Pete Dunn,
WOW! Why are you so concerned over this matter? If you really want a copy go ask a bishop. You are so paranoid over such small issues. Ease up!

I am writing this not to fight or argue with you just to share my opinion and give you something to reply to that isn't saying your going to hell. :) I just read your blog on the subject of "to Young Men Only" I was a little dismayed about your attituted toward this talk. It seems you are more concerned about the fact that there is not immediate access to the talk online or in an ensign than in the talk itself...as if we are trying to hind it from you. I dont feel that you have a true desire to find the talk to benefit any young boy because if you did you would just go to a bishop and get it (even thought you are not a member of the church - per your blog home page) you can still go see a bishop, or you can send your wife to get one.
After thinking and reading the blog a second time - kinda hard to follow the first time - the only thought that came to my mind is the following... the set of the sail not the gale determines the course of the ship. I dont think I have the quote completely correct but I hope you understand what I am trying to say - if you are looking for the negative you will find it. If I have misunderstood you intentions I truly appoligize for the misunderstanding and hope you will not take it personally for i am not trying to attack you in any way. I hope you all the best in your all your endevores.

A friend,
Mark

Mark,

I would never try to find this talk for the benefit of helping a young man. Anyone reading the pamphlet should immediately recognize that it's a load of crap full of inaccuracies and guilt-trips.

I am most interested in knowing what it is about this particular talk that sets it apart in such a way as to be excluded from publication anywhere except in bishop-circulated pamphlet form. My suspicion is that because it is so laughably inaccurate, it was excluded from the normal publication mediums. It is still however so effective in guilting young men into shame about their own natural functions that the church can't help but continue using it.

Guilt is great for the church. If they can convince you that something is wrong with you then they can convince you that they have the cure. Genius.

... and it's amazing the kind of stuff you can find on the Internet... especially on the sites that exist to disprove the doctrine of the LDS Church.

I am curious, though, that you make the accusation: "Anyone reading the pamphlet should immediately recognize that it's a load of crap full of inaccuracies and guilt-trips," though you seem to have only read it a long time ago and haven't found it since...

Either way, here's the link:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

Enjoy...

I think I might be able to answer your question. The Packer address was given in the Priesthood session of general conference, which means that it was only intended for the male members of the church to hear.

My memory may be faulty because I left the church a very long time ago, but I think it was never the practice of the church to publish addresses from the Priesthood session of General Conference in the conference issue of The Ensign.

I could very well be mistaken, too. But I must note that it's pretty funny to see the bureaucratic runaround the church is giving you as you pursue this question.

best,

Have they ever published anything remotely sexual in the Ensign?
I think Bill is spot on. This would have to be an issue that was discussed in the Priesthood portion of Conference.
"Guilt is great for the church. If they can convince you that something is wrong with you then they can convince you that they have the cure."
Amen Brother Pete.

There is no conspiracy. The Church made it clear why it was not published in the Ensign. The Following link should answer your question. It is an excellent talk. President Packer teaches correct principles that are essential for parents and young men.

Elder Boyd K. Packer Conference Address

“Elder Boyd K. Packer Conference Address,” Ensign, Dec. 1976, 79

The recent October conference address of Elder Boyd K. Packer, given in the priesthood session of conference, has been published as a pamphlet to be distributed to bishops for further distribution to parents of young men. Elder Packer’s address was not included in the November Ensign’s conference report by determination of the First Presidency. The address was a sensitive treatment of the important subject of chastity.
Available at: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM10...

Rest assured I had no intention of debating or arguing with you. I just wanted to know the specifics as to why you hated the article so much. I wish you well.

Sorry to post anonymously, Pete. I'm middle-aged now, but as a young mom I read this pamphlet (can remember it only vaguely now, many years and a whole new world later.) These days I'm not sure if it was this publication, or another intended as a sort of "family medical guide", also published by the Mormon church, that I'm thinking of. In one or the other, one inaccurate statement struck me very forcibly -- although no one else seemed to notice anything amiss. Something to the effect that wet dreams for boys were the equivalent of menstruation for girls --- wrong! Where did they get their medical information from? There may have been other things too, but it's just been so long... They did well to quietly retire that publication. It was a nonsense.

This was in my firsts ever General Priesthood Meeting when I turned twelve and I remember it well because I heard it live. You can find how it influenced me at:

leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com

Now I know why I couldn't find it in the conference report where I looked to confirm my recollection on the date.

Petey boy,
Simmer down now. You are not getting the runaround from people that mean to hide something or people unwilling to help. For whatever reason the people you are asking are unable to help and you have misconstrued that to say that they are unwilling to help.

Ease up brah.

Your loyal and faithful servant,
Booker T

"'Little factory' analogy. Dreadfully inaccurate, medically speaking."

Well, no analogy is going to include every physiological detail. Like calling the brain "a biological computer" or your intestines "a sorting conveyor belt." It doesn't have to cover every function to effectively convey the main idea.

"Something to the effect that wet dreams for boys were the equivalent of menstruation for girls---wrong!"

Well, I can see the two as rough equivalents (although you're right that there are significant differences). But really, they both include the gamete and the surrounding fluids, periodically expelled from the human body involuntarily. That's a pretty clear equivalency to me.

"It does not make me feel guilty at all. I find very comforting."

Same here---it helped me understand that I didn't need to feel guilty for my body's natural processes.

This reply may be a bit dated, but I think you're looking for: http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml