Maligning the Brethren

[Russell C McGregor]

Among apostates (whether open or clandestine) there is a long tradition of maligning the brethren. This encompasses accusing them of various bad acts, attributing to them things they did not say, and distorting things they did say.

One of the most persistent recent examples of the latter is the wilful abuse of the late Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve. In a well-known talk entitled "To Young Men Only," then-Elder Packer related an account of an interview he had with a missionary who had punched his companion. Subsequent questioning disclosed that the missionary's companion had made unwanted sexual advances, and the missionary had resorted to physical self-defence.

Elder Packer did not explain in detail what kind of sexual advances were made. But since all sexual advances by or towards a missionary are completely inappropriate, there is no question about them being unwanted.

The enemies of the Church (including those who claim to be within the Church) have stridently, intentionally and consistently misrepresented the intent of Elder Packer's counsel. They have mischievously characterised it as encouraging "gay-bashing," when of course it is nothing of the sort. Apart from the obvious motive of attacking the Church by maligning Elder Packer, there seems to be a strand of resentment that he didn't encourage young LDS men to simply go along with whatever the wicked might ask them to do.

But even without that element, it is apparent to me that the primary motive of maligning the brethren in this way is to attack the Church thereby.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[consiglieri]

Criticism is not maligning.

The brethren have thin skins.

As do their self-appointed defenders.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Criticism is not maligning.

There is a lot of overlap. Most of the Venn diagram would overlap.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Among apostates (whether open or clandestine) there is a long tradition of maligning the brethren. This encompasses accusing them of various bad acts, attributing to them things they did not say, and distorting things they did say.

One of the most persistent recent examples of the latter is the wilful abuse of the late Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve. In a well-known talk entitled "To the One," then-Elder Packer related an account of an interview he had with a missionary who had punched his companion. Subsequent questioning disclosed that the missionary's companion had made unwanted sexual advances, and the missionary had resorted to physical self-defence.

Elder Packer did not explain in detail what kind of sexual advances were made. But since all sexual advances by or towards a missionary are completely inappropriate, there is no question about them being unwanted.

The enemies of the Church (including those who claim to be within the Church) have stridently, intentionally and consistently misrepresented the intent of Elder Packer's counsel. They have mischievously characterised it as encouraging "gay-bashing," when of course it is nothing of the sort. Apart from the obvious motive of attacking the Church by maligning Elder Packer, there seems to be a strand of resentment that he didn't encourage young LDS men to simply go along with whatever the wicked might ask them to do.

But even without that element, it is apparent to me that the primary motive of maligning the brethren in this way is to attack the Church thereby.

 

Actually, the title of the talk is "To Young Men Only."

Daniel got it wrong -- unless there is another talk I'm not familiar with in which Elder Packer recounted the same incident.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Criticism is not maligning.

No; but falsely accusing is.

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The brethren have thin skins.

As do their self-appointed defenders.

AFAICT, the brethren don't pay much attention to the maligners.

And my interest is largely because -- as the late, great Hugh W. Nibley so perspicaciously observed -- the real target is Mormonism.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, the title of the talk is "To Young Men Only."

Daniel got it wrong -- unless there is another talk I'm not familiar with in which he recounted the same incident.

 

Thank you. You're right. I've corrected the OP accordingly.

 

[cinepro]

For anyone who is not familiar with that talk, here's the section being discussed:

 

Quote

Now a warning! I am hesitant to even mention it, for it is not pleasant. It must be labeled as major transgression. But I will speak plainly. There are some circumstances in which young men may be tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another physically in unusual ways. Latter-day Saint young men are not to do this.

Sometimes this begins in a moment of idle foolishness, when boys are just playing around. But it is not foolishness. It is remarkably dangerous. Such practices, however tempting, are perversion. When a young man is finding his way into manhood, such experiences can misdirect his normal desires and pervert him not only physically but emotionally and spiritually as well.

It was intended that we use this power only with our partner in marriage. 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 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.

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.

https://www.lds.org/manual/to-young-men-only/to-young-men-only?lang=eng

 

 

If you think this is a good portrayal of the root causes of homosexuality and the actions of homosexuals and is a view that the Church should continue to support, than more power to you.  Frankly, I think its best use is as a view into Elder Packer's views on the subject 40 years ago, and they should remove it from the website (as they already did from the online Conference publication).

Edited February 3, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

41 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The enemies of the Church (including those who claim to be within the Church) have stridently, intentionally and consistently misrepresented the intent of Elder Packer's counsel. They have mischievously characterised it as encouraging "gay-bashing," when of course it is nothing of the sort. Apart from the obvious motive of attacking the Church by maligning Elder Packer, there seems to be a strand of resentment that he didn't encourage young LDS men to simply go along with whatever the wicked might ask them to do.

But even without that element, it is apparent to me that the primary motive of maligning the brethren in this way is to attack the Church thereby.

 

I believe the most common story told in the Church about resisting unwanted advances is the story of Joseph in Egypt resisting Potiphar's wife:

Lessons From the Old Testament: Fleeing Temptation

Would it not be enough to replace Elder Packer's story with the counsel to simply flee the temptation, without violence?  Even if you're a missionary?

It is also my impression that some believers have no problem excusing the teachings of Church Leaders, including Elder Packer, whenever it suits them if it's a subject like evolution.  "Oh, Elder Packer taught against inter-species evolution?  Well, ignore that.  He just doesn't know what he's talking about."  This is simply another one of those situations. 

Elder Packer was no doubt speaking from personal observation and thought he had discovered a universal principle about homosexuality, but he was probably wrong.  To the degree that he was wrong and his view may be misinterpreted as being the result of revelation, we should probably work to correct that impression.  If that means some members will ascribe malice and character weakness in the process, then so be it. 

[mfbukowski]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with responding to unwanted sexual advances that way, and I would challenge anyone to defend unwanted sexual advances.

Go ahead.

So precisely what is the problem here?  That the article is not politically correct?

That some are "born" being gay?   Are you asserting that we are unable to control sexual temptations?  Absurd.

And what precisely do you base your belief in predestination upon, that we have no control over these temptations?   Are you attacking the notion of agency?

I mean let's deconstruct your position instead of going with knee-jerk political correctness, shall we?

What PRECISELY are you saying here?

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For anyone who is not familiar with that talk, here's the section being discussed:

 

If you think this is a good portrayal of the root causes of homosexuality and the actions of homosexuals and is a view that the Church should continue to support, than more power to you.  Frankly, I think its best use is as a view into Elder Packer's views on the subject 40 years ago, and they should remove it from the website (as they already did from the online Conference publication).

 

[Russell C McGregor]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For anyone who is not familiar with that talk, here's the section being discussed:

 

If you think this is a good portrayal of the root causes of homosexuality and the actions of homosexuals and is a view that the Church should continue to support, than more power to you.  Frankly, I think its best use is as a view into Elder Packer's views on the subject 40 years ago, and they should remove it from the website (as they already did from the online Conference publication).

It's not about "the root causes of homosexuality." It's about what are our options when dealing with unwanted advances.

You're welcome.

[MorningStar]

Running away from temptation is smart.  Having someone make unwanted sexual advances wouldn't be considered a temptation - thus the "unwanted".  Any missionary should know that one doesn't go on their mission to have sexual advances made towards them - especially from their companion!  Unless you're married.  Sexual advances then welcome. 

I would be pretty furious if I were a missionary and my companion who is supposed to be helping me keep the rules were trying to get me to fornicate with them. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by MorningStar

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Criticism is not maligning.

The brethren have thin skins.

As do their self-appointed defenders.

Does having thick skins mean we need to allow lies to be told about us and those we love who were called of God?

[Russell C McGregor]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I believe the most common story told in the Church about resisting unwanted advances is the story of Joseph in Egypt resisting Potiphar's wife:

Lessons From the Old Testament: Fleeing Temptation

Would it not be enough to replace Elder Packer's story with the counsel to simply flee the temptation, without violence?  Even if you're a missionary?

It would be in other circumstances.

But a missionary (1) is supposed to stay with his companion at all times, and (2) is supposed to be safe at all times because he is with his companion. He's not supposed to be at risk of being groped or propositioned by his companion.

And a missionary is never, ever, to make sexual advances of any kind to anyone. Which is part of point (2) above.

So in the case of a missionary who is at risk because of his companion's unacceptable behaviour, vigorous self-defence has the potential to solve the problem while allowing the companions to stay together.

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It is also my impression that some believers have no problem excusing the teachings of Church Leaders, including Elder Packer, whenever it suits them if it's a subject like evolution.  "Oh, Elder Packer taught against inter-species evolution?  Well, ignore that.  He just doesn't know what he's talking about."  This is simply another one of those situations. 

Or not, as the case may be.

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Elder Packer was no doubt speaking from personal observation and thought he had discovered a universal principle about homosexuality, but he was probably wrong.  To the degree that he was wrong and his view may be misinterpreted as being the result of revelation, we should probably work to correct that impression.

No, he was giving counsel on a moral question. And I don't know what "we" you might be part of who are authorised to "correct" his teaching. Who would that be?

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If that means some members will ascribe malice and character weakness in the process, then so be it. 

You don't mind someone else's ox being gored, I take it?

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

Elder Packer was no doubt speaking from personal observation and thought he had discovered a universal principle about homosexuality, but he was probably wrong.  To the degree that he was wrong and his view may be misinterpreted as being the result of revelation, we should probably work to correct that impression.  If that means some members will ascribe malice and character weakness in the process, then so be it. 

And how exactly would one show that he was "probably wrong" OR for that matter "probably right"?

Cite evidence on both sides.  Yawn.  That still leaves his opinion where it is- as a justifiable opinion.  And since it is an opinion on MORALS, not science, there is no evidence possible to show either way that "homosexuality is wrong" OR that "homosexuality is right" by using scientific evidence.  Science cannot prove that murder is wrong- and we would all agree that it IS wrong, I would hope, despite the lack of possible "evidence" showing it to be "wrong" OR "right"

THAT means that his opinion could indeed be a "revelation" to be either confirmed or denied by our own personal testimonies- ONLY

I think that "homosexuality is wrong".  If you want to debate that, I think I have plenty of basis for my theory of morals as being necessary rules which can be generalized to all of society.  In other words, one should behave in a way that he would wish all in society should behave.  Do we want to go there?

If you want to find some moral basis for the discussion that "homosexuality is right" then let's go for it.

So what we have is Elder Packer's opinion, which some of us may see as "revelation" and others not see it that way based on our individual testimonies.

So what?  I am not politically correct?  Oh no, not THAT!  Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby

[Guest]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Criticism is not maligning.

The brethren have thin skins.

As do their self-appointed defenders.

It is when calling them out in GC, or doing so to other members, via "evil speaking of the Lords anointed. A vow we take in the Temple. 

 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Criticism is not maligning.

The brethren have thin skins.

As do their self-appointed defenders.

This lie by Alan Rock Waterman is not criticism. It's a hypocritical lie of omission. " According to reports, during a talk Elder Nelson gave to a group of young adults in Hawaii on January 10th, he disclosed the news that what had been presented two months earlier as a a Church "policy" barring children of gay parents from being baptized, had actually come about as a revelation from God.  Yet a careful reading of the transcript of that talk reveals that Nelson did not actually say as much -at least not in so many words.  Had Nelson actually said what everyone thinks he said, he would have been guilty of taking the Lord's name in vain, since the Lord has not seen fit to communicate any such revelation to the body of the church.   So that's the good news. The other good news is that Russell Nelson is not a liar."

He conveniently leaves off the "until 18 years old" as if children of gay parents can never be baptized.

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For anyone who is not familiar with that talk, here's the section being discussed:

 

If you think this is a good portrayal of the root causes of homosexuality and the actions of homosexuals and is a view that the Church should continue to support, than more power to you.  Frankly, I think its best use is as a view into Elder Packer's views on the subject 40 years ago, and they should remove it from the website (as they already did from the online Conference publication).

It was never included as part of the conference publication. As I pointed out in the other thread, it was not included in the Ensign that year, because it was deemed too sensitive to be generally available. Instead, it was published in pamphlet form and distributed through priesthood leaders in the local units "to young men only"; hence the title.

I would surmise the online version of the October 1976 general conference publication reflects what is in the printed version. Meanwhile, the pamphlet version of the talk is available online. It has not been pulled, and frankly, I see no good reason why it should be.

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For anyone who is not familiar with that talk, here's the section being discussed:

If you think this is a good portrayal of the root causes of homosexuality and the actions of homosexuals and is a view that the Church should continue to support, than more power to you.  Frankly, I think its best use is as a view into Elder Packer's views on the subject 40 years ago, and they should remove it from the website (as they already did from the online Conference publication).

Here's another perspective, anticipating what some might find offensive language:

 - There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. We can always do something about our attractions, such as not act on them except within the parameters the Lord has established.

 - They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. No one is consigned to yielding to his desires.

 - No one is locked into that kind of life. We can always choose to keep the commandments.

 - No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers. We can always choose to master our powers according to the Lord’s commandments.

Some can see it, and some don’t. I’m sure as time goes on the exact same eternal principles (in the bold italicized font) will continue to be taught in the best language of the day. As time goes on, methods of teaching that have proven to be ineffective will be replaced with methods better suited for the times.

I see nothing in his statements about the root causes of homosexuality. The rationalizations for sinful actions are of the devil (i.e. not of God, and ensnaring our souls in wickedness). I expect the Church will continue to support these and other eternal principles.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But even without that element, it is apparent to me that the primary motive of maligning the brethren in this way is to attack the Church thereby.

Any motive aside, I think the practice is a habit fueled by self-imposed ignorance.

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, the title of the talk is "To Young Men Only."

Daniel got it wrong -- unless there is another talk I'm not familiar with in which Elder Packer recounted the same incident.

 

Scott,

From what I recall, Packer's talk was published and distributed by the church in pamphlet form under the name "To the One."  We had boxes of them on my mission:

https://archive.org/details/ToTheOne

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166617844/Boyd-K-Packer-To-the-One

After looking further into it, there were two pamphlets published on similar topics around the same time frame--"To Young Men Only" (here's the PDF) in 1976 and "To The One" (above) in 1978.

I apologize--my memory had merged the "To The One" talk and the "To Young Men Only" talks into one, given their similarities.  While they are apparently two separate talks, both had similar affects on me and how I perceived my sexual orientation. 

 

That being said, when Russell said the following, I had to chuckle:

Quote

Among apostates (whether open or clandestine) there is a long tradition of maligning the brethren. This encompasses accusing them of various bad acts, attributing to them things they did not say, and distorting things they did say.

I chuckled because the irony is that Russell's very next paragraph illustrates his opening thesis by using an example of maligning a poster (namely me) by accusing me of "various bad acts, accusing [me] of things I did not say, and distorting things did say.":

One of the most persistent recent examples of the latter is the wilful abuse of the late Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve. In a well-known talk entitled "To Young Men Only," then-Elder Packer related an account of an interview he had with a missionary who had punched his companion.

But Russell isn't alone. Here's a quick sampling of comments by several other posters--the type Russell normally defends--in the now-defunct thread which is now currently in discussion here:

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

 

As I explained in the other thread,

Quote

 

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.

 

 

And, just for reference, here's the original post which briefly touches on Packer's talk, "To The One"," so that my actual words are clear, as well as the surrounding context (portions of which I've bolded for emphasis):

Quote

 

Hi, Storm,

My apologies for the long delay in responding.  I am just now getting around to posting after a few days offline.

It was not my intent previously to "paint a picture to meet [my] perspective and not reality."  In fact, I attempted to be very careful to use words like "it seems to me that..." and "it feels like..."  My post was not meant to be a declaration of an absolute external reality.  It wasn't even meant to be a smug or self-righteous pat on Rockpond's back... I wasn't feeling smug or self righteous,  I was feeling pain and anguish over the loss of kids, because I used to be one of those kids.  My post was an expression of surprise, pain, shock, and disappointment that the very things the woman who wrote the original blog-post was hoping to avoid------backbiting and blame about doctrine or dogma-----seemed to be getting in the way of helping GLBT LDS teens and young adults.  I GET that there are times and places to argue over how the policy came about, whether it represented the best course of action for the church, defend against accusations that The Brethren don't really care about kids, etc.  But the pleas in the initial article intended to see if a conversation could be had beyond that... and unfortunately, in the first few pages of this thread, the answer SEEMED to me to be that the vast majority of comments weren't focused on helping kids, they were focused on defending the church.

...

As I have attempted to clarify in some of my comments to other posters, I know that LDS parents DO care about their children.  And I have repeatedly said time and time again, that I know from personal experience that Latter-day Saints are some of the kindest, most compassionate people and parents on the planet---------I was RAISED by the two BEST ones ever.  And as I've said elsewhere, I've spent the last month grieving the loss of my father, and was reflecting a lot on his love, compassion, and care for me.

I used to be a self-loathing, isolated, scared LDS kid.  Before the internet.  Before Will and Grace.  Before Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.  Before any gays were in media.  During the 80's and 90's, EVERYTHING I knew--EVERYING I heard of being gay meant dying of AIDS or drug overdoses.  Losing the chance to have a family.  Never getting married.  Being eternally damned.  The ONLY thing I could find about homosexuality was Spencer Kimball's chapter on "the gross, detestable, and utterly SELFISH crime against nature" in the guilt-inducing "Miracle of Forgiveness," and Elder Packer's "To the One," which, if not advocated, at least exonerated LDS boys and men from hitting any man who dared to "come on" to them.  I was UTTERLY committed to the gospel.  I would spend hours reading my scriptures and kneeling on my  hardwood bedroom floor praying to keep my mind free of the innocent attractions that I somehow couldn't keep from flitting into my head whenever I'd see a cute guy at school or a runner with his shirt off or the other boys in the locker rooms undressing before football practice (ironically, the camaraderie from bonding with other guys by playing sports was supposed to 'cure' me of unmanly attractions, but it was also a double-bind that exposed me to serious visual temptations).  I used to go home every day after school, after seminary, after church and lock myself in the bathroom and cry tears of anger and hatred and self-loathing.  I would look myself straight in the eyes and berate myself, tell myself how vile and gross and disgusting and evil and satanic and depraved I was--especially when I stumbled and fell by ending up masturbating to the despicable images in my head of disrobed men-----I'd never even SEEN porn of any sort, so ironically, in my innocence, I didn't even know what two men would do, sexually... I'd never been involved with any of them).... See, I thought that if I continually tried to convince myself, someday those thoughts would leave me alone.  They never did.  Not even after a faithful mission, and faithfully following two bishop's counsel, upon confession of my SSA, to just get married and never tell my fiancé/wife of my feelings, since I'd confessed them already.  Not after three kids... and not after 8 years of a nightmare of an emotionally-abusive marriage to a wrathful and belittling woman with severe Borderline Personality and Narcissistic Personality Disorders.  Eventually, I got suicidal, myself.  I planned three attempts.  And ironically, I justified my suicide because of twisting well-intentioned, but hard-to-process church teachings (given my own tormented and admittedly unhealthy emotional state) into righteous justification which not only allowed for suicide--it practically CALLED for it.  Didn't Christ say that if thine eye or ear offends us, we were to cut it off rather than allow it to lead us down to Hell...?  Didn't the church teach that no one is BORN gay--our spirits are straight, and any temptations were due to the imperfections of the flesh?  Didn't countless prophets instill the desire that it's better for missionaries to return home in a pinewood box rather than return home dishonored, or that we should fight TO THE DEATH to preserve the ONE thing that is MOST precious above ALL others, that which can never be redeemed--our VIRTUE?  Didn't the Lord command Nephi that it's better that one man perish--that Nephi KILL him--rather than dwindling in wickedness and unbelief...? If it wasn't my eyes or ears--if it was my WHOLE body that was responsible for the carnal and lustful thoughts--didn't that mean, if I LIKENED the SCRIPTURES unto MYSELF--that it was preferable to cut my spirit off from my body--kill the physical that was offensive to my 'straight spirit' and to God--rather than dwindle in wickedness, unbelief, and be led down to Hell...?

No, Storm... I don't need "to wait until I have a member that has committed suicide."  I have known them, and I have been all too close myself.  And I am grateful for a loving family, a patient therapist, and supportive friends that help me process all the emotions and baggage that led me to that dark place.  It's been over 10 years, and life has never been better or happier or more peaceful.  I am blessed and grateful for finding a way out of that dark maze.  And I hope others find support to do so, no matter where their life leads on the exit therefrom.

And the thing that's been on my mind most...?  I have a nephew that just turned 18.  Everyone in the family knows he's gay.  But as I'm the only family member to have left the church, their fears center on the idea that having seen my example, he will choose to follow my path.  My fears are that he will see my path and won't---that he'll follow Steve's.  I wonder if he goes home every night and curses himself, just like I did.  I wish I could reach out to him and help him know of his own worth and goodness.  But to preserve family peace, I haven't spoken with him.  The last thing I would want is for him to be kicked out of his home and have his life disrupted because of me.  But I do fear for him every day, especially because of the rhetoric that's surrounded this issue.

There is another path, of course... he could choose to remain celibate and active in the church.  All I care about is that he chooses LIFE.  And pursues happiness however he sees fit.

This has gotten long and somewhat disjointed...  And, frankly, a lot of what I don't doubt some will call 'a rant' is simultaneously both painful to relive but cathartic just to look back at what can be overcome when imagine some of the objections and characterizations by some posters... ).  It's meant to give context about why I care, and perhaps why I reacted negatively in the thread when people SEEMED to me to be more focused on fighting over who's right instead of fighting to keep our kids alive.  In the end, no other person or organization or parent or team or church can be held solely accountable for any individuals' suicide--it's obviously a complex and multifaceted issue.  If there is ANYTHING we, ourselves, can do to find a way to alleviate others' burdens or help them in any possible way, I believe that's a discussion worth having, because I believe life for these, our kids, should be the most important.

 

Of course, it is "apparent to me that the primary motive of maligning alleged 'anti-Mormons' in this way is to dismiss their comments and attack their credibility thereby."

I realize that, as many others discussed, the account that Elder Packer offered was unfortunately vague and doesn't tell the full story of just what advances the missionary who reacted with violence was subjected to.

And I understand that sexual assault is something to be taken extremely seriously, and that physically defending one's self may be an entirely appropriate response to physical, sexual violence (i.e. molestation and/or rape).

However, as I said previously, I was attempting to offer some explanation of how I, as a young gay Mormon kid, tried to make sense of my self and my place in the world, with God, the Plan of Salvation, and the LDS culture I desperately wanted to be a part of...  And especially how, during times of self loathing, depression, despair, and isolation, I took both general Christian AND LDS teachings out of context and saw them as almost encouragement to harm myself, rationalizing--even from a religious sense--and twisting and contorting them to justify how death--suicide--might be preferable--even a calling.  I listed several scriptures and teachings which also played a part in that unhealthy constellation of self-hatred--of cutting off one's offending body part to avoid damnation; of Nephi's commandment to kill in the name of avoiding falling away; of preserving one's virtue even if it means 'coming home' to Mom and Dad in a pinewood coffin; of fighting to preserve one's virtue even to the point of death (which really isn't far from what Packer was saying at all).  After all, if Elder Packer WAS, in fact, advocating hitting someone who tries to force someone else who tries to sexually molest them, can you see how--even as CLEARLY wrong as it is--it's at least understandable how that could detrimentally affect an emotionally-unhealthy, isolated, and suicidal young LDS kid to ultimately apply that same violence-to-preserve-virtue-and-prevent-damnation?

Aside from Elder Packer, let me try and give another example of what I was intending to say...

Several years back, I had the opportunity to sit in the living room Fred and Marilyn Matis, and hear them tell their family's story.  For those unfamiliar with the Matis's, their son, Stuart, struggled with suicide for decades due to his struggle with his homosexual orientation, and he ultimately chose to end his life on the steps of their local Stake Center the morning before a Stake Conference.  Elder Holland, I believe, was among those who found his body upon their early arrival at the chapel that morning.  Ultimately, the Matises co-authored a book called In Quiet Desperation, in which their portion detailed their family's pain and loss over Stuart's death.  Shortly thereafter, during a period of my life while I was still a devout member of the LDS church, I met them through mutual friends, who wanted me to sit with them and hear their story.  These good-hearted, well-meaning parents shared their grief and loss and feelings of helplessness at being unable to prevent Stuart's tragic (and even ultimately selfish--my word, not theirs) decision to end his life, especially in such a senseless and manipulative (again, my word, not theirs) way.  They spoke of their prayers and pleadings, of doing all they could think of doing... Stuart was resolved.  But they said one thing, as I rose to go and before I parted with them that evening, which haunted me and haunts me still.  Sister Matis mentioned wistfully, "At least we know that Stuart died keeping his temple covenants..."

That one sentence brought back all those justifications I had fought so hard to overcome... this concept that, in suicide, Stuart had "been true to his temple covenants."  That death was preferable to 'giving in.'  That it might be a good idea to 'cut off my offending body from my pure spirit' to avoid letting the desires of my flesh 'to lead me down to Hell.'

And those simple and sincere words from clearly sympathetic parents trying to make sense through their grief after trying desperately to help their son, and now in turn trying to offer support to others, made me realize how simple, well-intentioned words can be perceived in ENTIRELY the wrong way. 

I could see how a young gay man, struggling with all the twisted doctrinal demons I've mentioned above could latch on to that kind of statement and perceive it to be not only permission, but an endorsement of suicide as a means "to stay true to his temple covenants."

It's probably clear to most of us (including themselves) the above is NOT what the Matises meant or intended to say.

Just as it may be clear to many that Elder Packer wasn't endorsing suicide from his comments.

Just as it's clear to many that Christ wasn't endorsing suicide when he spoke of cutting off offending body parts.

Just as it may be clear to many that other church leaders who spoke of their preference to return in a pinewood box vs. return dishonored weren't endorsing suicide.

But here's the kicker: to suicidal teenagers and young adults, their own PERCEPTION plays the FAR larger part in ultimately succumbing to suicide--not others' intentions.  It is often said that our perception is our reality.  For good or ill, that is all-too-often true.

In posting all I did about my internal contortions of LDS belief and doctrine to justify suicide, my intent was to bring awareness of how our words and actions, even unintentionally, can affect others (not only based on myself, but also based on similar conversations with many other gay LDS men who likewise survived years of  suicidal depression and isolation).

And THAT is why I think it is SOOO important to exercise EXTREME care and caution in how we treat these sensitive issues.  How things we inadvertently say may affect kids we don't even realize are listening.

As I've said previously, I am GRATEFUL the church has changed.  I wish there were pamphlets like "God Loveth His Children" when I was growing up during those fearful years.  I wish there were articles, published by The Church's newspaper, offering suggestions and tips for how to reach out with love and compassion to those who struggle with suicide.  I wish there were info like that found in The Family Acceptance Project, as reported by The Deseret News.

The Church, it's leadership, and LDS culture has come a long way.  And that is to be acknowledged and praised.  But there is still work to be done.  And it's my hope that ongoing conversations with careful and clear intent and conscious awareness of who's listening and how they may perceive our words and actions can help us find positive ways to support LDS teens, help them avoid suicide, and choose life.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

To be fair I would have hit a companion who did that too. Then again, I took a swing at my Zone Leader with less provocation so maybe I am not the best role model in this respect.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

This lie by Alan Rock Waterman is not criticism. It's a hypocritical lie of omission. " According to reports, during a talk Elder Nelson gave to a group of young adults in Hawaii on January 10th, he disclosed the news that what had been presented two months earlier as a a Church "policy" barring children of gay parents from being baptized, had actually come about as a revelation from God.  Yet a careful reading of the transcript of that talk reveals that Nelson did not actually say as much -at least not in so many words.  Had Nelson actually said what everyone thinks he said, he would have been guilty of taking the Lord's name in vain, since the Lord has not seen fit to communicate any such revelation to the body of the church.   So that's the good news. The other good news is that Russell Nelson is not a liar."

He conveniently leaves off the "until 18 years old" as if children of gay parents can never be baptized.

Mister Waterman, as is common among apostates, mutilates the doctrine to suit his purposes.

The Lord makes things known "to the body of the church" by those whom He has appointed for that purpose. The body of the Church has long accepted, as authentic revelation and authoritative, binding scripture, the following passage:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

President Nelson told the truth; but because that truth is not helpful to Mister Waterman's agenda, he maligns President Nelson with baseless and unsupported accusations.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Scott,

Nope, I didn't get it wrong.  Packer's talk was published and distributed by the church in pamphlet form under the name "To the One."  We had boxes of them on my mission.

This is easily verifiable by a quick Google Search:

https://archive.org/details/ToTheOne

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166617844/Boyd-K-Packer-To-the-One

When Russell said the following, I had to chuckle:

I chuckled because the irony is that Russell's very next paragraph illustrates his opening thesis by using an example of maligning a poster (namely me) by accusing me of "various bad acts, accusing [me] of things I did not say, and distorting things did say."  Here's a quick sampling:

Daniel,

This is not a re-litigation of the other thread. It is exploring the phenomenon of maligning the brethren.

The bits that you quoted and attributed to me as "a quick sampling" of me maligning you, were not written by me.

Please try to avoid the temptation to hijack this thread to make it all about what matters to you. I know it's hard, but please try.
 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

49 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Scott,

Nope, I didn't get it wrong.  Packer's talk was published and distributed by the church in pamphlet form under the name "To the One."  We had boxes of them on my mission.

This is easily verifiable by a quick Google Search:

https://archive.org/details/ToTheOne

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166617844/Boyd-K-Packer-To-the-One

 

Scott,

Nope, I didn't get it wrong.  Packer's talk was published and distributed by the church in pamphlet form under the name "To the One."  We had boxes of them on my mission.

 

To Daniel:

I still think you are mistaken.

The talk in which Elder Packer recounted the incident of the missionary striking his companion was given in the priesthood session of October 1976 general conference. I know, because I was there, seated in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, just several rows from the front. I had come up from Provo with a group of friends, all of us BYU students. I still have a copy of the pamphlet that was published later, titled "To Young Men Only." I have linked to that talk, and someone else on this thread, Cinepro, has linked to it also.

Some of us (rockpond, cinepro and I) have quoted from that talk, on the other thread and here. In fact, rockpond fussed at me on the other thread because he didn't like it that I left some of it out of the quote.

I recall the talk you are referencing here as well. But it was not given in general conference. It was given about two years later at a multi-stake fireside at BYU. (I was still a student at BYU then.) I don't remember him telling the story about the missionary striking his companion in that talk, but just to be sure, I scanned through it, and I did not see it there.

In short, I'm quite certain you are conflating two separate talks, one given in general conference in 1976 and the other given at BYU in 1978.

However, it's possible it's in there somewhere, I don't remember it, and I missed it during my scan. So, I invite you to search that talk (the one given at BYU) and give us a specific page number reference where the story can be found.

As for the rest of the content of your post, I already responded to your post on the other thread, saying that my impression of your initial post is what it is, but I grant you the right to clarify your own meaning as you see fit. Beyond that, I have no further response at this time.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Daniel,

This is not a re-litigation of the other thread. It is exploring the phenomenon of maligning the brethren.

The bits that you quoted and attributed to me as "a quick sampling" of me maligning you, were not written by me.

Please try to avoid the temptation to hijack this thread to make it all about what matters to you. I know it's hard, but please try.
 

I haven't approached this topic as a re-litigation of the other thread.

I am responding to your discussion of "maligning the brethren" by using the examples you've used, including the fact that I brought up Elder Packer's talk in the other thread.

The bits I quoted I did not attribute to you (but for the sake of ensuring others don't make the same assumption, I edited my post for clarify).

While my response my not align with your (and others' in this thread) assertion that "among apostates (whether open or clandestine) there is a long tradition of maligning the brethren," and using my recent mention of Elder Packer's talk as evidence of "accusing them of various bad acts, attributing to them things they did not say, and distorting things they did say," my explanation here was a demonstration that I do not believe I was "maligning the Brethren." 

While you may not feel it is useful, I hope others find some value in it, especially by way of explanation that sometimes (for better or worse) we allow our perceptions of someone else's intent to become our reality, whether intended or not.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Daniel2