faith expressed in arrogance is bigotry

Lots of angst generated over the words spoken by President Boyd K. Packer during the last general conference of the LDS church. Most pundits would agree here that his rhetoric wasn’t anything new. It is the same hardline commitment the church has purported over decades.

It’s heartbreaking nonetheless to anyone to be told in no uncertain terms that they or those they love are a perversion, unnatural, that God does not make mistakes. Faith expressed in arrogance is bigotry. And so the protests, angry letters to editors, Facebook pages and fiery blogs.

What I’m fascinated with is that there was no outcry regarding Packer’s other bigoted remarks, or rather their omission.

In line with his inner-vessel-cleansing theme Packer talks about another perversion, one that has much more impact on families than homosexuality, and that is the influence of pornography.

It would be tough for anyone to say that porn does not have negative effects on relationships, like arguing that smoking cigarettes doesn’t have much to do with lung cancer. The empirical evidence is out there enough to prove that porn, like most vices, can even be addictive. (There’s also evidence out there that porn can have positive impacts on couples, but that’s for another post perhaps.)

But Packer shows some hope here when he states, “The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.”

The priesthood, the power and authority to act in the name of God on earth, is the answer, powerful enough to even erase addiction.

Somebody call Alcoholics Anonymous, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Sex Addicts Anonymous, heck, anyone who counsels addicted individuals, enslaved by whatever plague has them in its tenuous grip, and get them the priesthood.

Packer does not understand addiction. Addiction by its very nature cannot be erased. It can be controlled via twelve step programs and sponsors and group therapy and other devices, but anyone who claims that addiction can be erased at the very least does not understand addiction, or is trying to sell you something.

No specifics are offered here, no singing hymns, reciting articles of faith, just an admonition to “employ [the priesthood] to combat evil influences.”

Somehow I’m picturing hundreds of thousands of men sitting in front of their screens raising their arms to the square.

And that’s the problem. In the arrogance of the priesthood’s omnipotent affects, Packer rules out another class of the church’s constituency, a group segregated within its congregations long before it condoned polygamy. In fact, the bigotry against this powerful demographic can be traced back to the beginning of time in the Garden of Eden.

When god found Adam figged, so to speak, he asked Adam what was up with that and when it was discovered that Adam ate the fruit from the wrong tree Adam shifted his culpability and did what comes natural for many men, he blamed the woman.

Isn’t it, at the very least, curious that Packer makes no mention, no suggestion, not even a hint that if husbands are looking at porn that perhaps they ought to chat about it with their wives?

It’s this omission in his counsel that speaks to the discounted value, the bigotry of an institution, of women.

Instead men are counseled to go to men because the priesthood has consummate power. Better watch out for that double-entendre, president.

Wives are the stakeholders in any marriage, not the bishop, priest or rabbi. Wives (given that the vast majority of porn addicts are male) are the souls directly affected by their husband’s pornographic proclivity – the inherent comparisons alone are enough to wilt the strongest female self-concept. There is no other directly impacted player here, and yet Packer says it’s the priesthood that “holds consummate power.” I beg to differ. It’s the wife who holds consummate power by both the first and second definition of that word. And yet she is eliminated from alternatives to help men, their husbands, overcome the “plague” of pornography.

Are they just too delicate? Too naive? Is this a way of protecting women from the plague? Or is this some sort of good-ol-boy thing, one that women just wouldn’t understand?

I’m shaking my head. I am surrounded by strong women in all walks capable of asserting, assuaging, compassion, and vision, and even empathy when it comes to the passions of men. It is there that women work, it’s there where women heal. You’d think a church so hell-bent on marriage between the sexes would figure this out.

This entry was posted in Religion/Ideology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to faith expressed in arrogance is bigotry

  1. carmen says:

    I find it very interesting that you assume that President Packer was talking only to the men. Doesn’t that make you just as wrong as you are saying he is, making the assumption that he isn’t addressing his points to women as well? Aren’t you assuming that women are too delicate, too naive to have this addiction themselves? He specifically says in his talk that pornography enters the home “most frequently through the husband and father”, but that is not always and therefore is directing his words at everyone, not just the men. If he felt that men were the only ones with this problem and also felt that they just needed to “raise their hand to the square” to correct the issue, why would he feel the need to talk to the whole church about it? He could have spoken just in Priesthood session if he felt that the women were “too naive and too delicate” or if this was some “good ol boy thing, one the women just won’t understand”. I think you need to re-evaluate the perspective you are taking when reading or listening to this talk.

    • ImNoSaint says:

      Thank you for your comment.

      I believe the assumption to be yours. There’s nothing in this post that declares that Packer was only addressing men. What the post indicates is that women and their relational impact with their spouses were not included in his admonition in fighting the plague. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your perspective in reading this post.

  2. carmen says:

    Again, you state “women and their relational impact with their spouses” and not vice versa…..therefore making an assumption that he is talking to men. You are obviously just trying to find a fault that isn’t there.

    • ImNoSaint says:

      Again, Carmen, I don’t even allude to who Packer is addressing. I am stating that he overlooks the influence of the stakeholders of women involved in marriages where pornography is a problem.

      I do find fault with something that isn’t in Packer’s comments, that he has ignored the influence of women.

      I think you’re trying to find fault with me with something that isn’t in this post.

  3. carmen says:

    By the way, I whole heartedly agree with you that the spouse should be one of the main people included in the process of dealing with this type of addiction, or any addiction for that matter.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s