No, not in terms of Boyd's own personal habits (thank goodness!)
But we are all familiar with "To Young Men Only" and the extremely heavy-handed (no pun intended) treatment the issue of masturbation received from Packer (males only, of course - 'sweet spirits' would never do something as disgusting).
I often wonder why Packer pursued this issue so very tenaciously.
1) Was it just that he wanted some kind of 'legacy'? To leave his mark (again, no pun intended) on The Leadership?
Was it all just jockeying for position and rising through the ranks?
If so, that raises another question:
2) If he had been here today and known and seen the sheer damage this has caused to so many individuals worldwide, would he do the same thing again?
(Personally, I think he would, because he was a totally self-serving, amoral little sh*te).
There sure were a lot of puns for not intending to put them there...:)
My experience in life shows me that, most often, somebody who's ranting against some "sin" is doing it themselves. The pattern plays out over and over and over again. Old Boyd, IMHO, couldn't resist spanking his monkey. Infrequently or three times daily, I don't know. But he couldn't resist. And felt super guilty about his own failing, so he did all he could to spread that same guilt around to everyone else. To make all church boys feel as miserably guilty about it as he did.
Misery loves company.
I find solace in the fact that Boyd's flagellation of young men (as well as his self-flagellation) has ceased.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There sure were a lot of puns for not intending to > put them there...:)
Actually, they genuinely weren't added-in deliberately.
> But he couldn't > resist. And felt super guilty about his own > failing, so he did all he could to spread that > same guilt around to everyone else. To make all > church boys feel as miserably guilty about it as > he did. > > Misery loves company.
It is such an enourmous pity he was in a position of responsibility where his own personal issues could affect so very many others.
It also shows why this 'church' is so dangerous to innocent people.
Personally I believe that Packer's motivations were very dark but I'm not sure the best psychiatrist in the world could even begin to guess the workings of his mind.
Packer had a mean streak to him. He knew all boys masturbate but he got a kick out of making them feel guilty. He also went around the first presidency and demanded that some BYU faculty be excommunicated for teaching the THEORY of evolution. These were good members of the church and Packer went right to their stake presidents. Basically don't mess with me or I will make you look bad infant of your family and church peers. He was a real asshole and far from being a christlike person.
> He was a real asshole and far from being a > christlike person.
He really sounds like an out-and-out sadist. Not merely doing what he did because it got him places, but because he actually enjoyed the infliction of misery.
Someone went and complained to Dallin H Oaks about Elder Packer going around the first presidency on an excommunication. Maybe it was Steve Benson. Someone here years ago posted about it. The answer they got from Oaks was you can't stage manage a grizzly bear. Meaning it's best to let it go because we don't want the membership to know we don't always agree. So the church will excommunicate members in good standing and do nothing about it even if it violates the church's own protocol because it might make the church look bad. The image of the church is more important than a member of the church.
I was 14 yrs. old at the priesthood meeting when he first gave that talk. I didn't even know what masturbation was exactly at the time even though I had been doing for a while, because JUST ABOUT EVERYONE DOES! After that talk I thought I was some kind of pervert doing something just this side of murder. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE BIGGEST MINDF*CK OF MY LIFE!!
Finally some where in my mid-20s I kind of sorted it out to the degree that I could keep my sanity about it. I think I went six yrs. in there where I didn't masturbate (may be close to a world record).
When I married my returned missionary TBM wife she confessed to me she had a one-night tryst with a man a few years before. I think I felt about 10 times more guilty about whacking off than she did about fornicating! That's how guilty I felt about it even though I had figured out that people just continue to do it no matter how many times they may confess to the bishop, etc. I stopped confessing it, because it seemed silly.
Talk about a mindf*ck! I now have a happy, healthy, guilt-free sex life with my wonderful girlfriend who has a very high libido. I found heaven and I didn't even need to die to get there!
If you can control someone's sexuality, you can control that person. I think it's a group behavior to dominate others - just pack(ard) mentality, that's all. I have often thought about visiting his grave so I can urinate on it. I have alpha male instincts too, after all.
George Q Cannon, an Apostle and member of the first presidency under Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow taught thst 90 percent of apostates left the church because of "Lustful Thoughts"
My goodness, his factory talk goes hand in hand SWK's "Miracle that you'll ever Forgive yourself". Here I grew up with the bizarre assumption that these leaders were somehow spiritual giants having conversations with God. And after watching the leaked videos of their meetings, they're just crabby old men that have no idea what the hell is going on.
Maybe they sat around there conference room and had a bragging contest of how asexual they really are.
"Ok, the lowest number of times that you've made love is 6 times. Can anyone go lower?"
before Boyd K. Packer was Mark E. Petersen. You make a valid point. WHY would anyone volunteer for such duty unless they were a pathological piece of garbage.
I always thought Boyd had picked up the mantel once Mark E. was gone. I will never forget Peterson's his recommendations of tying one hand to the bed post, getting up and making a sandwich, or sleeping with the book of Mormon. Hysterically funny now.
Boyd just wasn't clever enough to come up with his own platform, cause, and so he borrowed Mark E. Peterson"s.
Oh, don't forget the one about eating the worms or whatever that one was.
Here's a link to a group mocking Mark E. Petersen guidelines for overcoming masturbation. The comments are hysterical, but the suggestions for how to not masturbate by Petersen are off the charts. SNL should be so funny.
From that thread, a quote from Robert Baden-Powell, founder of Boy Scouts of America:
"A very large number of the lunatics in our asylums have made themselves ill by indulging in this vice although at one time they were sensible cheery boys like any one of you.
The use of your parts is not to play with when you are a boy but to enable you to get children when you are grown up and married. But if you misuse them while young you will not be able to use them when you are a man: they will not work then.
Remember too that several awful diseases come from indulgence - one especially that rots away the inside of men's mouths, their noses, and eyes etc."
So Boyd & company weren't even original or "inspired." They just believed that Baden-Powell was a prophet.
Because, clearly, whacking off makes you insane, unable to have children, and gives you syphilis. :)
My take is that Boyd chose something that everybody did, then vilified it to instill feelings of guilt and unworthiness. Why would he do this? Making people feel guilty and unworthy are all about shaming and mind control.
I was late when I walked into my CA stake center in 1976 when this talk was given. Every guy, young and old, was staring at their shoes. Pretty soon, I was staring at my shoes. I believed Elder Packard was speaking directly to me. I felt that everyone else was clean and worthy.
Knowing what I know not, I doubt that anyone in attendance hadn’t wacked it several times earlier that week. The Stake President’s Boner.
The more I think about this the more I think that there was a touch of the sociopath about Packer. He really didn't care what he said or did and the impacts it may have on others just as long as it got him what *he* wanted.
Would he have done it again, knowing the distress it had caused worldwide? I have no doubt he would, if he thought it would be in the slightest advantageous for him.
It also illustrates why the Church is such a dangerous organisation; the negative impact - in many peoples' lives in extremis - it can have.
Does anyone think that the church was fearful that the church would lose its youth to the growing awareness to homosexuality?
I think the leaders all believed that it was a "rebellious" choice that a person chooses their sexual attractions. I think BKP's talk and the covert Evergreen BYU experiments go hand-in-hand in the church's unsuccessful efforts to fix their gay dilemma.
BTW, BKP gave an equally devastating talk involving music. He was a major influence that not only eliminated favorite hymns that weren't spiritual enough, but created suffocating correlated policies that ensured every SM would be miserable and drab. The current church handbook that details every possible FAQ that states that there will be ZERO variation in playing church hymns and NO classical music.
messygoop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone think that the church was fearful that > the church would lose its youth to the growing > awareness to homosexuality?
I'm not quite sure what "fearful that the church would lose its youth to the growing awareness to homosexuality" actually means.
Surely to goodness no one can *seriously* suggest that the Brethren really thought that if Youth became aware of the existence of homosexuality then they would instantly all have a craven desire to rush out immediately and try it for themselves?
Malignancy is one thing (and the Brethren were certainly that!) - rank stupidity is quite another. Surely. Surely??
> I think the leaders all believed that it was a > "rebellious" choice that a person chooses their > sexual attractions. I think BKP's talk and the > covert Evergreen BYU experiments go hand-in-hand > in the church's unsuccessful efforts to fix their > gay dilemma.
A choice? Rebelious or otherwise? In the light of all information and facts to the contrary? Though saying that, the Brethren were never ones to let facts get in the way of prejudices.
> BTW, BKP gave an equally devastating talk > involving music.
I'd quite forgotten about that. Thinking about it now, I'm not in the least bit surprised. Packer was a truly joyless individual. And in such a position of power as to ensure he made everyone else as miserable as he was, too.
The brethren taught that homosexuality was a choice, a sin and a crime. That was their rationale from the 1960s- 1990s. That's why so many members that did not feel the attraction to the opposite sex wrongfully suffered through depression and blamed themselves. Many members trusted that the church could help them overcome their shame. The church took advantage of their grief and abused them.
Of course, the prophets' thinking was crazy irrational, but if people don't follow the Mormon mold then the church doesn't grow. Just look at the awful advice given to sisters (like cl2) and then blame the women if they failed to attract their gay husbands. BKP and SWK gave horrible counsel and wrote a lot of garbage. They made faulty correlations regarding human behavior.
Why would you believe that shocking a person's private parts was going to change one's attraction?
I certainly grew up believing this. When I found out my boyfriend/future husband was gay, a "good" friend had read his talk "To The One" and told me to write to Boyd, so I did. I certainly found out that he didn't talk to God and that he was a sociopath.
I was not suicidal. I just wanted to cease to exist in those years and I thought for sure Boyd would give me answers. My sister and BIL were at my apartment when I got the letter. I had stayed home from work again as I was so so so so depressed. If my sister hadn't been there, I don't know what I would have done. I only let a few people read it. Just before I married my husband, I burned the letter and that was a huge mistake. I wish I had it. It nearly broke me. Or I was already broken.
The bishop assigned me to keep track of my boyfriend's masturbation habits as if we could just get him to stop masturbating, then we could change him to straight. I just told my boyfriend and one of his past boyfriends this on April 1st. My boyfriend didn't know this. I thought I told him. I didn't even know what masturbation was and I was 25 years old, although I had been asked if I masturbated from age 12 on up for every bishop interview including every 3 months for dance cards.
I only recently realized that I married my ex to survive as they were destroying me. Combined with all that and then my ex leaving me and he and his boyfriend emotionally abusing me for years, I don't know how I survived.
Oh, and I had the chapter on gays in miracle of forgiveness pretty much memorized. I used to tell people that I knocked on that damn door until I knocked it down.
> I certainly grew up believing this. When I found > out my boyfriend/future husband was gay, a "good" > friend had read his talk "To The One" and told me > to write to Boyd, so I did. I certainly found out > that he didn't talk to God and that he was a > sociopath.
I am not in the slightest bit surprised to hear you found him a sociopath. I realise this is a painful episode for you, but if you feel able to say just why you found him so, I would be interested (no - it's not 'morbid curiosity' ... I'd be genuinely interested as I have long thought this about the man, going simply on his public pronouncements etc). However, if you would not feel comfortable mentioning anything further, I fully understand.
> I was not suicidal. I just wanted to cease to > exist in those years
You have my deepest sympathies; I really do know and understand what that is like, myself. Horrible doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
> I burned the letter and that was a huge mistake. I > wish I had it. It nearly broke me. Or I was > already broken.
It is, as you say, a shame you burned it, even if only as a means of proving to the doubters who would be so certain that a man of god such as Boyd would never write such a thing etc.
> The bishop assigned me to keep track of my > boyfriend's masturbation habits as if we could > just get him to stop masturbating, then we could > change him to straight.
This is horribly intrusive. Someday I hope the Church - as an organisation - are going to be properly carpeted (and I mean legally) for their disgraceful acts.
> I had been asked if I > masturbated from age 12 on up for every bishop > interview including every 3 months for dance > cards.
It sounds like you were very unfortunate here; whilst the question was pretty much universally asked of males from 12 onwards, it is my understanding that it wasn't usual to ask females. I would certainly suspect prurient motives behind the question.
> I only recently realized that I married my ex to > survive as they were destroying me. Combined with > all that and then my ex leaving me and he and his > boyfriend emotionally abusing me for years, I > don't know how I survived.
Congratulations on surviving, which cannot have been easy at all.
This was back in 1984 or was it 1983. I sent a very heartfelt letter to Boyd as I was struggling with how to deal with this boyfriend/future husband. They had told me he was damned if he didn't change to straight, but no matter how much praying I did, how much fasting, how many blessings from the bishop, the reality was that I felt he was gay and would never change. I just wanted to believe he would be okay, that he could go out and find someone and be happy, and we could be friends for the rest of our lives.
I was sure that the GAs would only have to ask and they would have the answers and that maybe, just maybe they already had the answers so I could feel like he would be okay.
He told me I had no right to write to him, that he was too busy of a man to be bothered by me. He pretty much ripped me apart for taking up his precious time. One of the words that I read on here one day and it fit was "berated" me. It was worse than being berated. I couldn't understand why every time I caught a glimpse of that letter, I'd get a dark feeling, so I finally burned it. Tearing it up wasn't good enough. I had to burn it. I never showed it to my bf/ex. I was afraid to show it to people as I felt so horrible by how he made me feel.
I know it was him who sent him to me because my ex wrote to Monson some years later and we got a letter from his "secretary"--I can't think of the word. My word finding is really bad these days.
The letter from Boyd was signed in ink by Boyd.
The thing that shocks me is that here we are 35 years later and things haven't improved where gays are concerned (mormons like to pretend they have), but the lds church's policy on gays has gotten worse.
And of course the TBM FPS would be that Packer was such a great man that he "took time out of his busy schedule to personally respond to a member who was struggling in her marriage..."
cl2notloggedin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was back in 1984 or was it 1983.
Thank you for feeling comfortable enough to be able to enlighten us further on this matter. I realise it must be difficult to go over such ground.
> I was sure that the GAs would only have to ask and > they would have the answers and that maybe, just > maybe they already had the answers so I could feel > like he would be okay.
It was very unfortunate (to put it mildly) that you had to find out the reality was so far removed from this belief in such a brutal way.
> He told me I had no right to write to him, that he > was too busy of a man to be bothered by me. He > pretty much ripped me apart for taking up his > precious time
Hearing this does not surprise me at all. Sociopaths such as Packer invariably consider themselves naturally superior to others. They also have a universal sense of entitlement; they feel they are naturally entitled to 'respect' and praise and worship - and a sense of distance from the 'hoi-poloi' of the general populace. This makes them extremely toxic and very dangerous set of people; especially if they find themselves in positions of power and authority.
> The thing that shocks me is that here we are 35 > years later and things haven't improved where gays > are concerned (mormons like to pretend they have), > but the lds church's policy on gays has gotten > worse.
It won't. The Brethren are a set of very, very Conservative (with a capital 'C') old farts. Part of their inherent belief set is that anything other than heterosexuality is depraved, disgusting, warped totally un-natural and yes - actually downright 'evil'.
Those attitudes are not going to change. And it's the non-heterosexual members who suffer.
Nasty.
But thank you for being so open about your experiences.
(incidentally, I understand your position pretty well as I went through a Church Court after being idiot enough to 'confess' to being bisexual back in 1988).
was my "good" friend's father and he knew I didn't date, but still asked if necked and petted. I was talking about this with my sister some years ago and she said, "Remember how he would pause and glare at you after you said no to see if you would change your mind?"
So I was talking to her about this last week and she said that this bishop asked her if she participated in beastiality as a 12-year-old. All we could think was that my dad was a farmer, so maybe he thought we would be out on the farm doing the lambs. Hell.
My older sister said that he would ask the girls he knew dated if they got turned on if she and her boyfriend did things like sit next to each other in the car. The questions got more intrusive the more you dated or if you had dated the same guy for a longer time.
I'm too reserved to talk to others about this and never did talk to my classmates about it, but my sisters did.
This bishop was obviously a pervert. He died last summer. I rejoiced. He has gone on to his reward.
> So I was talking to her about this last week and > she said that this bishop asked her if she > participated in beastiality as a 12-year-old.
That is definitely unusual - and also quite alarming.
> My older sister said that he would ask the girls > he knew dated if they got turned on if she and her > boyfriend did things like sit next to each other > in the car. The questions got more intrusive the > more you dated or if you had dated the same guy > for a longer time.
Putting it crudely, this man was taking advantage of others simply so he could get his own sexual jollies.
This, in itself, is actually a form of sexual assault. It's mental rather than physical, which is why it is all too readily dismissed by many people. But at best, it's grubby, at worst it can have very negative effects on victims.
> This bishop was obviously a pervert.
Indeed.
And yet again it highlights the dangers of having such people in positions of power and authority over others, especially children/youth.
"Remember how he would pause and glare at you after you said no to see if you would change your mind?" ===============================================
Trying desperately to find something - anything - that can make one feel sub-human and so, serve as a pressure point.
"Do you fornicate?" "No."
"Petting?" "No."
"Bestiality?" "No."
(#). "Whack off? Are you a pudwhacker!?" "No."
"Alcohol? Do you partake?" "No."
"Dammit! Coffee? DO YOU DO COFFEE!?" "Well . . ." "A-HAH! You're going straight to hell, you unworthy worm" accompanied by the pious look of satisfaction and folded hands of a job well done.
Looking back, it's a total Lol. (Once couldn't help myself - cracked up in interrogation and - well, that was it. To the gulag.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2018 03:09PM by zenjamin.
Primary objective of the corporation is total control.
The most efficient method: keep humans in a state of perpetual fear, desperation, and hopelessness.
Getting Off is a tremendous reliever of anxiety hopelessness and worry - dopamine, oxytocin, endogenous cannabinoids, enkephalins pour into the mesolimbic reward centers and Life Is Mighty Fine. (Why, for a while, The Bretheren are Wonderfully Irrelevant.) Anything alleviating human misery defeats corporate strategy and is therefor counter to corporate objectives.
So don't bang him/her/it; and most certainly --- don't pull yer pud/dingle yer bingle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2018 10:35PM by zenjamin.
> Primary objective of the corporation is total > control. > > The most efficient method: keep humans in a state > of perpetual fear, desperation, and hopelessness. > > Getting Off is a tremendous reliever of anxiety > hopelessness and worry - dopamine, oxytocin, > endogenous cannabinoids, enkephalins pour into the > mesolimbic reward centers and Life Is Mighty Fine. > (Why, for a while, The Bretheren are Wonderfully > Irrelevant.) Anything alleviating human misery > defeats corporate strategy and is therefor counter > to corporate objectives.
The fact that Packer was more than happy to engage in such behaviours to further his own ends strongly suggests a total lack of moral compass on his part.
This only reinforces the view I have increasingly arrived at that Packer was, indeed, a sociopath.
The Church is a dangerous organisation when it has sociopaths daily 'engaging' in the lives of all its members.
The first step in controlling someone, assuming power over them, is to make them feel bad about themselves, to fell "less than" thereby instilling a need for your guidance/control as you establish yourself to be superior. Suddenly they need to repent, be absolved, or get clear or whatever the religious tactic du jour happens to be.
Easiest thing to makes someone feel bad about is to pick something very personal that would embarrass them tremendously. They mistake the embarrassment for shame, and you have them where you want them.
I'm not sure the Gerontocracy is smart enough to think this way on purpose, so it is probably just a natural "gift" they have.
Then pick something really petty, harmless, and ridiculous like coffee or tea as a sin and when they buckle under to that, you know you've sealed the deal. They are now putty in your hands.
"The first step in controlling someone, assuming power over them, is to make them feel bad about themselves, to fell "less than" thereby instilling a need for your guidance/control as you establish yourself to be superior. Suddenly they need to repent, be absolved, or get clear or whatever the religious tactic du jour happens to be." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo.
Looking back now, d'ja ever notice that -- while there was superficial relief to finally be "outta there" ---
After church services, there was always MORE apprehension/despondency/fear/hopelessness/inferiority/feeling bad about oneself than before going to those services?
The best part of being Mormon was always walking out the ward house doors after the meetings and into the sunshine on Sunday. The boring/droning/ phony/ sanctimonious indoctrination was over for a whole week! The rest of the day could still be beautiful.
I agree. I actually meant that to imply that they are the same, as in, you can become either by following the nasty control tactics above. Oh well. I guess may wording is off.
Remember, this guy once bragged or admitted at GC that he had called his own children "little monkeys" while they were playing or wrestling in the living room.
His daughter (I think) said "Daddy, we're not monkeys."