not sure.  As I've said, it seems odd that the four prophets, seers, and revelators (including the Prophet himself) who spoke out publicly on the policy prior to Pres. Nelson didn't mention revelation.

I wouldn't expect any of them to now come out and contradict what Pres. Nelson related of his experience.  That would show a lack of unity among the quorum and not be very positive for many LDS who seem to believe in prophetic infallibility.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just have time before the thread closure to contradict you. My argument is right on point.

And I have defended the text of what was said.

Sorry, his telling a generation of young men that physical violence is an appropriate first response against whatever action they can insert in the blank he left is worthy of the criticism it has received.  As is the Church's continued publication of his address.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, rockpond said:

Sorry, his telling a generation of young men that physical violence is an appropriate first response against whatever action they can insert in the blank he left is worthy of the criticism it has received.  As is the Church's continued publication of his address.

You have mangled what he said, and I think you know it.

 

[ALarson]

 

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In the context of this discussion, I think the experience of the David Eccles Hardy family is an important one to consider.

Here's a link to the open letter send to (then) Elder Packer:  http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

Though the letter is now 16 years old, Brother Hardy really captures the essence of the struggle.

Thanks for posting this, rockpond.  I think I've read it before, but it was a good reminder of like you state, "the struggle".

It's a heartbreaking letter.

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't expect any of them to now come out and contradict what Pres. Nelson related of his experience.  That would show a lack of unity among the quorum and not be very positive for many LDS who seem to believe in prophetic infallibility.

So the chosen prophets and apostles of God are willing to let one of their number get away with perpetuating an (sincerely believed?) untruth because it's more important to them to create a false impression of unity in the quorum?

Once again, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you are off track.

I was referring to President Monson's state of health.

And I think that Pres. Nelson believes that Pres. Monson had the mind and will of God revealed to him.  Whether or not that is true, I am not sure.  As I've said, it seems odd that the four prophets, seers, and revelators (including the Prophet himself) who spoke out publicly on the policy prior to Pres. Nelson didn't mention revelation.

I wouldn't expect any of them to now come out and contradict what Pres. Nelson related of his experience.  That would show a lack of unity among the quorum and not be very positive for many LDS who seem to believe in prophetic infallibility.

Consider the audience. President Nelson's address was to a global congregation of (presumably) believing Latter-day Saints. One is more apt in a setting like that to talk about a thing having been received under revelation than in a video or news released being prepared for general news media.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Consider the audience. President Nelson's address was to a global congregation of (presumably) believing Latter-day Saints. One is more apt in a setting like that to talk about a thing having been received under revelation than in a video or news released being prepared for general news media.

I disagree... amidst all the anguish that was being caused by the policy, Elder Christofferson's address and even his reference to the origins of the policy would have been a perfect time to tell members and the world alike that the Lord's mouthpiece on Earth had been given the mind and will of God.  General conference would have been an outstanding place to share something so important.

And what about the letter from the FP to church members?  They couldn't mention revelation there either?

Not a convincing argument.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So the chosen prophets and apostles of God are willing to let one of their number get away with perpetuating an (sincerely believed?) untruth because it's more important to them to create a false impression of unity in the quorum?

Once again, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't imagine they feel it was a harmful statement to make... certainly it would be more harmful for them to contradict him.  I honestly have no idea what kind of unity they have or don't have when it comes to the church's handling of LGBT issues.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree... amidst all the anguish that was being caused by the policy, Elder Christofferson's address and even his reference to the origins of the policy would have been a perfect time to tell members and the world alike that the Lord's mouthpiece on Earth had been given the mind and will of God.  General conference would have been an outstanding place to share something so important.

And what about the letter from the FP to church members?  They couldn't mention revelation there either?

Not a convincing argument.

Neither is your argument-from-silence assumption that it is not revelation just because each and every General Authority who mentions it doesn't explicitly say so.

Church leaders are justifiably guarded about openly and glibly discussing spiritual experiences. A moment's consideration of how they are abused and maligned for the things they do say should make it clear enough why.

In this case, though, a policy has been clearly and authoritatively identified as having come through revelation. That should be enough for those who have ears to hear.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd