New Church Policy?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

If an apostle is giving the go ahead to deck someone, he should have clarified when such actions are appropriate.  He should have indicated that at the very least, this is the last resort when only physical violence is used.  He should have explained why a more appropriate action would have been to go to the mission president.  

Of course I am going to look at how an apostle addresses LGBT issues.  I am always hoping that things may be changing and that church leaders will actually do things to improve how they treat someone who is gay rather than empty platitudes of "we love them" while at the same time being ok with violence against them.  This kind of action, and frankly seeing members support the idea that it is perfectly ok to deck someone who is gay if you perceive they are invading your sexual space tells me a lot.  No one is condemning Elder Packer's address as being inappropriate.  So yeah, I am getting that this is perfectly acceptable behavior in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Good to know.

If this was suppose to be a talk about defending one's virtue, why would an apostle choose a story about a gay missionary in the first place when there is already so much violence and animosity against gay people,  a group that already feels marginalized in the Church?  The vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults do not happen by gay guys coming on to straight men.   What would have been more appropriate would have been a talk on how women could and should handle sexual violence.  So can you tell me why Elder Packer decided it was important enough to relate this story in general conference?  

Given the broader subject of the entire talk, it is a relevant sub-topic to address: "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."

[Raingirl]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

If an apostle is giving the go ahead to deck someone, he should have clarified when such actions are appropriate.  He should have indicated that at the very least, this is the last resort when only physical violence is used.  He should have explained why a more appropriate action would have been to go to the mission president.  

Of course I am going to look at how an apostle addresses LGBT issues.  I am always hoping that things may be changing and that church leaders will actually do things to improve how they treat someone who is gay rather than empty platitudes of "we love them" while at the same time being ok with violence against them.  This kind of action, and frankly seeing members support the idea that it is perfectly ok to deck someone who is gay if you perceive they are invading your sexual space tells me a lot.  No one is condemning Elder Packer's address as being inappropriate.  So yeah, I am getting that this is perfectly acceptable behavior in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Good to know.

If this was suppose to be a talk about defending one's virtue, why would an apostle choose a story about a gay missionary in the first place when there is already so much violence and animosity against gay people,  a group that already feels marginalized in the Church?  The vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults do not happen by gay guys coming on to straight men.   What would have been more appropriate would have been a talk on how women could and should handle sexual violence.  So can you tell me why Elder Packer decided it was important enough to relate this story in general conference?  

No one can answer that last sentence except for Elder Packer. 
 

Once again, you fixate on sexual orientation. The sexual orientation of a sexual abuser is irrelevant.  A gay person is not exempt from the consequences of their actions simply because of their sexual orientation. Assault is wrong whoever the perpetrator is. In your eyes, taking the gay man to the ground who attempted to sexually assault me was wrong because he was gay and hadn’t yet raped me. But according to your standards, if he had been straight, different rules would have applied. Do the rules differ yet again if the abuser is female?  Between gender, sex, sexual orientation, there are a huge variety of possible scenarios, how are are we supposed to know all of the special rules involved? Must we take a complete sexual history of the abuser before we can defend ourselves?

I’m not advocating violence.  The reality is that words or rules or laws don’t always stop people from doing bad things. Sometimes only physical intervention will stop a bad thing from happening  Taking someone to the ground in order to stop an assault- sexual or otherwise - can be the necessary and right thing to do.  Sexual orientation shouldn’t even be a factor.

 

[Vanguard]

I have to agree with much of what CB is concerned with. I wish Elder Packer would have provided more context behind why the missionary was 'decked'. Otherwise, it runs the risk of endorsing similar behavior in missionaries who interpret Elder Packer's comments inappropriately. And I do interpret a little 'dog whistling' (intended or not) from his message. Particularly in public forums we should air on the side of non-violence and when it is justified, should talk a lot more about why said action was taken. Now, is Packer an insensitive, unChrist-like brute? No, in the moment he simply fell short of - 'good, better, best' standards. ; )

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't think that any one should have their sexual space invaded, but extreme physical violence?  

Oh, malarky.  Once again, we need to look beyond the hostile caricature of Elder Packer's remarks and instead look at . . . Elder Packer's remarks:

Quote

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 [homosexual] 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. 

"I hit my companion. ... I floored him."

There are several people on this board who can attest to being subjected to unwanted sexual harassment, even sexual aggression.  Hamba pointed to an experience he had.  Here's mine:

While in college I worked in a large customer service department (taking orders).  I had a co-worker who had a pretty clear crush on me.  While I was respectful and friendly, I never reciprocated her overtures.  After a while she apparently decided that unsolicited back/shoulder rubs would be the way to go.  Her cubicle was close enough to mine that she could stand up and stand behind me and start massaging my shoulders and upper back.  I was pretty much always on the phone since I took orders in both English and Mandarin, whereas she only took orders in English and so had a bit more space between calls.  Anyway, the first time she did it I was surprised and jerked away, and she stopped.  A few days later, she tried it again and I, being on the phone and typing, tried to "shrug off" her hands and waved her off, and she stopped.  This kept going several more times, each time she was getting incrementally more assertive.  Once or twice I even muted my phone and said "Stop."  She would stop and then try again the next day.  After several such instances, one day when she tried it I shrugged her off once, she didn't stop, I shrugged her off again, she still didn't stop, so I forcefully pushed my chair back into her (she was standing directly behind me).  It was enough force to stagger her back a step or two.  She never touched me again, and we never spoke again.

By your reckoning, I was wrong.  I had no right of self-defense because her behavior was "short of rape."  Um, no.

I also had an experience where I was subjected to very inappropriate, and entirely unsolicited, physical touching by a man in a retail setting.  I was the only customer left in the small store as it was closing, and he apparently had some ideas.  I immediately left the store.

Both instances were very unpleasant for me.  Neither of them were "attempted rape."  Both of them warranted physical self-defense.  In the former instance, a shove was enough to get the aggressor to back off.  In the latter, I physically removed myself from the place, but I would certainly have resorted to physical self-defense had the man tried to stop me from leaving.  By your reckoning, though, since I was not being raped, I lacked the right to defend myself physically.

Again, no.

I find your "NOTHING short of attempted rape" standard to be unreasonable and wrong.  Sexual harassment and sexual aggression can come in all shapes and sizes.  And as the FAIR article so aptly notes: "No critic would dare say anything if an LDS sister missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant."

I really doubt you would presume to tell a woman that she is not allowed to physically defend herself against sexual aggression or harassment until and until she is being raped or about to be.  Do you seriously think that women should remain passive, make no effort at physical self-defense until an all-out rape is starting?  Where on earth do you get such an idea?  

I am really curious if the women in this forum agree with you.  If they think they have no right of self-defense until they are being raped or the rape is imminent (being "attempted").

I know a young woman who spent her senior year of high school as an exchange student in Europe.  She once experienced an incident where she was accosted by a drunk fellow who tried to touch her inappropriately.  She immediately gave him a very hard shove, looked him square in the eye, and stared him down.  He walked away.  

By your reckoning, though, sher should have just put up with his assault on her because it was "short of rape."  Who knows what would have happened had the aggressor not met with an immediately physical pushback.  Fortunately, this young woman relied on common sense and defended herself physically.  Fortunately, she did not have someone like you telling her she had no right to defend herself physically from this man until she was being raped or about to be raped.

If Elder Packer had been speaking to a group of women, and if he had told them that in extreme and exigent circumstances they can use violence to defend themselves from sexual harassment/aggression, we would not be having this discussion.  If Elder Packer had said to women "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself," we would not be having this discussion.  Men have the same right of self-defense.

The issue becomes compounded when the aggressor actually lives with the victim, which is the circumstance being addressed by Elder Packer.

FAIR has a well-worded rebuttal to your insinuation: "{A}s soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor a homosexual, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim. This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church."

Women should not be made to feel obligated to passively endure sexually aggressive/harassing behavior "short of attempted rape."  Nor should men.

Neither women, nor heterosexual men, nor gay men, should feel entitled to engage in sexually aggressive/harassing behavior "short of attempted rape."  One of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of such sexual aggression is . . . physical self-defense.

It should not matter a whit that the vicim of sexually aggressive/harassing behavior "short of attempted rape" is male.  Again, from FAIR:

Quote

Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[2] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[3]

To prohibit self-defense against any and every form of sexual misconduct "short of rape" is to perpetuate such forms of misconduct.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

These missionaries had a mission president.  Whatever the problem was, to tell a missionary that someone had to take care of it by physical violence is NOT a response an apostle representing Christ should be giving out, especially in a General Conference talk.  Honestly, I am shocked that people believe this is Christ-like behavior. 

I am shocked at the cavalier attitude apparent in telling past and prospective victims of sexual harassment/aggression that they are only entitled to self-defense if they are being raped.  

Again from FAIR:

Quote

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that even men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse and it is okay to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances, even if you are male, is important in reversing the society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

Just so.  

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2022 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I have to agree with much of what CB is concerned with. I wish Elder Packer would have provided more context behind why the missionary was 'decked'. Otherwise, it runs the risk of endorsing similar behavior in missionaries who interpret Elder Packer's comments inappropriately. And I do interpret a little 'dog whistling' (intended or not) from his message. Particularly in public forums we should air on the side of non-violence and when it is justified, should talk a lot more about why said action was taken. Now, is Packer an insensitive, unChrist-like brute? No, in the moment he simply fell short of - 'good, better, best' standards. ; )

Leaving people, however inadvertently, with the impression that they are required to submit to sexual assault for the sake of “erring on the side of non-violence” hardly fits into the “best” category. I’ll always be grateful that Elder Packer left open the option of physical resistance for those who might find themselves thus confronted. 

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Leaving people, however inadvertently, with the impression that they are required to submit to sexual assault for the sake of “erring on the side of non-violence” hardly fits into the “best” category. I’ll always be grateful that Elder Packer left open the option of physical resistance for those who might find themselves thus confronted. 

Agreed. I would imagine there's a balance between making it clear no one should be taken advantage of against their will with making it clear this advice to use physical aggression in order to protect oneself should not be taken lightly or recklessly.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Vanguard said:

Agreed. I would imagine there's a balance between making it clear no one should be taken advantage of against their will with making it clear this advice to use physical aggression in order to protect oneself should not be taken lightly or recklessly.

This discussion has taken a turn

The problem with Packer's talk was that he seemed to be glorifying the violence, reveling in the gay Elder getting knocked to the floor. I think most people would agree that self-defense is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But by failing to give more context to the talk Packer seemed to be playing to a homophobic base as if to say "knock that gay Elder down" if you perceive some flirtation. Like CB stated, there is no way an LGBTQ individual in the church would hear that and feel safe. An apostle of Jesus Christ used the violence as a positive example. That's the shame of it.

[Vanguard]

Oh wow, I didn't realize this address was more than 45 yrs ago! Boy, times have changed since then. Had this kind of comment been made within the last couple of years, I would be thinking differently about it. Where were we all in terms of LGBT issue back in '76?! Wow.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Oh wow, I didn't realize this address was more than 45 yrs ago! Boy, times have changed since then. Had this kind of comment been made within the last couple of years, I would be thinking differently about it. Where were we all in terms of LGBT issue back in '76?! Wow.

Some things change and others don't. While an apostle today likely learned from the Packer's error, I have no reason to believe that at least some of the brethren don't share the sentiment. They just wouldn't say it out loud.

But I don't know that glorifying the violence 45 years ago was a very good look either. I just think the bigotry against LGBTQ was so widespread that many accepted it.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Some things change and others don't. While an apostle today likely learned from the Packer's error, I have no reason to believe that at least some of the brethren don't share the sentiment. They just wouldn't say it out loud.

But I don't know that glorifying the violence 45 years ago was a very good look either. I just think the bigotry against LGBTQ was so widespread that many accepted it.

The laughter was not in making fun of a gay person being floored, but in the irony that one missionary flooring another could be a proper course of action. “Somebody had to do it…” means somebody had to put a stop to a level of harassment that was probably not new, escalating and likely to continue. A friend of mine had a problematic missionary on his mission rape his companion (late 1990s) before he was finally sent home.

Edited April 25, 2022 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While an apostle today likely learned from the Packer's error, …

A presumptuous remark. It’s not self-evident that Elder Packer made an error, much less that an apostle of today would have anything to learn from it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

… there is no way an LGBTQ individual in the church would hear that and feel safe.

Any person, LGBTQ or not, could feel safe by drawing one clear inference: Don’t make unwanted sexual advances toward another. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A presumptuous remark. It’s not self-evident that Elder Packer made an error, much less that an apostle of today would have anything to learn from it. 

I was giving the benefit of the doubt that others have learned from the negative feedback to Packer's remarks. But you're right. Maybe they haven't  

 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any person, LGBTQ or not, could feel safe by drawing one clear inference: Don’t make unwanted sexual advances toward another. 

Agreed. Making unwanted sxual advances towards another is inappropriate. Do we know what kind of advances were made? Touching? A smile? A look? A word? I have no idea. But the context didn't seem to matter enough to Elder Packer to include it. (or maybe I'm mis-remembering)

And I agree that the lesson was taught that if they do make unwanted advances they will deserve a holy whooping, approved by the Q12.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The laughter was not in making fun of a gay person being floored, but in the irony that one missionary flooring another could be a proper course of action. “Somebody had to do it…” means somebody had to put a stop to a level of harassment that was probably not new, escalating and likely to continue. A friend of mine had a problematic missionary on his mission rape his companion (late 1990s) before he was finally sent home.

Irony is often a source of humor. The perception of irony here might have stemmed from the assumption on the part of some in the congregation, erroneous though that assumption would have been, that an apostle would invariably forbid physical confrontation under any and all circumstances. Of course, there are extreme circumstances when bodily force is appropriate, namely the defense of oneself or others from the infliction of assault and/or injury. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The laughter was not in making fun of a gay person being floored, but in the irony that one missionary flooring another could be a proper course of action. “Somebody had to do it…” means somebody had to put a stop to a level of harassment that was probably not new, escalating and likely to continue. A friend of mine had a problematic missionary on his mission rape his companion (late 1990s) before he was finally sent home.

You know the thoughts of everyone who laughed? Impressive

There's a lot we don't know about the story. What we do know is that Packer shared a story about a gay Elder being knocked to the floor. Like others have said, if it was a talk about self-defense perhaps he would have chosen a different example.

Like I said before, self-defense is appropriate but I have no reason to think self-defense was necessary. I have no reason to think the gay elder was physically aggressive. For all I know he just looked at the guy wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was giving the benefit of the doubt that others have learned from the negative feedback to Packer's remarks.

Negative feedback is not necessarily warranted or respectable. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem with Packer's talk was that he seemed to be glorifying the violence, reveling in the gay Elder getting knocked to the floor.

He was neither "glorifying" nor "reveling".  You got that out of thin air or your fevered imaginations.  Packer was very straightforward in outlining multiple options for self-defense.  Which the Constitution (or Natural Law) allows for us to set rightful boundaries.  You seem to want homosexuals to have free reign to aggressively "flirt" with other people or even to harass heterosexuals.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Negative feedback is not necessarily warranted or respectable. 

True.

Like I said earlier, perhaps I gave them too much credit. Maybe a lesson wasn't learned. But I tend to think it was.

[Vanguard]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was giving the benefit of the doubt that others have learned from the negative feedback to Packer's remarks. But you're right. Maybe they haven't  

 

Agreed. Making unwanted sxual advances towards another is inappropriate. Do we know what kind of advances were made? Touching? A smile? A look? A word? I have no idea. But the context didn't seem to matter enough to Elder Packer to include it. (or maybe I'm mis-remembering)

And I agree that the lesson was taught that if they do make unwanted advances they will deserve a holy whooping, approved by the Q12.

Oh jeez, your comment about a 'holy whooping' made me hoot! Sorry. ; ) To go further down what may become a rabbit hole, there seems an issue about the sex of the two missionaries also. Had a sister in this elder's district made unwanted sexual advances, I doubt Elder Packer would have responded similarly. And if so, why is that? Why would one response be appropriate for one sex but not the other?   

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True.

Like I said earlier, perhaps I gave them too much credit. Maybe a lesson wasn't learned. But I tend to think it was.

I wouldn’t give any credit for yielding to feedback that is unwarranted. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, longview said:

He was neither "glorifying" nor "reveling".  You got that out of thin air or your fevered imaginations.  Packer was very straightforward in outlining multiple options for self-defense.  Which the Constitution (or Natural Law) allows for us to set rightful boundaries.  You seem to want homosexuals to have free reign to aggressively "flirt" with other people or even to harass heterosexuals.

Can you share the passage about the "multiple options for self-defense" that Packer outlined.

Are you suggesting that the appropriate response to unwanted flirting is a punch to the face?

How do you feel about the "Oscar Slap"?

[Vanguard]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You know the thoughts of everyone who laughed? Impressive

There's a lot we don't know about the story. What we do know is that Packer shared a story about a gay Elder being knocked to the floor. Like others have said, if it was a talk about self-defense perhaps he would have chosen a different example.

Like I said before, self-defense is appropriate but I have no reason to think self-defense was necessary. I have no reason to think the gay elder was physically aggressive. For all I know he just looked at the guy wrong.

Ultimately, you really don't know if the Elder were gay, right? We talk about man-on-man sex in prison but don't remotely believe all of theses guys are really gay. This simply may have been a straight missionary who was 'feeling it' in the moment. 

I guess I'm the one to take us down the rabbit hole! ;o

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You know the thoughts of everyone who laughed? Impressive

There's a lot we don't know about the story. What we do know is that Packer shared a story about a gay Elder being knocked to the floor. Like others have said, if it was a talk about self-defense perhaps he would have chosen a different example.

Like I said before, self-defense is appropriate but I have no reason to think self-defense was necessary. I have no reason to think the gay elder was physically aggressive. For all I know he just looked at the guy wrong.

I am going by what I do know, which is the talk's overall topic and the context in which the story was shared; the remarks that prefaced, followed and shared in the story; the points where laughter is heard. The story is not about hitting gay people, it is about hitting a companion who is getting hit on... "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. ...I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself." To save you some time maybe you can review my conversation with CB because this is looking the same. 

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Irony is often a source of humor. The perception of irony here might have stemmed from the assumption on the part of some in the congregation, erroneous though that assumption would have been, that an apostle would invariably forbid physical confrontation under any and all circumstances. Of course, there are extreme circumstances when bodily force is appropriate, namely the defense of oneself or others from the infliction of assault and/or injury. 

And ofttimes, assault starts with a very friendly and courteous façade.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Off topic because I am just interested in people’s POV on this…if someone groped a breast, butt, or crotch, what would you see as an appropriate response?

At the least in my view, a hard push to put distance between them. But maybe more if there was stuff going on before it and it just wasn’t out of the blue or if there is a sense of more aggression out it. The “more” would depend on the circumstances. I could see a punch at times even.

Kind of makes think of that quote from Joseph Smith about "[t]hat which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

Honestly, there are just too many possible scenarios for me to say anything other than 'it depends.'

For example, what if the person doing the unwanted groping happens to be holding a knife in their other hand? An appropriate response under those circumstance might involve the use of deadly force.

As a general rule, I would say that an appropriate response needs to be proportionate to the level of threat, but that is going to vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

On topic, I don’t agree with a response to likely sexual harassment being made more or less into a joke with the “someone had to do it” remark [...].

In my mind, "someone had to do it" conjures up images of repeated bad behavior.

For example, I'm thinking of an office building which can only be accessed by walking through a construction area, and there's a guy who catcalls all of the women who have to pass by on their way to work each day. One day, the guy moves beyond just harassing speech and actually pinches the behind of one of the women as she is walking by. She stops, turns around, and then kicks the guy in the groin, dropping him to the ground (note: in my imagination she's also a former soccer player - not because that's important to the story, mind you; I just like to think of her as being someone who really knows how to kick).

Anyway, if I were this woman's bishop and she came to me feeling guilty about possibly really hurting that guy, I might very well find myself saying something like "he had it coming" or "someone had to do it."

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

However, I am uncertain about the actual situation as assuming the story was as told [...]

Agreed.

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

[If] he was basically giving out self defense advice, it would have been wiser to have been clear about what qualified for needing physical defense as I have heard some boys and young men joke about responding to a verbal pass by beating the guy up and it is too easy to use something like was said for justification if one is looking for it even if Pres. Packer did not mean to provide it)

I suppose it would have been nice for him to have made that clearer, but let's be real here: who on earth is using a talk from 1976 to justify violence against gays today?

When somebody says that the church's current teachings about loving everyone are hollow because some talk given 45+ years ago was maybe, sorta, kinda not clear enough about expressly speaking about line drawing when it comes to the intersection of homosexual advances and the moral justifications for physical force, I just have a hard time taking such criticisms seriously.