On October 2, 1976, Boyd K. Packer gave a speech about young men and their sexuality. He likened a boys reproductive organs to a "little factory" which if played with too much, makes more and more "product". He tells the young men that this product should only be "released" when properly married. He talks about ways to help young men who have already started the immoral habit of releasing product before marriage. He also includes a lot of anti-gay speech as well. "Don't let anyone play with your junk!"
This speech was made into a pamphlet and was widely distributed. Now, of course, the church has tried to make this bit of embarrasing history disappear.
An ex-Mormon recently found a copy of this pamphlet in an old box and was kind enough to scan it into a PDF file. It is available here:
http://jhuston.com/Boyd's_Little_Factory.pdf
Because of the apostrophe in the address, blogger thinks it is an invalid link and will not save it the way it is. Therefore, in order to view this page, you will have to highlight the address, copy it, and then paste it into your address bar.
In the event that you can't get it to work, or the pdf is no longer available, please e-mail me. I have saved a copy and will be happy to e-mail it to anyone who wants it.
Remember, the power of pro-creation is a special gift from god, but if you abuse it, you will go to hell!
11 comments:
I feel so bad for boys who live within the church and deal with this kind of thinking, plus those bishop interviews!
My husband has told me sad stories about all the guilt.
At least my little boy is out and won't have to deal with that kind of thinking.
Wow....
I love the part when he talks about "wet dreams". God he is such a boner.
Wow, you get rebuked for using your little factory out of turn, but the neighbor is praised for using "a few vigorous strokes of the shovel."
Kidding aside... that is seriously twisted, homophobic, and breeds a damaged way of thinking.
I'm glad people hung onto crap like this. It makes it harder for TSCC to gloss over unpopular stances that everyone was supposed to have forgotten by now.
As far as I know, this "unpopular stance" is still the norm. They just don't use Packers analogy. I clearly remember being asked by bishops if I masturbate. And my very TBM mother taught me that it was a sin. As you all probably know, any type of sexual activity outside of marriage is strictly forbidden and strongly frowned upon. Without going into too much detail, this type of thinking produces some very sexually confused people. The result is a state with the highest porn consumers in the nation and every single one of them denying that they look at it.
Definitely one of the victims of the pamphlet here. Fortunately, nature triumphed over nurture and the production lines kicked out plenty of widgets and eventually overcame the guilt for clearer thinking. Packer is a douche....since at least 1976!!!!
Montello, sorry to hear about that. This pamphlet was a few years before my time, but it's effects are long lasting. It really makes me wonder just how many lives have been affected and how many boys have grown up thinking they are scum becuase they can't stop playing with themselves. It really fucks with the mind. I really wonder how they sleep at night.
This issue was one of the last things to push me over the edge. When it comes to my kids I will stand at nothing to keep them safe, and that includes mentally.
How dare a bishop or leader question and guilt my child over this! My TBM BIL said it builds character. What??????
Yeah, I know they still ask the masturbation question, but blatant homophobia they don't let slide so much (they prefer subtle homophobia now). Fortunately when given the floor, Packer still spouts the same anti-gay rhetoric. They got rid of this general conference talk pamphlet the same way they edited his last GC talk in the Ensign.
It makes me wonder why the guy is still a GA. I mean, everything he says is edited and/or dismissed. If it's so inspired, why is that the case? Can't god get it right?
People may have misread Packer's words. While he counsels against masturbation, he also says that it is not something that will cause God to reject a person. That should be a great comfort to many. He also relates a story where an apparent sexual assault was repelled by a missionary flooring his companion. Unfortunately, Packer does not give more detail so his enemies are free to assume the worst about what he said. For man in his position and with his faith, he gave very good counsel to those he was trying to reach, young men who want to be faithful Latter-day Saints. If you don't share that faith, you can disagree without being disagreeable.
Mark, I am the enemy and therefore am being disagreeable. Love your logic.
Everything about biology that Packers talks about in this pamphlet is wrong. He claims that masturbation causes the male body to produce more sperm, and the more that is produced, the greater the urge to release it. This is incorrect. The male begins producing sperm at puberty whether he masturbates or not.
The urge to masturbate is not caused by the amount of sperm being produced, but by dopamine, a "drug" of the brain. This same drug is also what gives us the urge to eat and other similar things. This is why overeating can lead to addiction, just like masturbation and porn use can.
So if masturbation is not something that will cause god to reject a person, why counsel against it? No, all I ever remember in the church is guilt, guilt, guilt. On the mission, we were constantly told that masturbating would cause the spirit to leave us and that we wouldn't be effective missionaries if we did it.
There is nothing "comforting" about being guilt ridden by the "bretheren" regarding masturbation. Nothing. It is a normal process and a young man or woman should not be made to feel guilty and sinful by doing it.
Masturbation has even been shown to have health benefits, such as lowering the risk of prostate cancer in men. It is also true, however, that masturbation coupled with excessive porn use can greatly decrease the libido and cause erectile dysfunction.
Post a Comment