Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

365 Excellent

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

521 profile views
  1. If I understand, you would agree that they saw dating as a part of the cure(solution), and that marriage could follow a desire to marry the opposite sex? Just for the record: I totally agree with that. On that, the record is perfectly clear.
  2. Can't argue with that. I agree that there was a lot of ambiguity about what was meant.
  3. I think I wasn't clear enough what I meant. I did not mean that the leaders saw homosexuality as a curable mental illness. I meant that they were aware that that discussion was taking place. In fact, I think the quote from the 1981 Handbook is especially clear:
  4. I'm really confused. Gradually romantic interests can change; marriage can follow. And that means get married and then you'll be cured? Honestly, what do you think they mean marriage can follow?
  5. So I'm not Kiwi, but in looking back at the quote you posted, I was surprised to see that you had edited one. Was that intentional? Doesn't the "can follow" suggest that marriage happens after the change in romantic interest?
  6. Meh. I kinda get your paraphrase, but I also think there is value in resisting the dominant narrative by refusing to directly address the false construction of "LGBT issues" and focusing on the perspective of eternal truth.
  7. Yes. I do believe that. I also believe this wording came from a context where discussion about homosexuality as a curable mental illness was prevalent and secular.
  8. I accept that reasonable and well intentioned individuals can look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. I just don't see that anywhere that suggests just getting married would magically result in attraction. It is always described as a gradual process. Absolutely. I'm confused as to why this seems contradictory. I think they absolutely saw it as a part of the process. I just don't think they intended people to get married without love.
  9. That, as President Packer explained, people were not born with inclinations or urges they could not overcome. That repentance and abandoning homosexual behavior, including lust, is possible. After my own extensive research and prayerful study, I truly believe that the these leaders saw homosexuality as a behavior/pattern of behavior.
  10. In reading the source documents I have seen, I do not see evidence that the Brethren intended to suggest that getting married without a romantic interest was advisable. The sources are frankly more nuanced than that. I believe that in most cases, local leaders spoke out of ignorance and misunderstanding. In some cases, I do believe that God inspired leaders to make those promises because God knew that they would be successful. It wouldn't surprise me if in some of those cases, an edified Bishop or Stake President shared the "success," leading others to think this was a likely outcome. Does that answer your question?
  11. Honestly, after 1987 (I was wrong to say 1983) the Bishops and others were flat out wrong. Just like any Bishop who might say that, mormonandgay.org notwithstanding, having same-sex attraction is really a sin. That would have been wrong after Oak's address in 1995. But you are right that many did give this advice. It seems that many did so erroneously. I don't pretend to make any defense for them. I also don't at all try to deny that you and others were harmed by this advice. I also don't claim that you misunderstood in any way. In relation to the pain caused to everyone involved, I can't help but wonder how many individuals (straight spouses, children, grandchildren, non-straight spouses) would express gratitude for such counsel because of the happy families it helped to create. I know that it is popular to pretend that none of these individuals exist, but that is incredibly unlikely. I mean I know of at least 14 families personally. (Married before 1987; still together; glad they married) I've said before that I don't pretend to know how to do the cosmic algebra weighing the good of a course of action against the negative effects. I'm not making the argument that it was ultimately the "right" decision or that the good somehow justifies the bad.
  12. The same way that I don't have a problem with Elder Bednar stating that there are no homosexual members of the Church. In the case of homosexuality as viewed from a gospel sense, it is an experience. I still maintain that the usage through the 80s was focused on behavior, although there has been a clear distinction between behavior and attraction for over 20 years. Even in as attraction has been accepted as not a sin, it has been rejected as an innate aspect of personal, eternal identity. I know that is not popular and it doesn't fit with the popular understanding of what it means to be gay. But I genuinely believe that our spirits are male and female, inherently needing each other to achieve exaltation. The fact that some individuals experience sexual and romantic attractions to the same sex in mortality does not change that fact. I can accept that one meaning of heterosexual is simply male-female relationships. In that sense, yes. The goal was and still is to enter a male-female marriage, either now or in the afterlife. But in reality it is a lot more complicated than that. "Heterosexual" only emerged as an identity in contrast to homosexual, which is a very recent construction. Why would it really matter that I become heterosexual? Wouldn't some degree of bisexuality be just as acceptable? Would it really matter how many many other women I am attracted to as long as I love and am attracted to my wife? From this eternal perspective, heterosexuality as an orientation really doesn't matter. This isn't to downplay the struggle of mortality or anything. But for people, like me, who believe that sexual and romantic attraction really only matter in mortality and that the love and union of a Celestial Marriage transcend those, it is easier to see sexual orientation as relatively inconsequential.
  13. I would agree. It's at least one really important for me. And I can understand this, too. I also agree!