stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: What do you think he was talking about when he mentions protecting yourself? He was talking to his audience. he did not suggest this boy punched the other to protect himself. He told the story and then told the audience you must protect yourself. The audience wasn't told the boy who threw the punch needed to protect himself. You'd have to read that into it.
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: He was talking to his audience. he did not suggest this boy punched the other to protect himself. He told the story and then told the audience you must protect yourself. The audience wasn't told the boy who threw the punch needed to protect himself. You'd have to read that into it. So what was he saying - protect yourself from what? I assume you know without reading anything into what Elder Packer was saying. I am just curious because obviously I was reading something into it. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, busybee said: 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. You can doubt whatever you like but you don't make up the audience. Some, obviously, read it as if there was no provocation, after all, none was mentioned. At all. If you don't realize that some boys punch others with no provocation, then I can't help you. It happens, even today. it might have been even more common 40 years ago, if you like to think so. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: So what was he saying - protect yourself from what? I assume you know without reading anything into what Elder Packer was saying. I am just curious because obviously I was reading something into it. Since he didn't say, who knows? The point is not that it's possible the boy was provoked. the point is the story as related doesn't spell out any reason when such an attack is justified. The story itself without reading anything into it is: A missionary felt very guilty about something. Elder Packer patiently worked with the boy to confess. The confession was he knocked his companion down. Elder Packer was relieved that that was the problem as opposed to something more egregious. He said somebody had to knock this boy out. it could have been because he was gay. We simply don't know. The criticism (of course calling it maligning is really just mean-spirited) of this is not that Elder Packer condoned violence, because he didn't really. It's that he left out the motive for the punch in the first place. 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. I will agree to disagree. Their views would, of course, be heavily influenced by the cultural constraints of the time. However, I believe they would have insights beyond that if they needed them. In this instance Pres. Packer felt it neccessary to tell the young men that they had a right protect themselves against unwanted advances. I do wonder if the 'distaste' for this talk would have been the same if had been addressed to YW about unwanted advances from a man. My guess would be that every one would still be advocating that a woman beat the crap out of any man (even today) who makes unwanted advances towards her. So again, are we looking at a certain group who feel they should be 'untouchable' and be given laissez faire? If not, why not? 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: It's not about "the root causes of homosexuality." It's about what are our options when dealing with unwanted advances. We do not know if there were "unwanted advances", because this was not stated (or can you quote where this was stated in the talk?). If others on here were attributing meaning to an apostle's words that he didn't actually speak, you'd be all over them for doing that if you didn't agree. You'd be giving a CFR for them to produce proof that the apostle actually stated that. Edited February 3, 2016 by ALarson 3
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, busybee said: I will agree to disagree. Their views would, of course, be heavily influenced by the cultural constraints of the time. However, I believe they would have insights beyond that if they needed them. In this instance Pres. Packer felt it neccessary to tell the young men that they had a right protect themselves against unwanted advances. I do wonder if the 'distaste' for this talk would have been the same if had been addressed to YW about unwanted advances from a man. My guess would be that every one would still be advocating that a woman beat the crap out of any man (even today) who makes unwanted advances towards her. So again, are we looking at a certain group who feel they should be 'untouchable' and be given laissez faire? If not, why not? But it appears you're still reading unwanted sexual advances into the talk. He didn't say that. Everyone seems to agree that if there were unwanted sexual advances and they amounted to more than some compliment or suggestion, you know something like an inappropriate touch or comment, then a punch could be warranted. But since we don't know it's hard to jump to where you have. And I'm saying your jump is not unreasonable. You're fine to so jump but realize not everyone has made that leap. 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: You can doubt whatever you like but you don't make up the audience. Some, obviously, read it as if there was no provocation, after all, none was mentioned. At all. If you don't realize that some boys punch others with no provocation, then I can't help you. It happens, even today. it might have been even more common 40 years ago, if you like to think so. Not all of us need to have things spelled out slowly to us. 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 47 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. Why? Because you don't believe. Pretty much the totality of the matter. You'd much rather accuse president packer of bad things and come up with the conclusion that because you think so protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation. It dumbfounds me the lengths people are willing to go to pretend President Packer is telling people to attack gay people. We just have to completely ignore what English meamns and claim it means something else to reach that conclusion. How on earth is radically changing normal language a sign of good faith? 4
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said: Why? Because you don't believe. Pretty much the totality of the matter. You'd much rather accuse president packer of bad things and come up with the conclusion that because you think so protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation. It dumbfounds me the lengths people are willing to go to pretend President Packer is telling people to attack gay people. We just have to completely ignore what English meamns and claim it means something else to reach that conclusion. How on earth is radically changing normal language a sign of good faith?
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, busybee said: Not all of us need to have things spelled out slowly to us. That's my point. We're all pretty different.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, busybee said: Not all of us need to have things spelled out slowly to us. If others were stating that an apostle "meant" something and didn't actually state it, you'd be fighting the opposite fight here if you disagreed with the interpretation of their words. Unless someone can produce a direct quote from this talk stating that there was inappropriate touching or sexual advances made towards the missionary companion, we simply do not know what happened. 1
Tacenda Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, busybee said: I will agree to disagree. Their views would, of course, be heavily influenced by the cultural constraints of the time. However, I believe they would have insights beyond that if they needed them. In this instance Pres. Packer felt it neccessary to tell the young men that they had a right protect themselves against unwanted advances. I do wonder if the 'distaste' for this talk would have been the same if had been addressed to YW about unwanted advances from a man. My guess would be that every one would still be advocating that a woman beat the crap out of any man (even today) who makes unwanted advances towards her. So again, are we looking at a certain group who feel they should be 'untouchable' and be given laissez faire? If not, why not? Nothing new, it's their virtue, women were told to fight even if it meant they died trying. To the leaders at the time, their virtue was worth their lives being taken. 3
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Why? Because you don't believe. Pretty much the totality of the matter. You'd much rather accuse president packer of bad things and come up with the conclusion that because you think so protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation. It dumbfounds me the lengths people are willing to go to pretend President Packer is telling people to attack gay people. We just have to completely ignore what English meamns and claim it means something else to reach that conclusion. How on earth is radically changing normal language a sign of good faith? You mean like reading into the talk that the missionary who threw the punch was provoked by unwanted sexual advances? Oh, the talk doesn't say that. It only implies the one who was punched was gay and nothing more. 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, busybee said: Not all of us need to have things spelled out slowly to us. Especially when stating that sometimes we need to protect ourselves says it all. What reasonable person concludes protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation? 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: If others were stating that an apostle "meant" something and didn't actually state it, you'd be fighting the opposite fight here if you disagreed with the interpretation of their words. Unless someone can produce a direct quote from this talk stating that there was inappropriate touching or sexual advances made towards the missionary companion, we simply do not know what happened. You're right. I'm sure the companion just told him that he was ugly and his mom dressed him funny. That would fit right in with the context of the message being given by Elder Packer. 1
Popular Post stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Nothing new, it's their virtue, women were told to fight even if it meant they died trying. To the leaders at the time, their virtue was worth their lives being taken. Yes...another terrible black spot on teachings of past leaders. No, the past leaders need not be maligned for their mistake on this front. But their ideas are worth critiquing. 6
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, busybee said: You're right. I'm sure the companion just told him that he was ugly and his mom dressed him funny. That's another possibility too. We just don't know what happened. Since Pres. Packer never gave more information, we simply do not know. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Why? Because you don't believe. Pretty much the totality of the matter. You'd much rather accuse president packer of bad things and come up with the conclusion that because you think so protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation. It dumbfounds me the lengths people are willing to go to pretend President Packer is telling people to attack gay people. We just have to completely ignore what English meamns and claim it means something else to reach that conclusion. How on earth is radically changing normal language a sign of good faith? 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. It "dumbfounds me that others approve of violence without a clear understanding of provocation. To each his own. Stemelbow- I was responding to previous comments (one by Russel in particular) that insinuated the missionary was fighting off "unwanted advances". My whole point is we don't know what really happened so it is irresponsible to condone any violence. Someone mentioned that it is presentism to react to the violence from 40 years ago because back then it would have been acceptable. This is what they call progress. When someone today reads a talk from 40 years ago, it is present. If it is no longer appropriate then it should be taken down, otherwise it could well be considered to be acceptable today as well. 2
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's another possibility too. We just don't know what happened. Since Pres. Packer never gave more information, we simply do not know. We'll go with that then. Because, like I said, it fits right in with the theme of Pres. Packers talk. Edited February 3, 2016 by busybee 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Especially when stating that sometimes we need to protect ourselves says it all. What reasonable person concludes protecting oneself equals attacking without provocation? There are plenty of assumptions to make. What reasonable person feels terrible guilt for punching someone when first attacked (yes I'd consider an unsolicited sexual advance an attack)?
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 10 hours ago, cinepro said: 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? The biggest laugh is when Elder Packer says, "But I am not omitting it." It is the apostolic sanction of using violence against homosexuals that gets the biggest reaction from the crowd. And it is a favorable reaction. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: There are plenty of assumptions to make. What reasonable person feels terrible guilt for punching someone when first attacked (yes I'd consider an unsolicited sexual advance an attack)? Really? I'm glad that I was never attacked after asking a girl on a date and she said no. It was an unwanted advance but certainly shouldn't provoke violence. I think you're meaning to say an "inappropriate, unsolicited advance". Then it all depends upon how we define inappropriate. But responding with violence seems quite unchristian. If someone pats me inappropriately on the bum, perhaps I should turn the other cheek. (rim shot)
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: No; but falsely accusing is. 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. The brethren are the ones who say they must not be criticized, even if the criticism is true. The brethren are the ones who say they do not apologize for anything. Sounds pretty thin-skinned to me. 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: The brethren are the ones who say they must not be criticized, even if the criticism is true. The brethren are the ones who say they do not apologize for anything. Sounds pretty thin-skinned to me. CFR please. Show quotes from the brethren where they have said these things.
Recommended Posts