New Church Policy?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Where were we all in terms of LGBT issue back in '76?!

No idea. Any ideas I had with respect to LGBT issues in 1976 were blocked by the veil upon entering mortality.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

Same here.

Quote

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?

I think the issue is more that this was potentially used as justification in the past and the previous apparent lack of concern over understanding the potential misuse contributes to demonstrating a history of a careless attitude to the needs of LGBTs by church leaders.  I am not agreeing here; I can, however, understand how people can get to this conclusion.  It unfortunately contributes to sensitivity today for missteps in communication, which are inevitable imo in any human communication.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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. 

I've been hit on before. He smiled and was a smooth talker. He asked me out. I didn't punch him. I said "no, thank you." It worked great.

[Vanguard]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

No idea. Any ideas I had with respect to LGBT issues in 1976 were blocked by the veil upon entering mortality.

 

Good grief, you're young! I was 10 and awareness of LGBT issues never once hit my radar. And I lived in the Palm Springs area! ; )

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've been hit on before. He smiled and was a smooth talker. He asked me out. I didn't punch him. I said "no, thank you." It worked great.

Better to hug him and say, “Thanks for the compliment. You are cute but no thanks.” Then kiss on cheek and smile. Then he goes away feeling happier. Highly recommend this response.

Of course I have since learned in this thread that I basically committed fornication. Might as well just commit fornication next time. Thanks thread!

 

Edit: To be clear while I said this with tongue in cheek it did actually happen. I knew he was crushing on me and wanted to let him down easy and hopefully give him something to feel good about. So I guess I am off to hell for that.

Edited April 25, 2022 by The Nehor

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Better to hug him and say, “Thanks for the compliment. You are cute but no thanks.” Then kiss on cheek and smile. Then he goes away feeling happier. Done that a few times.

Of course I have since learned in this thread that I basically committed fornication. Might as well just commit fornication next time. Thanks thread!

 

Edit: To be clear while I said this with tongue in cheek it did actually happen. I knew he was crushing on me and wanted to let him down easy and hopefully give him something to feel good about. So I guess I am off to hell for that.

Nicely done.

Yeah, some on this board might consider that a violation of the Law of Chastity...you know...it being "homsxual behavior" and all.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nicely done.

Yeah, some on this board might consider that a violation of the Law of Chastity...you know...it being "homsxual behavior" and all.

If I remember correctly Judas Iscariot kissed another guy and he was an apostle.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, The Nehor said:

If I remember correctly Judas Iscariot kissed another guy and he was an apostle.

But he was also JUDAS. Not many people using him as a role model.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But he was also JUDAS. Not many people using him as a role model.

I was told that criticizing apostles is bad so I probably shouldn’t choose which to use as examples based on vague criticism and criteria like “he betrayed the messiah” or whatever.

Edited April 25, 2022 by The Nehor

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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.

Of course

 

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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.

WHAT??? CFR where I have EVER said that there are different rules of a gay man assaults someone.  If you have read my posts, I have presented several situations where sexual assault no matter what sex is WRONG as well as decking someone no matter what their sexual orientation is wrong.  So This is a CFR.  Take this snide comment back or show exactly what you claim I have said.

 

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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?

The rules don't differ with any gender, sex, sexual orientation you can come up with.  

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

 

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.

 

I agree that rules or laws don't always stop people from doing bad things.  And maybe there are times where physical force needs to stop a real physical threat.  But Elder Packer was talking about missionaries, under a mission president and a missionary who was so physically strong that he was capable of decking his companion and Elder Packer saying "Someone had do do it". 

Perhaps it is you that has the prejudice against any post that I write since you seem to assume the worse in what I have actually posted.  I await your CFR

[california boy]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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."

Of course.  NO one should put up with someone forcing them to commit immoral acts.  What does this have to do with my posts.  I think I have made that perfectly clear.

[california boy]

4 hours 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.

Well evidently, the advice is still pretty popular.  Looks like not much has changed.

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

 

When I read Packer's remarks, my impression is:

1- The missionary felt guilty for literally flooring the guy. It would seem he felt guilty because his "self defense" was totally out of proportion to the threat.

2- It appears Packer agreed that literally flooring the guy was wrong. That's why he said, "it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."

Note that Packer did not ask, "Did you need to floor him in order to defend yourself? Why do you feel guilty for flooring him? Did he try to rape you? Did you report it to the police?" Packer saying it wouldn't be "well" for a general authority to knock a guy out seems to imply that the guy deserved to be punched and needed to be punched to "solve the problem," but society at large didn't understand the need to some people to floored--thus it's better for missionaries to floor guys who need to be floored rather than relying on GA's to do it. It wasn't about defending yourself--it was about punching somebody who deserved to be punched.

Yes, he goes on to say "you must defend yourself," but the details of the story aren't about merely protecting yourself. They are about "solving a problem" in a way that "wouldn't be well for a General Authority" to do.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Analytics

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

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.

 

Have you read the comments about this talk in response to this talk?  How many think the talk is just as pertinent today as it was 45+ years ago.  Do you think underneath the veneer of "we love you" that the welcome mat is out for gay members when so many stand up for hitting a companion so hard it decks him and an apostle saying "Someone had to do it".  Sorry but someone didn't have to do it when there are so many other options easily available to that elder.  I doubt very much that there is any tolerance for any sexual advances towards a missionary.  Nor should there be.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If I remember correctly Judas Iscariot kissed another guy and he was an apostle.

If I remember correctly,  Christ decked him and the other apostles said "well someone had to do it"

Yeah I am going to get negative votes for that post because most of us can not even imagine Christ decking someone.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When I read Packer's remarks, my impression is:

1- The missionary felt guilty for literally flooring the guy. It would seem he felt guilty because his "self defense" was totally out of proportion to the threat.

2- It appears Packer agreed that literally flooring the guy was wrong. That's why he said, "it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."

Note that Packer did not ask, "Did you need to floor him in order to defend yourself? Why do you feel guilty for flooring him? Did he try to rape you? Did you report it to the police?" Packer saying it wouldn't be "well" for a general authority to knock a guy out seems to imply that the guy deserved to be punched and needed to be punched to "solve the problem," but society at large didn't understand the need to some people to floored--thus it's better for missionaries to floor guys who need to be floored rather than relying on GA's to do it. It wasn't about defending yourself--it was about punching somebody who deserved to be punched.

Yes, he goes on to say "you must defend yourself," but the details of the story aren't about merely protecting yourself. They are about "solving a problem" in a way that "wouldn't be well for a General Authority" to do.

Exactly.  And this is why I have such a problem with Elder Packer's remarks.  Elder Packer seems to be implying that he can't deck others, but it is perfectly fine that you did it, because someone HAD to do it. Had to do it?  Why does someone have to do it?  Are there no other recourses?

[california boy]

Ok. I have said enough on this subject.  If people don't get that while I believe there should be no tolerance for sexual aggression, further posts are not going to make that any more clear.  I have had women become very sexually aggressive to me.  Mostly making it clear that their aggression was unwanted and inappropriate, has been enough.  Where appropriate, the aggression should be reported to the authorities.  Certainly a mission president in the case of missionaries.  And that missionary should be sent home immediately.  There should be a no tolerance policy.  What I don't believe is that as Elder Packer said in his conference talk, someone has to do it, deck someone for inappropriate actions.  This isn't about gender, race, or sexual orientation.  Sexual assaults should never be tolerated or excused.  

This discussion has been quite enlightening to me.  You have all been quite open in your acceptance of Elder Packer's remarks and still think it is acceptable and appropriate advice even today.  Good to know.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've been hit on before. He smiled and was a smooth talker. He asked me out. I didn't punch him. I said "no, thank you." It worked great.

I imagine it did, and that is my go-to as well. There are situations where I would deck him, which I have not personally had to do. Sometime around 1967-68, my brother had to once as a teenager when a young adult supervisor in the boy's summer camp kitchen began touching him. It was not simply because the man was gay.

Now that I think of it, Elder Packer's talk is a bit about self-defense in a way.

Edited April 25, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course.  NO one should put up with someone forcing them to commit immoral acts.  What does this have to do with my posts.  I think I have made that perfectly clear.

As did Elder Packer. Glad to see you two on the same page!

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok. I have said enough on this subject.  If people don't get that while I believe there should be no tolerance for sexual aggression, further posts are not going to make that any more clear.  I have had women become very sexually aggressive to me.  Mostly making it clear that their aggression was unwanted and inappropriate, has been enough.  Where appropriate, the aggression should be reported to the authorities.  Certainly a mission president in the case of missionaries.  And that missionary should be sent home immediately.  There should be a no tolerance policy.  What I don't believe is that as Elder Packer said in his conference talk, someone has to do it, deck someone for inappropriate actions.  This isn't about gender, race, or sexual orientation.  Sexual assaults should never be tolerated or excused.  

This discussion has been quite enlightening to me.  You have all been quite open in your acceptance of Elder Packer's remarks and still think it is acceptable and appropriate advice even today.  Good to know.

I understand you do not condone sexual aggression. But yes, his advice is appropriate then and now: we must vigorously resist to protect ourselves from inappropriate actions, and we must not omit flooring someone as a possible, justifiable option pending the circumstances.

Edited April 25, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Exactly.  And this is why I have such a problem with Elder Packer's remarks.  Elder Packer seems to be implying that he can't deck others, but it is perfectly fine that you did it, because someone HAD to do it. Had to do it?  Why does someone have to do it?  Are there no other recourses?

It wouldn't be well for a GA to deck an offender for someone who could do it himself. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It wouldn't be well for a GA to deck an offender for someone who could do it himself. 

That is not what he meant at all.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

most of us can not even imagine Christ decking someone.

Really?  a whip is much more damaging then a fist I am guessing.  And I can so see Christ putting a predator out cold if he could not stop him with words.  I don’t see him doing stuff halfway and my guess is he could do it without fear of permanently damaging the predator, so it would be temporary pain anyway.  This is a person we believe drowned a mass of people for their immorality.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Calm

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Really?  a whip is much more damaging the a fist I am guessing.  And I can so see Christ putting a predator out cold if he could not stop him with words.  I don’t see him doing stuff halfway and my guess is he could do it without fear of permanently damaging the predator, so it would be temporary pain anyway.  This is a person we believe drowned a mass of people for their immorality.

Good point.

[longview]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Tried to find the link or the quote but was unsuccessful.  Maybe you can help me out.

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

No.  It is up to the perpetrator.  He/she could escalate or back off.

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How do you feel about the "Oscar Slap"?

Hilarious.  And sad.  I am sure he wishes he could have handled it differently.