Maligning the Brethren

[Gray]

10 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)? 

I think we can all feel unmerited guilt from time to time - in fact that might be a key feature of Mormon life.

I can't tell from the context what really happened there. 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, busybee said:

We'll go with that then. Because, like I said, it fits right in with the theme of Pres. Packers talk.

Yes, I will "go with that".  Until we have a quote by Pres. Packer stating there were sexual advances made.

Edited February 3, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

 

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

CFR please. Show quotes from the brethren where they have said these things.

Ha!  Exhibit A...

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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)

I think I'm with ya.  I didn't mean to say a hit on or a asking on a date as reason for violence. 

[Tacenda]

I know with all my heart there were gay young or older men in that conference so long ago.  And I know that some in that conference knew those gay individuals.  And from then on those straight young/older men were probably looking at that gay young/older man in a much worse light because of that talk.  I know that Pres. Packer came from a different era, my dad could/would have possibly said the same thing.  But I know that it maligns the gay son or daughter of God.  So lets put the shoe on the other foot.  Gays are being maligned too.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, busybee said:

CFR please. Show quotes from the brethren where they have said these things.

Consiglieri had said

Quote

18 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.

Exhibit 1- http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2122123-155/no-apology-really-mormons-question-apostle

Quote

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks set off a global chain reaction among Mormons this week, when he said he wasn't sure apologizing for the faith's past rhetoric on homosexuality would be advisable.

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. "We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward."

The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them."

ETA- Oaks has also famously said. "one must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true."

Edited February 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
ETA

[Calm]

1 hour 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).

It was where I lived in California among the teens still...well, not real serious stuff, it wouldn't be trying to knock a guy out, but there was still a lot of physical interaction just between friends ot semifriends in high school.  Mostly pushing and shoving when it came to getting annoyed or angry, occasionally head locks, but if that didn't end the altercation, a fist to the upper body, hitting the guy in the shoulder would be the next thing as a warning to back off.  It would generally be over with by the time any teachers or adults were aware of it, no one would be actually hurt beyond being a bit sore or at least trying to appear that way.

Elder Packer is talking to a young missionary.  I find it extremely unlikely that if there had been a more physical response than what I saw on my high school campus (and off around it), a response that left an injury, that it would not have been reported to the mission president and the mp reported to the visiting GA.  Has anyone heard of companions getting into a significant fight, one of them walking around with a bruise on his face or with another injury that has not been reported to a mission pres?  Would not Elder Packer have met the guy's companion at the same time he met the missionary since they have to travel together at all times?  Yet Elder Packer was not expecting a response that had to do with a fist or whatever fight.  And if he had just seen the companion he would have aware that one of teh companions was injured and wouldn't have been surprised if that was confessed.  Remember there was no hint that he had a clue of why the one young man hit the other until after the confession.

So I do think we have been given enough information that whatever the altercation, it did not leave either of them injured or reports given to the mission president he felt he needed to pass on to Elder Packer himself.  Therefore Elder Packer was not condoning beating one's companion in response, leaving someone injured.  He was condoning a quick, one time action..."a hit" that apparently worked, otherwise again the mision president would have heard if the altercation had led to more serious problems.

It is also likely that he then interviewed the companion and would have heard his side of the story.  If the young man's action had been inappropriately violent, I highly doubt he would have used the story as an example of protecting oneself.

While the above is speculation, given the details we know and the conspicuous absent of other details and the fact that Elder Packer was in any other case I'vve heard of encouraging responsible, mature behaviour....if he had made a habit of condoning violence, why is this talk the only one that ever gets brought up?...I think it is a reasonable speculation.

One can still debate whether or not this was an appropriate response by the young man or an appropriate anecdote for an adult to be telling teens, but I think if one is making the claim Elder Packer is a man who condones violence against gays as opposed to condoning limited physical self protection, I think they have the higher burden of proof of showing where else he did this or portrayed any attitude that excessive violence was appropriate.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 hours 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 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.

 

While I feel you've painted with a very board brush, speaking as someone who no longer believes in the truth claims of Mormonism, (does that make me an apostate?) perhaps I can offer some inside perspective on my personal mindset with respect to church leadership.  As a believing member I was taught and I covenanted to not criticize the "Brethren" even if I perceived that their actions or instructions were wrong or caused damage. I was expected to conform and obey.  Once I stepped outside the bubble of belief, I saw these men, no longer as having any more authority or special insight than any other living human being.  Their opinions were just that, their opinions, subject to examination and would rise or fall based on the merits of those opinions and not given preference due to their status. No longer would their particular opinions be given special weight or value based solely on the position they held within the church, their viewpoints would be subjected to scrutiny first then stand or fall based on the merits of their point of view and not due to their special status.  

So when you say that:

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.

You're claiming, with a very broad bush again, that apostates exaggerate, lie and distort the words of "The Brethren".  I see it quite differently, I see church critics holding these men accountable for their words, holding them accountable when their words, actions and positions of authority hurt people. Do you really think that woman would have ever been given the right to pray in a general conference were it not for church critics?  Would African America's been given the priesthood in a vacuum of thought?  It was only through evaluation, criticism, examination and the holding accountable of these men that some of the positive changes that have taken place inside the church have occurred. Had society not put pressure on the church in the 1880 and the church been faced with disenfranchisement, we would still practice polygamy.

But you claim something much more sinister of church critics...you claim a long tradition of maligning, false accusations of bad acts and false attributions. Anyone who did this would not be credible and should anyone do this...then hold them to the same high standard of scrutiny and accountability.  It works both ways.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[consiglieri]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Consiglieri had said

Exhibit 1- http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2122123-155/no-apology-really-mormons-question-apostle

ETA- Oaks has also famously said. "one must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true."

And here is Exhibit 2--http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/script2.html

From the PBS Documentary, "The Mormons" aired in 2007.

Quote

DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

Now that BusyBee can see the quotes themselves, and that the brethren have in fact said both of these things, the question remains what BusyBee will do with these facts.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour 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)? 

I once knocked another guy out (only time I have ever been in a fight) after he attacked me. It has been quite a long time since the incident and although I was defending myself, I still feel terrible about what happened.

[busybee]

53 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.

[Daniel2]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oaks has also famously said. "one must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true."

I remember being astonished when Elder Oaks said that in his interview by PBS for their four hour TV special "The Mormons".

Here is the clip where he said that (see around the 50 second mark):

https://youtu.be/NvNDjND4eLI

Edited February 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[consiglieri]

Just now, busybee said:

CFR please. Show quotes from the brethren where they have said these things.

Happy Jack Wagon and I have already done so.

See above.

Your request for a CFR indicates incredulity that the brethren actually said such things.

Now that you know the brethren have in fact said these things, what do you make of it?

 

[busybee]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Ha!  Exhibit A...

Thank goodness no one is relying on your evidence in a court of law.

How am I asking him anything other than to corroborate his statement. He didn't give any quotes for me to infer anything from. Hence the CFR. 

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Happy Jack Wagon and I have already done so.

See above.

Your request for a CFR indicates incredulity that the brethren actually said such things.

Now that you know the brethren have in fact said these things, what do you make of it?

 

Here is what I make of it:

I think it is wise and sound counsel. Based on what I have seen in the real world and on this board, it is the quickest way to lose the Spirit.

[Doctor Steuss]

16 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.

Thus far in my life, "I'm sincerely flattered, but I'm not gay, sorry," has worked quite well.  Haven't had to punch anyone yet (and, when you have a lot of gay friends, like show tunes, and aren't affraid to get on the dance floor, people tend to assume you're gay... a lot).

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Here is what I make of it:

I think it is wise and sound counsel. Based on what I have seen in the real world and on this board, it is the quickest way to lose the Spirit.

How do you determine that someone on this board has lost the Spirit?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

CFR please. Show quotes from the brethren where they have said these things.

Those have been given to you by 2 different posters on here.

Now, how about a quote from Pres. Packer stating that the missionary punched his companion because of a sexual advance?

[busybee]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And here is Exhibit 2--http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/script2.html

From the PBS Documentary, "The Mormons" aired in 2007.

Now that BusyBee can see the quotes themselves, and that the brethren have in fact said both of these things, the question remains what BusyBee will do with these facts.

I will do what I have always done. Support the brethren in their callings as prophets and apostles of God. And seek confirmation from the Spirit of the things that they teach. I don't believe that criticizing them does anything to further the work of salvation. If I don't agree with what they are saying (hasn't happened yet) I will take it to the Lord, not the Tabernacle of Public Opinion. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

MysteryMeat-

Here is what I make of it:

I think it is wise and sound counsel. Based on what I have seen in the real world and on this board, it is the quickest way to lose the Spirit.

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

.

Apologizing is the quickest way to lose the spirit? Or are you only referring to criticizing leaders?

Are you implying that a leader can say anything they want and we can NEVER challenge what is said?

 

ETA- not sure why the Calm quote is up there. Sorry.

Edited February 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Consiglieri had said

Exhibit 1- http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2122123-155/no-apology-really-mormons-question-apostle

ETA- Oaks has also famously said. "one must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true."

The last one by Pres. Oaks, is exactly why we have this thread, IMO.  

[ALarson]

 

9 minutes ago, busybee said:

Thank goodness no one is relying on your evidence in a court of law.

How am I asking him anything other than to corroborate his statement. He didn't give any quotes for me to infer anything from. Hence the CFR. 

Ummm....you did exactly what I stated someone would do 

So, thank you for the perfect example (and so quickly too). 

(And, your CFR was answered. Now, how about that quote by Pres. Packer?)

[Johnnie Cake]

14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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

Is it only claimed apostates that you lump into one huge stereotyped file drawer or do you do this with 'all' groups you find disagreements with?  It probably makes it easier for you to lump everyone that you disagree with into these stereotypes doesn't it. But If this is your honest opinion that apostates Mutilate the doctrine to suit [their] purposes...you honestly have no clue who the people you brush with the apostate label really are.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[busybee]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Ummm....you did exactly what I stated someone would do 

So, thank you for the perfect example (and so quickly too). 

(And, your CFR was answered. Now, how about that quote by Pres. Packer?)

You're so welcome. I love being an example and being perfect is just a bonus.

I have readily admitted that it could be assumed from the context of the statement. The whole talk has been linked on here. I'm sorry your powers of deduction are lacking.

Edited February 3, 2016 by busybee

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, busybee said:

You're so welcome. I love being an example and being perfect is just a bonus.

So, you take back stating:  "Thank goodness no one is relying on your evidence in a court of law."?

Thank you!