Here is an educatred guess about the psychology of Boyd Packer's infamous remarks recently about gays. My POV is that of a never-Morg who's got a background in the behavioral sciences and who reads a lot in that field.

I suspect that Packer might be one of those people who have difficulty dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty. There are lots of such folks, and intolerance of ambiguity or uncertainty is definitely not an aberrant or abnormal condition, and ttbomk is not strongly associated with education or any other demographic characteristic. In fact, it's quite common.

If you know what to listen for, tt's easy to hear this quality. For example, listen carefully to the ravings of fundy "pastors" on "Kristian radio". You will hear a constant stream of either/or statements--"if it isn't X, then it must be Y"--with no admission of uncertainty or ignorance of "god's will". Similarly, political extremists and demagogues do it (probably because such dismissal of uncertainty may appeal to followers of demagogues.) At one point, some years ago, there was even a standard psychological instrument (paper-and-pencil test) for measuring ambiguity.

Moreover, Catholic theology, for example, recognizes the sin of ambiguity intolerance. In Catholicism, it's called Manicheanism. (I hate to appear to be praising the Catholic church, which obviously has its own set of problems. And I am certainly not a Catholic.)

Not all religions show such ambiguity intolerance. It's similarly easy to hear, among the more educated and mature and confident members of almost any mainstream denom, statements admitting that on this or that puzzling theological question, "we just don't know."

Mormon "theology" is a ridiculous bunch of conflicting assertions, even more ridiculous than, say, Christian or Catholic theology, with of course no external evidencle supporting them. Boyd is obviously someone who's swallowed Morg theology whole. Folks like that believe with all their heart (or more accurately, all their gut) that , god does only good things; thus, to say that god created gay people that way (as, for example, the Catholic church all but admits) is ridiculous. Boyd clearly is unable to say "it's unclear, we just don't know." To make such an admission is to open yourself up to all sorts of doubt and discussion of things; once you allow the uneducated masses (i.e., Mormons, in the eyes of the leadership) to start thinking in that way, you lose control ofthem.

I'm aware of Boyd's history of making ridiculous statements, and I suspect that a look back at his more absurd statements with this idea in mind would show quite a bit of ambiguity intolerance.

I hope he becomes President of the church. He's a very authoritarian guy, so will be a big embarrassment to the church, and the nature of organizational behavior means that as top dog no one will dare criticize him for his remarks; thus, they will become increasingly nutty, and none of the folks on the level just below will be so foolish as to point out a problem with anything he says. When folks like Packer become top dog in any organization, the folks at the next level down usually recognize how dangerous it can be to dissent or disagree from what the top guy says.

ignore this post.

I was going to ask you what ttbomk meant, but the urban dictionary tells me it's "to the best of my knowledge".

Nice post. Carry on.

Mutt, I think you make many excellent points.

To expand somewhat on your points, it seems to me that in some ways, *for some people*, living autonomously (i.e. making your own choices, taking responsibility for them) in a democracy is inherently stressful: with all those choices, how can you know you're making the "right" one, the one the authorities (in a general sense) would approve of, and not making some "sinful" choice?

(NOTE: a propos of this: Mormons admire Jews. Some of those infamous Orthodox Jewish communities in upstate New York (Monsey etc) have voting patterns in which residents have voted overwhelmingly for one candidate. That sure suggests to me that someone tells them how to vote.)

And it's a fundamental force in authoritarianism. One source with all the perfect answers. It makes both leading and following easier.

It also makes living easier. No need to think about things. No need to negotiate. No need to make allowances. No need to tolerate. No need to question your own judgment or your place in the big picture. Just hold to the delusional rod. That's the "freedom" Mormonism preaches. Freedom from worry-inducing thought. Freedom from ever feeling wrong or responsible.

So when BKP insists homosexuality can be cured, he's essentially saying it's not his problem, it's not something he has to accommodate. It's THEIR problem, one they could fix if they weren't so caught up in sin, the weaklings. And he's essentially saying to the faithful, "Come, join me in this happy land where you can ignore homosexuality and a lot of other things, where your discomfort with reality can be dressed in holy robes and renamed Righteousness."

Mutt: Oops, my comments to you appear above out-of-sequence. Sorry.

>“From my childhood, obedience was something I could not get out of my system. When I entered the armed service at the age of twenty-seven, I found being obedient not a bit more difficult than it had been during my life to that point. It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders.”

>“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think.”

One of the biggest challenges of leaving Mormonism is accepting uncertainty as a part of life. Mormons have all the answers (even if most of them are wrong).

My mom still asks me, "So what do you believe if you don't believe in the church?" As if I have to fill the void with more religious dogma. She is puzzled by my admission that I don't know and that I seem fine with such an answer.

..."Everyone needs to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer."

In my case, I believe I'll be fine.

I'm very leery of this idea of "self loathing". We've seen plenty of examples of politicians (which Boyd certainly is, even if not an elected official) making hateful remarks about gays to divert attention from their own situation. And I believe strongly in Occam's Razor, which states that in trying to understand some phenomoenon, it's preferable to start with the simplest explanation--which in this case is not "self loathing", but "diversion".

It's certainly *possible* that Boyd is a closeted homosexual, and made those remarks as an attempt to divert attention from himself. But if that were in fact the case, by now, given his age and prominence, I'm fairly confident that there would be some sort of proof.

Boyd K Packer is a closeted, self-loathing homosexual, and this is well-known among LDS elites. Packer's psychology is the same as Ted Haggard's, Roy Cohn's, Catholic Priest child-rapists, or any number of religious closet-cases who projected their self-hatred onto the LGBT community.

Boyd Packer's psychology is basic: all his life he has "chosen" to act hetero, he therefore thinks sexuality is a choice. But since he must struggle with pain every night that he live a lie, Packer also projects his self-hatred onto others.

Gotta say I knew Scott Card at BYU and I always wondered about his tendencies. He's quite Packer-like in his vitrolic condemnation of gays.

Anyone know if Card is married?

Married with the requisite kids, but that says 0 about his tendencies, ask any gay mormon.

I think it's a mistake to try and climb into the heads of those who don't share what's inside. Instead, we should just look at their behavior. This is what I learned from my internet romance disaster. If it acts like a giant gaping asshole, it's a giant gaping asshole. It is not what it says it is, or what I want to believe it is or once was or could be in different circumstances, or what I think I would be if I were standing in its shoes.

People here are always speculating about what various Mormon church leaders are or were thinking, when their behavior says, "I'm a big fat ridiculous power animal" or "I'm a giant gaping asshole."

This is how people get scammed, by making assumptions about others' motives and intentions.

By the way, I have low ambiguity tolerance according to several different assessments, and yet here I am with one of the longest times away from Mormonism on the board. I never even really believed it and certainly didn't like it.

I think it takes a lot of ambiguity tolerance to be a Mormon, because you never get a straight answer to anything ... unless, of course, you ask if you should pay tithing.

:-)

Munchy, there's lots of wisdom and insight in your message, but I think one thing you said would benefit from some clarification.

You state "I think it takes a lot of ambiguity tolerance to be a Mormon, because you never get a straight answer to anything ... unless, of course, you ask if you should pay tithing."

To this, I'd say "yes and no". In a sense, or on a superficial level, there are very few ambiguities: the church tells you what the answer is, period, so shut your damn mouth and stop with all those silly questions, you think too much anyway, etc.

OTOH, the ambiguity lies in the fact that the answers provided so often do not actually address the real issue, and in fact are intended to deflect attention and interest from the real, underlying issue.s

What an interesting contrast this is to Judaism, so admired by the church! In particular, a famous Talmudic scholar, Adin Steinsaltz, has stated "the view of the Talmud is that there is no such thing as a question that should not be asked."

The clarity is only superficial. If you're inclined to think, as I am, it gets ambiguous.

I was surprised to learn I have low ambiguity tolerance ... AND low capacity for complexity. But then I'm also being measured against top executives, so maybe I have more than the average Mormon.

munchybotaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's a mistake to try and climb into the
> heads of those who don't share what's inside.
> Instead, we should just look at their behavior.

I often say this. I think it's fair game to analyze and comment on someone's behaviour, but there's no way we can see inside their heads and interpret their motives and thoughts. I see people doing so and then seeming to believe that their analysis is fact or proof, when really it can only be their own impression. Behaviour does indicate a lot about a person but not their thoughts or even motives, imho.

We can speculate about Packer and his unfortunate pronouncements but that's different from concluding fact. Words and behaviour, though, are enough to figure out whether he's someone we like or would want to follow or emulate or accept as a messenger from God, definitely.

munchy:
> This is what I learned from my internet romance
> disaster. If it acts like a giant gaping asshole,
> it's a giant gaping asshole. It is not what it
> says it is, or what I want to believe it is or
> once was or could be in different circumstances,
> or what I think I would be if I were standing in
> its shoes.

I missed this story, if you shared it. Sounds brutal.

I like how you express your opinions! Very entertaining and affirming and vicariously satisfying. :)


I too enjoyed reading this thread. My comments aren't meant to indicate that we shouldn't engage in this type of discussion, but just that psychoanalysis, especially by laypersons, is not an exact science. The best way to know what someone is thinking or what their motive is would be to have them explain it. Otherwise, we can draw our own conclusions but just remember it's likely to be our impression, not absolute fact.

Nightingale, you've got it exactly! Well-stated.

Thanks all for all the good information.

Agreed - interesting thread. I'd like to see more posts from thedocumentor.

;o)

Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps I'll post more here. I'm very impressed by the quality of all the threads in this discussion (and in one other that I started the same time I started this one--do a search of the site.)

I live away from the Morg, and have not had that much contact with them, tho I do spend a fair amount of time among them (seasonally). Mainly, I'm a curious person with some knowledge of behavioral science, and an appreciation for the scientific method and science culture; that informs a lot of my thinking and writing.

Packer sounds angry with gays. Why? Why would he be angry with gays, even to the point of recommending that they be physically harmed?

Could he be angry because they haven't mastered their wicked, worldly lusts? In the way that HE mastered his wicked, worldly lusts?

Yes, I think the anger is the key: why so angry at gays? After all, if "we're all sinners", then they are no different from anyone else, just "sins" that most people do not have.

(NOTE: I'm not so thrilled with the idea of "we're all sinners". That's manipulative. Better to say "we are all imperfect.")

I've had a number of conversations about this board with a friend of mine, a retired licensed addictions counselor, and when I've described LDS "excesses" and the board's dynamics, he always nods sagely and says, "Shame is like that."

Documentor, you might explore the works of John Bradshaw, Patrick Carnes, Charlotte Davis Kasl, and others regarding "toxic shame" and its impact on the patterns of behavior such as BKP manifests.

"Frozen shame" is at the root of the self-loathing referred to above (and I have no idea whether Packer is a closet gay or not); LDS upbringings with their rigid, perfectionistic and moralistic expectations are absolute cesspools for breeding toxic shame, and elevating a man like Packer to a position of authority where he is supposedly inspired (in spite of at least the subconscious realization that he isn't, and his inner demons telling him he's "never going to be good enough") becomes a catalyst for the angry, controlling diatribes he spouts.

Too, as you note, "Packer might be one of those people who have difficulty dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty" is characteristic of the sort of "fundamental immaturity" (i.e. developmental arrest) that is part-and-parcel to Mormonism.

More mature people realize their own limitations and are not terrified to utter the words, "I don't know" when confronted with ambiguity.

Shame, however, hides its existence from conscious awareness when it becomes extreme, and a whole host of behaviors, defenses, and projections operate to keep it from intruding into ordinary thought processes.

Cabbie, your ideas re shame are intriguing and look (at first glance, anyway) useful for understanding Packer (et al).

Some of my best friends from childhood have come out of the closet. The gay people I know didn't choose to be gay and in fact would love not to be gay because life would be easier but they just are. I think a guy like Packer is gay and has had a long-term internal conflict with it his whole life. Such people tend to go after the open homosexuals hard due to their frustration.

Rubicon, as you point out, NO ONE chooses to be gay, and life as a gay person is obviously not easy (not that I would know from first-hand experience).

My knowledge of the research thus far is that (1) it appears very strongly that homosexuality is a fundamental personality aspect for some people, and is either unchangeable or is very difficult to change; and (b) the research data thus far, showing that homosexuality is genetic or otherwise "physical" or biological, is far from clear, tho it is suggestive.

The fact that Packer brought this up at all, shows what a nasty person he is. Was he so unable to find some behavior he did not like that was more significant, more important, than homosexuality? Our society faces so many problems, and ranting against gays was the best he could do. For shame!

Has shown that the "gay gene runs in families" and is likely inherited maternally... A large number of gay men have one or more gay uncles, and curiously, they also tend to have an older brother, which points to possible in utero factors that further "complicate" matters... Tom Clark, who used to post here extensively, has put up this information in the past...

Studies of genetic factors are still very much in the toddler stage, as it is with the "addiction gene" which runs rampant in certain families (mine, for example, although I don't know of any gay individuals other than a lesbian several generations back. BTW, younger sister is an MD at a university doing research on this stuff, so I get reports from time to time). I've reviewed the research of Native Americans, where alcoholism rates in some tribes run 50%, and when I've "superimposed" those findings over material Simon Southerton has posted here regarding how "population bottlenecks" create high incidences of certain genetic factors in generations far down the line, it becomes clear that genes and gene expression are involved in some manner even if the exact mechanisms are unidentified at this point.

Finally, LDS attitudes toward gays are absolutely barbaric. One can find videos on the Internet from gay men who underwent electroshock therapy of their genitals to "change" their orientation, and I still consider it my proudest achievement on RFM that I "broke" a story here about a girl who was also electroshocked as well. This very gentle lady--who'd had a few--has been a customer in my cab several times, and on the first occasion when I inquired whether the other fare--who'd gone to get money to pay me--was her partner, disclosed that they had "attached electrodes to her private parts," shown her nude photos of women, and shocked her when she responded.

To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time a woman had "come forward" and reported that their gender had been "treated" as well.

My ability to remain articulate has deserted me... Fuck the Deseret News and its "same sex attraction" horseshit. Fuck their "call for civility" in discussions; maybe a little swearing will get their attention....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 06:03PM by SL Cabbie.

Many studies have shown that attitudes of older folks are far more negative than their younger counterparts. Packer, as well as most of the top 15 in the leadership of TSCC have attitudes shaped during a by-gone days when gays and sex generally was not a taopic to be discussed without fear of tredding into sinful territory. The fact that these attitudes have also been entrenched in traditional Christianity re-inforces the conviction that these attitudes are correct. TSCC has had a lot of difficulty because the traditional values of yesteryears get held over with aging authoritarian leaders. We have discussed here before how the church remains about 20 to 30 years behind the times. I believe this is due in part because of the age of the Mormon leadership coupled with the great authority they are supposed to have over the membership.

It's certainly true (as we know from polls) that the attitudes of younger folks are less rigid, nasty, authoritarian, etc than those of older folks.

However, note this refers to *aggregate* data--that is, "a number representing a large [one hopes] number of people polled." IOW, hidden in that "summary number" there are almost certainly lots of young folks whose attitudes are NOT as liberal as their peers. And I suspect that a disproportionate number of those are probably "traditionally conservative believers"--Morg, evangelicals, authoritarian Catholics, etc.

Despite what the heads of conservative churches would have people believe, religions DO change their views over time, usually in response to pressure. TSCC is like that, too, tho we can expect its views to change very slowly.

NOTE: I've long believed that this is the "semi hidden" meaning of the story of Moses leading the jews through the desert for 40 years: such a time period allows the older views to die out (as the population ages), and younger people, with different views, to replace the older folks and views.

I've heard this theory explained on a program recently discussing the story of Moses. There may even be a passage in the Bible where God refers to those who left Egypt as remembering what it was like being slaves and that such a self concept was unfit (or something like that) for living in the Promised Land. My scriptural knowledge of this story isn't as good as some others in the Bible but I recall someone on the program saying something to this effect. It may have been commentary from their experts and not a passage from the scripture.

I don't know if it's because religion is attractive to black and white thinkers or because religion encourages and fosters black and white thinking on members.

Of course the more fundamental the religion the more likely you'll find dogmatic people.

I would guess that the more dogmatic, and the more rigid, the denomination, the more B+W thinking there is.

Seems to me that folks in some denoms are capable of nuanced thinkg--Unitarians, liberal Catholics, reform Jews, liberal Lutherans, etc--while folks in others, have trouble.

Mormonism strikes me as a tricky one to characterize, because I suspect that mormons learn quite early on expressing public dissent has only negative value, can only get you into trouble. So tho Mormons so often seem not to question, my guess is that there may be more questioning than we see--tho certainly not a lot.

That produces and "fixes" the dichotomous thinking...

Such thinking has "survival value," buying one membership in the "larger tribe" and it is collectively reinforced from the top down.

To "categorize Mormonism" I would suggest the conditioning is extreme and descends to the minutiae of "beliefs" that occur because members are literally "smothered in them" from an early age on. I've been dialoguing a bit with a Mormon friend who's reasonably intelligent, and I repeatedly encounter "thought stopping platitudes" that would each require debunking (via Albert Ellis's principles of R.E.T.) if I were to engage in any attempts to effect meaningful changes or insights.

The LDS propaganda machine is a fearful operation...

I have met several individuals who, by most accounts, should be loving, forgiving, positive happy people but are NOT. The reverse is also true: people who should be hateful and vitriolic given their background, circumstance and personal beliefs, but are NOT.

It boggles the mind how it makes no sense whatsoever when I try to see the rationale or principle behind their behavior. In relation to me, I try to adjust behavior to their expectation or at least verbally agree, and they're STILL giant, gaping assholes, even more so.

My personal conclusion (so much unlike Packer's) is that people are BORN that way. Some people are just inclined toward asshole-ism and sociopath patterns of behavior from infancy.

My experiences as well.