Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I can't tell you how many former members of the church I have run into that were all told a similar promise.   It is not hard to find stories of marriages that ended in shambles because of this wide spread practice by church leaders.  This was the go to solution church leaders used in the 60's and 70's.   It became so rampant and such a miserable failure that Gordon B. Hinkley finally spoke out against this practice.  He famously said that marriage is not therapy and effectively ended this practice.  I think if you ask around even members of the church, you will get the answer you are looking for.

 

In other words, you have no evidence that it was a general policy.

At that time, not understanding homosexuality, I might have recommended the same thing myself quite frankly.   I still don't fully understand how men can father children with a woman, indicating at least some level of physical ....... attraction..... and then feel only fulfilled in becoming gay.

I don't want to go back to that old argument- but I can see how heterosexual men might have the same understanding I did.  I recall an old TV ad from the 70's which preached "Try it! You'll like it!"   ;)  Of course the context was entirely different

So I don't think that recommendation was ever church policy in any way- just a misunderstanding of heterosexual leaders at the time, which was ended by President Hinkley.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if it was general practice, but I have don't doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under  some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. 

 I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Nailed it. :)

The problem  I think was with heterosexual men understanding homosexuality.  It was inconceivable to them that anyone could experience things differently.  I mean everyone likes chocolate cake, right?  How could you not?  And after having a couple of kids with a woman?  What's not to like?  As we know, heterosexual men at that time had no understanding or tolerance that anything could be otherwise- anything else was "unnatural" and who wants to be "unnatural" if you can obviously be "normal"?

That was the kind of thinking- I am convinced.

For the young, I think it is impossible to understand how much attitudes have changed in this area.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the information. I recall a rapidly growing acceptance of divorce inthe 60s and 70s, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe in cities and enclaves. At this time it was expanding but not exactly acceptable. Divorce didn't reach its peak until the 80's. And a level of viewing it as a more normative experience until pretty recently. And even now it can carry a stigma, particularly in different cultures. That includes ours. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How many have you run into? Ballpark figure.

Do you think Pres Hinckley may have been correcting something that was wrong and not officially approved?

Regarding your interpretation of Paul's prophecy, how do you define the marriage that he says will be forbidden?

In order for your interpretation to be correct, those forbidding marriage are departing from the faith.

How did the Church depart from the faith by opposing ssm?

 

I have met easily over 100 gay men that were given this same promise that if they married a woman, they would no longer have an attraction to men.  And that is probably a conservative number.  When I first came out to my family, they asked me if I would be willing to attend Evergreen.  It was a church run program that was designed to deal with gay members of the church.  I attended weekly meetings for at least a year, and went to their annual conference in Utah for three years.  Not sure how many people attended those conferences but I would guess between 400 and 500.  At those conferences, this promise was reiterated over and over again by those putting on the conference.  Also, I happened to read the link posted on the other thread concerning Tyler Glenn and the concert the church has decided to support.  While reading the comment section, this statement was posted.  I thought I would post it here to give you an idea how wide spread this practice was.

  •  
  • Quote

     

    • Talk is cheap. What matters is actual action on the ground.

      There is no doubt that the Church has been grasping at straws over the LGBT issue for decades. First it's ignored. Then LGBT folks are condemned merely for being LGBT. Then they're told to just get married and they will be cured. Then they are told to do reparative therapy and they will be cured. Then they are told they won't be cured, but just have to be alone for the rest of their lives and not "act on it". Then the Church moves the Utah Legislature to push through anti-discrimination measures, but only so they can officially exempt themselves from having to follow them. Then they say the children of anyone who is or ever has been in a homosexual relationship cannot be members of the Church until they are adults, and only if they denounce who their parents are. Then they realize they actually created many of these families in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and that their measure was too broad, and slip in the 51% custody rule just to quell the uproar.

      And all of this with a friendly smile on their faces.

      Which one of these is the answer? Apparently the 15 are not being led by revelation on this, because they've been jerking good people around for decades. How many families, how many people's lives have been messed up by this treatment?

     

    I also remember reading an article in "Sunstone" magazine about a study done by a BYU professor.  He was counseling mixed marriage couples at BYU.  In the article he reported that of the 300 cases that he dealt with, all but 10 of them had ended in divorce within 5 years.  I actually have suspected that this report is the very thing that pushed the church over the top to stop this practice.  I wish I had the link to give you on the story, but I have been unable to find it.

  • This promise was so wide spread I think that it was the standard promise being given to gay men in the church at that time.  And the poster is right.  The church moved from this approach to counseling that reparative therapy will cure you.  However, I never remember them attaching any promise from God on that solution.  I also tried reparative therapy.  Yeah I am still gay. and that is another discussion entirely

You do realize I have not interpreted anything.  I only quoted the scripture and commented on the fact that the church currently is forbidding marriage. and the implications of what that has on the Plan of Happiness for someone who is gay.  I do think that forbidding to marry clearly goes against the Plan of Happiness since marriage is a key component in that plan.

  • That is about as complete an answer that I can give you.  I hope that gives you some of my own personal insight into this issue.  And thanks for being interested enough to ask me your questions.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In other words, you have no evidence that it was a general policy.

At that time, not understanding homosexuality, I might have recommended the same thing myself quite frankly.   I still don't fully understand how men can father children with a woman, indicating at least some level of physical ....... attraction..... and then feel only fulfilled in becoming gay.

I don't want to go back to that old argument- but I can see how heterosexual men might have the same understanding I did.  I recall an old TV ad from the 70's which preached "Try it! You'll like it!"   ;)  Of course the context was entirely different

So I don't think that recommendation was ever church policy in any way- just a misunderstanding of heterosexual leaders at the time, which was ended by President Hinkley.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about and you have no intention of trying to actually understand any of this issue.do you. For you, the thinking is done.

Link to comment
On 8/17/2017 at 1:54 AM, california boy said:

I am quoting Paul directly.  Were you confused by that?

That brief period of time you speak of was well over 100 years of denying anyone black temple marriage.  It now includes gay couples that same marriage.

Are you denying that the church forbids gay couples from marrying?  I define marriage in the same way the church defines marriage which currently is forbidden if you are a gay couple.  

 

You're not just quoting Paul. You are being coy, however. 

You're interpreting his words in a way that would have been unheard of through most of human history. 

And you are not defining marriage in the same way the Church does. You have, in fact, redefined it. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if it was general practice, but I have no doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under  some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. 

 I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

I think you are trying to look at this issue as compassionate as you can.  And I appreciate that kind of sensitivity.  You are right.  At the time these promises were being made, church leaders as well as the majority of the public really didn't understand homosexuality.  They were probably giving the best advice they thought they could give.  And I would not have a problem with that.  BUT that is not how the promise was given.  I was told directly that this was a promise from God, not their opinion.  Not there best advice from a limited understanding of this issue.  And that is the deception that was going on.  Young men, including myself trusted church leaders in their claim that the know the will of God.  What you are suggesting is that they were in fact only giving their advice based on some widely held beliefs at the time.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're not just quoting Paul. You are being coy, however. 

You're interpreting his words in a way that would have been unheard of through most of human history. 

And you are not defining marriage in the same way the Church does. You have, in fact, redefined it. 

Actually I am using the exact same definition of marriage that the church uses when they decide to call gay couples that are married apostates and refuse to baptize their children.  

You don't have to accept the fact that the church forbids gay couples to marry.  But I think that would be pretty delusional on your part.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are trying to look at this issue as compassionate as you can.  And I appreciate that kind of sensitivity.  You are right.  At the time these promises were being made, church leaders as well as the majority of the public really didn't understand homosexuality.  They were probably giving the best advice they thought they could give.  And I would not have a problem with that.  BUT that is not how the promise was given.  I was told directly that this was a promise from God, not their opinion.  Not there best advice from a limited understanding of this issue.  And that is the deception that was going on.  Young men, including myself trusted church leaders in their claim that the know the will of God.  What you are suggesting is that they were in fact only giving their advice based on some widely held beliefs at the time.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  

 

Is it deception if that's what they really earnestly believed? Unknowingly misled, sure. But deception assumes some understanding that what they were promising you was impossible or at least unlikely. They most likely didn't. I would agree that, as you are recalling, it was ignorance and overreach...if not unrighteous dominion since I feel that goes beyond the call of a bishop. (I don't like having anyone tell me what they believe I should do in my life...whoever that is. The bishop's call isn't given stewardship over that for me.  So the idea that someone would insist a certain promise would be mine if I did what they suggested would chafe on me hard, unless I had an independent spiritual confirmation).

I did not mean to suggest that they were all just giving their advice, either way. I was trying to be generic and relying on the people I have talked to. I don't remember such strong wording for them in their stories. So I tried to have my language cover any who may have had some form of what you mentioned happen to them. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

You don't have any idea what you are talking about and you have no intention of trying to actually understand any of this issue.do you. For you, the thinking is done.

So someone you like gives me a rep point for essentially the same post, you ignore the issue or answering it because you cannot, and for me I get this.

Really special, I must say. 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 8/18/2017 at 4:53 PM, california boy said:

I have met easily over 100 gay men that were given this same promise that if they married a woman, they would no longer have an attraction to men.  And that is probably a conservative number.  When I first came out to my family, they asked me if I would be willing to attend Evergreen.  It was a church run program that was designed to deal with gay members of the church.  I attended weekly meetings for at least a year, and went to their annual conference in Utah for three years.  Not sure how many people attended those conferences but I would guess between 400 and 500.  At those conferences, this promise was reiterated over and over again by those putting on the conference.  Also, I happened to read the link posted on the other thread concerning Tyler Glenn and the concert the church has decided to support.  While reading the comment section, this statement was posted.  I thought I would post it here to give you an idea how wide spread this practice was.

  •  
  • I also remember reading an article in "Sunstone" magazine about a study done by a BYU professor.  He was counseling mixed marriage couples at BYU.  In the article he reported that of the 300 cases that he dealt with, all but 10 of them had ended in divorce within 5 years.  I actually have suspected that this report is the very thing that pushed the church over the top to stop this practice.  I wish I had the link to give you on the story, but I have been unable to find it.

  • This promise was so wide spread I think that it was the standard promise being given to gay men in the church at that time.  And the poster is right.  The church moved from this approach to counseling that reparative therapy will cure you.  However, I never remember them attaching any promise from God on that solution.  I also tried reparative therapy.  Yeah I am still gay. and that is another discussion entirely

You do realize I have not interpreted anything.  I only quoted the scripture and commented on the fact that the church currently is forbidding marriage. and the implications of what that has on the Plan of Happiness for someone who is gay.  I do think that forbidding to marry clearly goes against the Plan of Happiness since marriage is a key component in that plan.

  • That is about as complete an answer that I can give you.  I hope that gives you some of my own personal insight into this issue.  And thanks for being interested enough to ask me your questions.

Thank you for the information. I understand your situation much better now. You have noted the Church was following the standard  practices of that time. I was never instructed to give that advice. It's good we know better now.

Did you ever run into Bob Erickson at Evergreen?

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Is it deception if that's what they really earnestly believed? Unknowingly misled, sure. But deception assumes some understanding that what they were promising you was impossible or at least unlikely. They most likely didn't. I would agree that, as you are recalling, it was ignorance and overreach...if not unrighteous dominion since I feel that goes beyond the call of a bishop. (I don't like having anyone tell me what they believe I should do in my life...whoever that is. The bishop's call isn't given stewardship over that for me.  So the idea that someone would insist a certain promise would be mine if I did what they suggested would chafe on me hard, unless I had an independent spiritual confirmation).

I did not mean to suggest that they were all just giving their advice, either way. I was trying to be generic and relying on the people I have talked to. I don't remember such strong wording for them in their stories. So I tried to have my language cover any who may have had some form of what you mentioned happen to them. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Was I deceived?  There is absolutely no question of that.  Did the promise come from God as they promised?  There is absolutely no question that it didn't.  In both cases I was a bit naive.  It was a time when me and many church members really believed that church leaders spoke for God through direct revelation from him.  I think people are much more realistic about the role church leaders play in running the church these days.  Is this type of deception still going on?  Absolutely.  Church leaders are still claiming that it is God's will that gay couples not marry.  Many believe those claims came from God.  But how is their current promise any different than what they were promising me.  Same issue, different promise.  Was malice involved in the promise church leaders gave me?  Probably not, any more than malice is involved in the current leaderships assertion of God's will.

These men have been asked to lead the church.  They are just men.  They do not have some kind of super connection to God.  When issues of the church like gay marriage comes up, they all get together just like any other large organization.  They hash out different ideas and ultimately come to a consensus.  They then announce to church members what they all decided.  It is their job.  They do it with just as much sincerity as the past church leaders.  Are church members being deceived today?  I think some are like where I was those may years ago. They may very well still believe that church leaders have some kind of special connection with God.  Then there is probably the vast majority of members.   They probably agree with the policy they came up with.  The decision doesn't impact their lives one bit, so why worry about it.  Let these brethren do what they have been asked to do, lead the church.  And then there are those that clearly understand the responsibility of church leaders to make decisions for the church, but realize that not every decision is the correct one.   Nor does every decision come from God.  It is just the current promise that has become policy.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually I am using the exact same definition of marriage that the church uses when they decide to call gay couples that are married apostates and refuse to baptize their children.

This is where your argument fails. If you are using the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, then forbidding ssm canot logically qualify as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the information. I understand your situation much better now. Was the Church the only entity that followed those paths, or were they just following the standard  practices of that time? 

Did you ever run into Bob Erickson at Evergreen?

Oh not at all.  virtually every church had a similar program going to cure the gays.  We heard from the leaders of some of these other programs at the Evergreen conferences.  They would tout their incredible success and tell us all that we should follow that same path. One of the biggest groups was Exodus International. Here is an article about the ultimate collapse of that group.  Most of the other groups have closed as well. Evergreen is no longer around.  But a similar program called NorthStar is still around.  Same goal, different promises.  I really no nothing about NorthStar.  I have never attended their meetings or studied their beliefs.

When he closed down Exodus International he made this heart felt apology.  You can read about it here.

Quote

 

"I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn't change," Chambers said.

"I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents," he added. "I am sorry that there were times I didn't stand up to people publicly 'on my side' who called you names like sodomite -- or worse."

 

For some reason the name Bob Erickson sounds familiar.  I don't know him, but it is possible that I have met him.  The  Evergreen group that I was involved in was a very tight group.  I still remember the night when the leader of the group announced that he was leaving Evergreen and moving in with his boyfriend.  Then one by one guys announced that they were no longer going to be involved in Evergreen.  That night ended up being the last night.  We still keep loosely in touch with each other.  I feel like we bonded over a very shared experience.

A couple of years later, an elderly couple contacted me and asked if I would be involved in helping to restart the group.  They had been called by their stake president to take on this assignment.  I was happy to meet with them and offer any guidance I could.  I was also clear that I didn't think Evergreen changes anyone, but I think it is good that these gay Mormons understand that they are not alone.  They need a safe place to talk about the turmoil in their lives.  The group tried meeting a couple of times.  Only one other person showed up.  It didn't last.  Sweet couple with good intentions.  

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is where your argument fails. If you are using the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, then forbidding ssm canot logically qualify as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

The church does not use that definition of marriage when they refer to gay couples that are married and they want to call them apostates.  Even the church has two definitions of marriage.  One that "God approves of".  And one that is used as a litmus test of whether someone is to remain a member of the church.  Is that more clear?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, california boy said:

Was I deceived?  There is absolutely no question of that.  Did the promise come from God as they promised?  There is absolutely no question that it didn't.  In both cases I was a bit naive.  It was a time when me and many church members really believed that church leaders spoke for God through direct revelation from him.  I think people are much more realistic about the role church leaders play in running the church these days.  Is this type of deception still going on?  Absolutely.  Church leaders are still claiming that it is God's will that gay couples not marry.  Many believe those claims came from God.  But how is their current promise any different than what they were promising me.  Same issue, different promise.  Was malice involved in the promise church leaders gave me?  Probably not, any more than malice is involved in the current leaderships assertion of God's will.

These men have been asked to lead the church.  They are just men.  They do not have some kind of super connection to God.  When issues of the church like gay marriage comes up, they all get together just like any other large organization.  They hash out different ideas and ultimately come to a consensus.  They then announce to church members what they all decided.  It is their job.  They do it with just as much sincerity as the past church leaders.  Are church members being deceived today?  I think some are like where I was those may years ago. They may very well still believe that church leaders have some kind of special connection with God.  Then there is probably the vast majority of members.   They probably agree with the policy they came up with.  The decision doesn't impact their lives one bit, so why worry about it.  Let these brethren do what they have been asked to do, lead the church.  And then there are those that clearly understand the responsibility of church leaders to make decisions for the church, but realize that not every decision is the correct one.   Nor does every decision come from God.  It is just the current promise that has become policy.  

I still believe that being deceived still generally assumes that someone was purposely deceiving...as in someone was in the know of the scam. It's not just a sense of malice, but a knowledge that what they were say was BS. That is highly unlikely. I still believe that church leaders speak for God....within their stewardship. I have no doubt that my bishop is inspired to lead and guide the direction of the ward. That he can use his talents to give spiritual guidance. I believe he would be overstepping to insist that I should do something very specific and personal, like marry someone I may not even be attracted to. Even as a straight person that would be absurd.  Or maybe the absurdity just becomes more obvious in said case. That is my stewardship. He may give me advice and counsel with me. But that is very different than counseling at me.  I remember this story of a man who was in a relationship with an awful woman in my program...it was so bad that an apostle who knew him suggested divorce as well. But he felt strongly that he shouldn't. So he didn't. Over the years the woman got help, woke up, and their marriage became a real one. The apostle (and everyone else he talked to) gave sound and reasonable advice in his circumstance based off the information they had. But ultimately it was his stewardship and his revelation that mattered most.

The difference I see with the first round of advice-giving and the assumption of healing thru marriage and the current policy is several fold. For one, it was actually within the apostles stewardship to make such a call for the church. For another it was actually based off of study and prayer (from what is described) and there is scripture to bolster this (as per my first post in this thread as an example). There is nothing that comes close to the advice you were given in scripture. Lastly I don't read it as a promise, but a reiteration of basic church doctrine about what form marriage takes in the eternities. 

I think there's a difference between recognizing the parameters of revelation and stewardship and insisting that they're like any other leaders in any other church. Obviously this is based on faith and my beliefs. I still believe that church leaders have a "special connection" to God...one that I have for my stewardship as well. I've felt it change as my callings have changed. I fall in the camp that trusts that this is the direction that we are to go in. You're right that I have the privilege of not being directly effected by this. I'm not gay, I'm attracted to men. I'm aware that this is a privilege. At the same time, this doesn't mean that I am sheltered from the effects of this. Again it comes from a space of hetero privilege and I work hard to not pontificate about questions that I really don't have answers to. To insist they do things my way. I'm a guest in their stewardship, in their lives. And I've born witness to that pain and the emotional conflicts they face. I will again and it will be my honor to be there. My pleasure when they begin to grasp onto peace and find joy in their journeys, whatever that may entail.

In all the pain I've witnessed and all the varying courses, it still has not changed my fundamental belief that the structure of marriage has eternal weight and purpose. It cannot be rewritten by men simply because it's hard at times. I don't say this to try to persuade or make you believe or whatever bunk that would never happen. I simply state this because often times the categories you describe are so either/or and black/white in describing the church. I've very rarely fit these descriptions.  And if I don't, I'm sure many others fall short of these descriptions as well. 

 

With luv,

BD   

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh not at all.  virtually every church had a similar program going to cure the gays.  We heard from the leaders of some of these other programs at the Evergreen conferences.  They would tout their incredible success and tell us all that we should follow that same path. One of the biggest groups was Exodus International. Here is an article about the ultimate collapse of that group.  Most of the other groups have closed as well. Evergreen is no longer around.  But a similar program called NorthStar is still around.  Same goal, different promises.  I really no nothing about NorthStar.  I have never attended their meetings or studied their beliefs. 

I have been to northstar and have met several of the people apart of it/directing it. They most certainly do not have the same goal as Evergreen.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I still believe that being deceived still generally assumes that someone was purposely deceiving...as in someone was in the know of the scam. It's not just a sense of malice, but a knowledge that what they were say was BS. That is highly unlikely. I still believe that church leaders speak for God....within their stewardship. I have no doubt that my bishop is inspired to lead and guide the direction of the ward. That he can use his talents to give spiritual guidance. I believe he would be overstepping to insist that I should do something very specific and personal, like marry someone I may not even be attracted to. Even as a straight person that would be absurd.  Or maybe the absurdity just becomes more obvious in said case. That is my stewardship. He may give me advice and counsel with me. But that is very different than counseling at me.  I remember this story of a man who was in a relationship with an awful woman in my program...it was so bad that an apostle who knew him suggested divorce as well. But he felt strongly that he shouldn't. So he didn't. Over the years the woman got help, woke up, and their marriage became a real one. The apostle (and everyone else he talked to) gave sound and reasonable advice in his circumstance based off the information they had. But ultimately it was his stewardship and his revelation that mattered most.

The difference I see with the first round of advice-giving and the assumption of healing thru marriage and the current policy is several fold. For one, it was actually within the apostles stewardship to make such a call for the church. For another it was actually based off of study and prayer (from what is described) and there is scripture to bolster this (as per my first post in this thread as an example). There is nothing that comes close to the advice you were given in scripture. Lastly I don't read it as a promise, but a reiteration of basic church doctrine about what form marriage takes in the eternities. 

I think there's a difference between recognizing the parameters of revelation and stewardship and insisting that they're like any other leaders in any other church. Obviously this is based on faith and my beliefs. I still believe that church leaders have a "special connection" to God...one that I have for my stewardship as well. I've felt it change as my callings have changed. I fall in the camp that trusts that this is the direction that we are to go in. You're right that I have the privilege of not being directly effected by this. I'm not gay, I'm attracted to men. I'm aware that this is a privilege. At the same time, this doesn't mean that I am sheltered from the effects of this. Again it comes from a space of hetero privilege and I work hard to not pontificate about questions that I really don't have answers to. To insist they do things my way. I'm a guest in their stewardship, in their lives. And I've born witness to that pain and the emotional conflicts they face. I will again and it will be my honor to be there. My pleasure when they begin to grasp onto peace and find joy in their journeys, whatever that may entail.

In all the pain I've witnessed and all the varying courses, it still has not changed my fundamental belief that the structure of marriage has eternal weight and purpose. It cannot be rewritten by men simply because it's hard at times. I don't say this to try to persuade or make you believe or whatever bunk that would never happen. I simply state this because often times the categories you describe are so either/or and black/white in describing the church. I've very rarely fit these descriptions.  And if I don't, I'm sure many others fall short of these descriptions as well. 

 

With luv,

BD   

 

 

I really want to thank you for this post.  You are a very  thoughtful writer.  And I do feel a lot of "With luv" in what you write. So thank you for working hard to see my point of view and for presenting your own.  I obviously disagree with some of your conclusions.  But that doesn't mean that both conclusions are in conflict.  Like you said.  Ultimately we have stewardship over our own lives.  No one else does.  When we turn that stewardship over  to someone no matter what kinds of promises they are making, it is a mistake.  

The good part is my life now has so much joy and peace in it.  The contrast is simply startling.  So truthfully it would be very difficult for anyone to convince me to even think about heading back towards the road that I once was on.  Now if I wake up tomorrow and suddenly have an attraction to women, then we can talk.  lol.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I really want to thank you for this post.  You are a very  thoughtful writer.  And I do feel a lot of "With luv" in what you write. So thank you for working hard to see my point of view and for presenting your own.  I obviously disagree with some of your conclusions.  But that doesn't mean that both conclusions are in conflict.  Like you said.  Ultimately we have stewardship over our own lives.  No one else does.  When we turn that stewardship over  to someone no matter what kinds of promises they are making, it is a mistake.  

The good part is my life now has so much joy and peace in it.  The contrast is simply startling.  So truthfully it would be very difficult for anyone to convince me to even think about heading back towards the road that I once was on.  Now if I wake up tomorrow and suddenly have an attraction to women, then we can talk.  lol.

We have differences of course, but in this I can completely agree with you. We may never see eye-to-eye, but I hope that I will always listen and try to understand. If there is a time that you feel like I'm not seeing you, please let me know and I'll work to listen more carefully. 

 

With luv and appreciation,

BD

Link to comment
On 8/17/2017 at 11:38 AM, california boy said:

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on any reference to homosexuality.  Their silence on this issue is deafening. 

Oh, that pesky Nephi, going off and quoting Isaiah when it suits him to give us council...

 

2 Nephi 13:9  The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!

 

To quote the Savior to the Nephites and us... "Great are the words of Isaiah."

Edited by Sevenbak
Link to comment
On 8/18/2017 at 11:55 AM, mfbukowski said:

In other words, you have no evidence that it was a general policy.

At that time, not understanding homosexuality, I might have recommended the same thing myself quite frankly.   I still don't fully understand how men can father children with a woman, indicating at least some level of physical ....... attraction..... and then feel only fulfilled in becoming gay.

I don't want to go back to that old argument- but I can see how heterosexual men might have the same understanding I did.  I recall an old TV ad from the 70's which preached "Try it! You'll like it!"   ;)  Of course the context was entirely different

So I don't think that recommendation was ever church policy in any way- just a misunderstanding of heterosexual leaders at the time, which was ended by President Hinkley.

As in so many things, Church leaders sought and got best available professional persons' input. This advice was given in good faith with a conditional promise of success. But here we have anecdotal evidence of failure.

That doesn't make the Church leaders liars.

And why must we rehash this anecdote of failure weekly on this board?

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Oh, that pesky Nephi, going off and quoting Isaiah when it suits him to give us council...

 

2 Nephi 13:9  The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!

 

To quote the Savior to the Nephites and us... "Great are the words of Isaiah."

The sin of Sodom is not what you think fit is.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

As in so many things, Church leaders sought and got best available professional persons' input. This advice was given in good faith with a conditional promise of success. But here we have anecdotal evidence of failure.

That doesn't make the Church leaders liars.

And why must we rehash this anecdote of failure weekly on this board?

I agree with your belief.  The mistake I made was thinking that the church was run by revelation.  Like I said, I was pretty naive at the theme.  I haven't made that mistake again, ever.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with your belief.  The mistake I made was thinking that the church was run by revelation.  Like I said, I was pretty naive at the theme.  I haven't made that mistake again, ever.

One could argue the naivete keeps rollin' along, albeit in less advantageous tracks.

What of my question of rehashing? If you're so pleased with your choice and needn't rehash for your own benefit, why the incessant rehashing?

Edited by USU78
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...