Maligning the Brethren

[Daniel2]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I appreciate the clarification, Scott.  I actually had already gone back and re-edited my post after I realized that I had combined the two talks.

Concerning the titles and content of the two separate talks, you ARE correct, and I was wrong   (as you can see by my edited post above).

Thanks!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

 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. 

So we should correct error about scientific facts but error about people themselves, their personal integrity etc. should just be ignored as acceptable?  

It would appear that you find it appropriate to attribute malice and character weakness to Elder Packer in an effort to correct him from attributing character weakness to homosexuals.  If I am reading you wrong, please correct me; but at the moment it appears to me you have a significant double standard here.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

In fact, as I recall, it was for just such mutilation of the doctrine to suit his purposes that Waterman was excommunicated in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours 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:

 

Oh yeah

It would have been wise of him to deck the Pharaoh's wife?  In choosing certain death over a sprint, anyone would go for the sprint.

The situation is a tad different, don't you think?

And you take this as an endorsement to running rather than defending oneself?  Perhaps one should respond as is necessary?  Strange idea, I know.

 

[Rich Hansen]

I suspect critics are guilty of suggesting the Brethren exhibit traits they do not possess and do things they did not do.

Faithful members are guilty of the same.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Rich Hansen said:

I suspect critics are guilty of suggesting the Brethren exhibit traits they do not possess and do things they did not do.

Faithful members are guilty of the same.

How would one verify that?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So we should correct error about scientific facts but error about people themselves, their personal integrity etc. should just be ignored as acceptable?  

It would appear that you find it appropriate to attribute malice and character weakness to Elder Packer in an effort to correct him from attributing character weakness to homosexuals.  If I am reading you wrong, please correct me; but at the moment it appears to me you have a significant double standard here.

The malice is being attributed to those who disagree with Elder Packer, not to Elder Packer himself.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

 

 

Well, the first problem is that we don't know what the companion did, so it's impossible to say whether the response was appropriate.  The idea that a gay missionary was overcome by lust for his companion and tried to force himself on him seems like an odd caricature or tale of paranoia.

As for this statement:

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.

I do believe that some people are born with an attraction to "their own kind", and that there is nothing they can do about this attraction.  I also believe that it is physically possible for anyone to live a celibate life.  But I don't believe it is the destiny of people born with those attractions to become husbands and fathers in this life.  I think he is 100% wrong about this.  It may happen for some (very few), but it isn't a rule.

I don't think my position is of much concern to anyone.  Why don't we spend some time "deconstructing" what Elder Packer was saying, and whether it matches with reality and is a healthy approach for people in such situations?

I would also point out that Elder Packer's claims regarding sexual function and the sex drive in general are probably dubious as well. 

[cinepro]

Here's something that I think I need someone to explain for me.

You can listen to that portion of the talk here (starts at 11:00):

 

 

That story has two or three points that get a huge laugh from the crowd.  What, exactly, are they laughing at?  The story as written doesn't seem to have any humor, and his delivery is hardly comic.  Yet the hundreds of people in the Tabernacle find parts of it absolutely hilarious.  What's going on with that?

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well, the first problem is that we don't know what the companion did, so it's impossible to say whether the response was appropriate.  The idea that a gay missionary was overcome by lust for his companion and tried to force himself on him seems like an odd caricature or tale of paranoia.

 

. 

Oh yeah, well guess what, it happens. It happened to me. I was molested by a Boy Scout when I was 10 years old. So, it's not paranoia. It affected the next 9 years of my life simply because I did not stand up for myself. Now a Boy Scout is not a missionary but it's close enough for me.

[PeterPear]

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinnedwhen they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

 19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despisedby those that flattered them.

 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That story has two or three points that get a huge laugh from the crowd.  What, exactly, are they laughing at?  The story as written doesn't seem to have any humor, and his delivery is hardly comic.  Yet the hundreds of people in the Tabernacle find parts of it absolutely hilarious.  What's going on with that?

Nervous laughter?

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The malice is being attributed to those who disagree with Elder Packer, not to Elder Packer himself.

You probably should rewrite that then to make it clear.

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well, the first problem is that we don't know what the companion did, so it's impossible to say whether the response was appropriate.  The idea that a gay missionary was overcome by lust for his companion and tried to force himself on him seems like an odd caricature or tale of paranoia.

As for this statement:

 

 

I do believe that some people are born with an attraction to "their own kind", and that there is nothing they can do about this attraction.  I also believe that it is physically possible for anyone to live a celibate life.  But I don't believe it is the destiny of people born with those attractions to become husbands and fathers in this life.  I think he is 100% wrong about this.  It may happen for some (very few), but it isn't a rule.

I don't think my position is of much concern to anyone.  Why don't we spend some time "deconstructing" what Elder Packer was saying, and whether it matches with reality and is a healthy approach for people in such situations?

I would also point out that Elder Packer's claims regarding sexual function and the sex drive in general are probably dubious as well. 

First, we have the context, above.  Now let's look at the arguments.

Quote

Well, the first problem is that we don't know what the companion did, so it's impossible to say whether the response was appropriate.

Yep, but that is exactly what you are doing, with no evidence.  You say so right here.  Self-contradictory.

Quote

I do believe that some people are born with an attraction to "their own kind", and that there is nothing they can do about this attraction.  I also believe that it is physically possible for anyone to live a celibate life.  But I don't believe it is the destiny of people born with those attractions to become husbands and fathers in this life.  I think he is 100% wrong about this.  It may happen for some (very few), but it isn't a rule.

Your opinion. That is not the issue here, the issue is whether or not Elder Packer was wrong.  Asserting your opinion does nothing to show that.  And then you say that he is "100% wrong" AND THEN say "It may happen for some.. but it isn't a rule".  So is it 100% or not??  What is your point?  You make it in one statement then deny it in the next.

Self contradictory again.

Quote

I don't think my position is of much concern to anyone.  Why don't we spend some time "deconstructing" what Elder Packer was saying, and whether it matches with reality and is a healthy approach for people in such situations?

BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP.  He stated his opinion, and you stated yours making several statements without substantiation.  I am examining YOUR statement, not his

I have no desire to examine his, because I agree with it.  "Matches with reality"?? What does that mean in this context? All we have here are opinions and what we feel is right - that is the only basis for morality and moral judgments.  "Healthy"? By what standard? 

Quote

I would also point out that Elder Packer's claims regarding sexual function and the sex drive in general are probably dubious as well. 

Oh gosh.  See above. All the same problems.  "Probably dubious"? What the heck does that mean?  By what standard?

[CV75]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

The malice is being attributed to those who disagree with Elder Packer, not to Elder Packer himself.

In the spirit of "malign your malignment", let's malign the maligners!

[HappyJackWagon]

I find it discouraging that so many people support a violent response to "an advance" when not knowing what that advance is. If the missionary was forcing himself on his companion than sure, self defense is totally appropriate. But if the missionary decked his companion because of a misinterpreted compliment or a question about getting together after the mission etc, then violence is totally inappropriate.

There's simply not enough information in the account to make an informed decision. But in general, an apostle condoning violence on a mission companion seems inappropriate unless he can give more context to justify it.

[busybee]

I think the responses to what reportedly happened 40+ years ago are a good example of presentism.

40 years is a looooong time ago in respect to what has become morally and socially acceptable. Fisticuffs was a commonplace method to resolve problems between men back then. (At least it was where I lived. People didn't go running to the law to resolve their problems for them).

The Lord's view hasn't changed, but society's view certainly has. Homosexuality was not viewed by society then through the same lenses that it is being viewed today. Political correctness did not exist then as it does now (not that it plays any part in my views of the world). At the time, the response of the young missionary, as reported in Pres. Packer's talk, would probably have been the response of most young men in that time. Heck, my husband would probably deck any man that made any advances on him today!! The world was a little more black and white in it's views back then. 

We have to look at things in the context of the time when they occurred.

Edited February 3, 2016 by busybee

[stemelbow]

14 hours 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).

The added absurdity in all of this is, if you read it, there is no indication that the missionary who was attacked provoked it by unwanted sexual advances as people keep reading into it.  It says nothing of the sort.  For all we know the missionary hit him because he was gay.  It's certainly not as if Elder Packer was saying the kid was going to hit on a General Authority. 

This thread's cute in that any level of questioning or disagreement gets whined about as if it's maligning the brethren--"how dare you say that against the Lord's anointed" is often the response when people are trying to discuss ideas.  Well some of us think infallibility is silly and so we like to explore ideas.  No one's after Elder Packer or even the Church in most of these discussions. 

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, busybee said:

I think the responses to what reportedly happened 40+ years ago are a good example of presentism.

40 years in a looooong time ago in respect to what has become morally and socially acceptable. Fisticuffs was a commonplace resolution for problems between men then (At least where I lived).

The Lord's view hasn't changed, but society's view certainly has. Homosexuality was  not viewed by society then through the same lenses that it is being viewed today. Political correctness did not exist then as it does now (not that it plays any part in my views of the world). At the time, the response of the young missionary as reported in Pres. Packer's talk would have been the response of most men in that time. Heck, my husband would probably deck any man that made any advances on him today!! The world was a little more black and white in it's views back then. 

We have to look at things in the context of the time when they occurred.

What would be the response if a lady slapped a man who had made unwanted sexual advances towards her???

 

Glenn

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

I think the responses to what reportedly happened 40+ years ago are a good example of presentism.

40 years is a looooong time ago in respect to what has become morally and socially acceptable. Fisticuffs was a commonplace method to resolve problems between men back then. (At least it was where I lived. People didn't go running to the law to resolve their problems for them).

The Lord's view hasn't changed, but society's view certainly has. Homosexuality was not viewed by society then through the same lenses that it is being viewed today. Political correctness did not exist then as it does now (not that it plays any part in my views of the world). At the time, the response of the young missionary, as reported in Pres. Packer's talk, would probably have been the response of most young men in that time. Heck, my husband would probably deck any man that made any advances on him today!! The world was a little more black and white in it's views back then. 

We have to look at things in the context of the time when they occurred.

Sadly, we don't know about any advances in this case.  Some have read into the story that there must have been some sexual advances but the story doesn't say anything of the sort. 

[busybee]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

What would be the response if a lady slapped a man who had made unwanted sexual advances towards her???

 

Glenn

I, for one, would be applauding. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find it discouraging that so many people support a violent response to "an advance" when not knowing what that advance is. If the missionary was forcing himself on his companion than sure, self defense is totally appropriate. But if the missionary decked his companion because of a misinterpreted compliment or a question about getting together after the mission etc, then violence is totally inappropriate.

There's simply not enough information in the account to make an informed decision. But in general, an apostle condoning violence on a mission companion seems inappropriate unless he can give more context to justify it.

Hey HappyJack, where do you get the idea that Elder Packer suggested the punch was provoked by "an advance"?  I'm not seeing it myself.  It seems that is read into the story to me.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, busybee said:

I think the responses to what reportedly happened 40+ years ago are a good example of presentism.

40 years is a looooong time ago in respect to what has become morally and socially acceptable. Fisticuffs was a commonplace method to resolve problems between men back then. (At least it was where I lived. People didn't go running to the law to resolve their problems for them).

The Lord's view hasn't changed, but society's view certainly has. Homosexuality was not viewed by society then through the same lenses that it is being viewed today. Political correctness did not exist then as it does now (not that it plays any part in my views of the world). At the time, the response of the young missionary, as reported in Pres. Packer's talk, would probably have been the response of most young men in that time. Heck, my husband would probably deck any man that made any advances on him today!! The world was a little more black and white in it's views back then. 

We have to look at things in the context of the time when they occurred.

While it's appropriate to avoid presentism, the corollary to that is that church leaders don't have access to moral insights beyond the limits of their own cultural context. Just like the rest of us. 

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sadly, we don't know about any advances in this case.  Some have read into the story that there must have been some sexual advances but the story doesn't say anything of the sort. 

What do you think he was talking about when he mentions protecting yourself?  

[busybee]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Sadly, we don't know about any advances in this case.  Some have read into the story that there must have been some sexual advances but the story doesn't say anything of the sort. 

I very much doubt the missionary would have decked his companion for no reason, and the fact the Pres, Packer reported the incident in the context that he did, would strongly imply that there were advances. Why else would he have used this in a talk and preceded it by talking about how young men should avoid certain situations? This was an incredibly 'delicate' topic 40 years ago. It would have been considered very inappropriate to go in to detail about what had 'gone down' before the missionary decided that a punch was in order.