Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, ttribe said:

http://www.newsweek.com/masturbation-gay-leaked-mormon-church-lgtb-religion-sex-748201

Crazy that mainstream media has picked up on this so quickly...

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for this frank and candid admission.  Turns out Hope for Things was right when she said, "I predict that there will be some who are even more convinced after looking at this evidence that the church has not changed its position or evolved."  (Kiwi's and Scott's posts also drive the point home).

It will be interesting to see if/how the church responds now that this info is in the media spotlight.  I imagine they'll likely just continue staying silent on the pamphlet and it's views if they truly do continue to believe those things today, or they may address via the Mormon Newsroom it in an attempt to dispel any misconceptions if they perceive there's been a change in any of those older statements/views.

I think the Brethren are quite open about the changes in applying current scientific and academic knowledge and related best practices as suggested tools (as needed) to help leaders address moral issues. They are also quite open about the Church's position on morality.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems like the church just gropes its way along, just the same as every other human institution. This pamphlet shouldn't surprise anyone, as it reflects the common teachings of the day. Thank heavens things have changed at least a little.

By the way, it seems my cousin is on a bit of a roll. 

At the end of the day the inspired people are the ones who can look beyond the prejudices of their day and can envision a better way forward. MLK was one such inspired person. That's the meaning of revelation/inspiration, IMO.

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for this frank and candid admission.  Turns out Hope for Things was right when she said, "I predict that there will be some who are even more convinced after looking at this evidence that the church has not changed its position or evolved."  (Kiwi's and Scott's posts also drive the point home).

What position change can anyone point to? The Church is much more careful today, in 2017, about saying concretely why homosexuality exists, but as I said, I think that most GAs believe what was said in the 1980s. They just don't say it because of PC and PR considerations. I think one can point to there being no material change in actual policy and practice vis a vis homosexuality. 

It will be interesting to see if/how the church responds now that this info is in the media spotlight.  I imagine they'll likely just continue staying silent on the pamphlet and it's views if they truly do continue to believe those things today, or they may address via the Mormon Newsroom it in an attempt to dispel any misconceptions if they perceive there's been a change in any of those older statements/views.

I think you're right. I don't expect to hear any reaction to this. 

Talk about a third rail! Who draws the short straw, and gets to write the Gospel Topics essay on homosexuality? I think they'll just leave that one alone. I think it would have been better to have done the same with the priesthood ban essay as well. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems like the church just gropes its way along, just the same as every other human institution. This pamphlet shouldn't surprise anyone, as it reflects the common teachings of the day. Thank heavens things have changed at least a little.

By the way, it seems my cousin is on a bit of a roll. 

Yep.  (sorry I can't just give you a rep to note my support)

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.  (sorry I can't just give you a rep to note my support)

Apparently, I can't give rep points, either. Oh, well. You're a good man.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church is much more careful today, in 2017, about saying concretely why homosexuality exists, but as I said, I think that most GAs believe what was said in the 1980s.

According to the actual position statement on p.1, I.A. The Position of the Church of Homosexuality, there is no stated reason as to why homosexuality exists. The rest of the manual reflects the scientific and academic understanding of the day and is only ancillary to and in support of the Church's moral position on the matter, thus harnessing the better "powerful forces" mentioned in the beginning of the statement. The same approach is taken today: clearly state the moral position and offer the best known approaches (both religious and secular) to sustaining the moral position.

Edited December 15, 2017 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

At the end of the day the inspired people are the ones who can look beyond the prejudices of their day and can envision a better way forward. MLK was one such inspired person. That's the meaning of revelation/inspiration, IMO.

Once again, I'm grateful for a father who taught us to expect church leaders to be human with human failings and weaknesses and prejudices. I'm almost never disappointed in church leaders because of that. Thanks, Dad.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'll take a stab at this.  I mean I find the document disgusting all around, but I do think it was created by what leaders call the influence of the spirit.  

When has the Church ever said that the Spirit did not direct in anything they've put out?  I think it wise to realize that when the Church changes it's position on anything, it is going against that which was previously claimed to be by God.  Whenever the Church does anything it seeks first through prayer, God's counsel and guidance.  That is, I think, without question what happens.  Now, it's a matter of what they think is the spirit and what is the spirit.  Unfortunately, it seems to me, the direction of the spirit is not foolproof at all.  And we'll see, someday when the Church no longer can hold onto it's old traditional stances it'll change.  It's done so before and it'll do it again.  They'll have to say things like, well we were working with insufficient knowledge when we made all of our authoritative and God claimed statements on the matter.  

I can certainly see how local level leaders getting this are under the impression that it is all directed by God.  

 

 

 

All of this simply says...the spirit is consistently inconsistent.    They can call it revelation..or guided by the spirit..but this is one confused spirit.  It seems to condemn itself from one generation to next.

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

What position change can anyone point to?

They no longer teach that someone can be cured of being gay.  The leaders also no longer recommend to someone who is gay that they should date the opposite sex or marry the opposite sex as a cure.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

that's all fine but this pamphlet appears to be a summary of studies as I'm sure that no bishop would have access to academic journals to see the how and whys of homosexuality and they stated their then policy towards our brethren and sisters.

How do you get that?  The pamphlet clearly states that this is the position of the church, not that it is a survey of academic thinking.  This is hardly presented as a review of current scientific research on the subject any more than any other pamphlet the church puts out.  Are we to assume that all pamphlets are just a review of current thinking amongst the secular world?  

No.  This is church leaders telling Stake Presidents the message from church leaders who claim to be led by God Himself when clearly they are just giving their opinions based on secular ideas.  Is there anything in current church policy that would suggest that todays thinking did not also come from just the opinions of men?  The same claims of revelation that occur today were the exact same claims of revelation back in 1981.  To think otherwise, you would have to say that revelation on gay issues only kicked in in 2016 when NOW we know what God wants.  Before we were only going on the wisdom of men.  Now we know that God doesn't want children of gay couples baptized while they are growing up.  Now we know gay couples should be called apostates.  What changed from 1981 to today?  

Edited December 15, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

What position change can anyone point to? The Church is much more careful today, in 2017, about saying concretely why homosexuality exists, but as I said, I think that most GAs believe what was said in the 1980s. They just don't say it because of PC and PR considerations. I think one can point to there being no material change in actual policy and practice vis a vis homosexuality. 

 

 

I think you're right. I don't expect to hear any reaction to this. 

Talk about a third rail! Who draws the short straw, and gets to write the Gospel Topics essay on homosexuality? I think they'll just leave that one alone. I think it would have been better to have done the same with the priesthood ban essay as well. 

So the church still believes you can become gay by masterbating? It is your parents fault that you are gay?  You can be cured if you just try hare enough?  If you marry someone of the opposite sex, you will no longer be gay?  Yet all of this was given out as inspiration from God.

The only thing that hasn't changed is the claim that church leaders are lead by the Spirit/revelation when it comes to gay issues.  Perhaps that is what should really change.

Edited December 15, 2017 by california boy

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

“I.A.” is on page one of your linked 1981 document, the section that constitutes the "The Position of the Church of Homosexuality." I would have hoped you had read it!

It is part of the Brethren’s calling to create manuals like this one and webistes like mormonand gay.lds.org. Your OP is about the position of the Church on the subject as addressed in the 1981 manual you linked, and that is what I have been posting about. The manual of course includes information to help Church leaders in that period understand and act on the position of the Church. That information includes scientific and secular tools of the day as applicable and supportive of her position. It is wonderful that you feel any secular organization can do all that, but your OP isn’t about that.

As I’ve indicated, I don’t know how one can conflate this publication with the position as stated in the manual, Page 1, I.A., “The Position of the Church of Homosexuality." Which position item in this paragraph have you observed has changed?

And you seem to be conflating them. The position is one thing, and the information to help Church leaders understand and act on it is another. Which actual position item do you think has changed?

I had read it I just didn't connect the "I.A." reference but I've got it now.  Here's what it says:

As we have previously stated,
homosexuality is a sin in the same
degree as adultery and fornication.

* Note that there is no distinguishing here between what the Brethren now speak of as "Same Gender Attraction" (presumably referring to orientation) and "homosexual behavior" (taken as acting on the attraction, not clearly defined).

Powerful forces are seeking to establish
this sinful practice as an acceptable
way of life.

* The Church now appears to be one of those power forces as it supported non-discrimination legislation.

Homosexuality in
men and women runs counter to
divine objectives and the intended
destiny of mankind.  The Lord has
declared, "For behold, this is my
work and my glory - to bring to pass
the immortality and eternal life of
man" (Moses 1 :39).

* No change here.

Some claim
homosexuality is incurable, 

* Isn't this now also the what Elder Holland believes when he stated that not everyone will be free of same gender attraction in this life?  Do we ever hear the Brethren claim that homosexuality is curable?

therefore
they seek to be considered a
legitimate minority group protected
by law. We should not be deceived
by these false rationalizations.

* Were we deceived when the Church supported non-discrimination legislation?

We
must never lose our perspective
amidst the world's clamor to justify
and normalize immorality. According
to the Lord's revealed word, the only
acceptable sexual relationship
occurs within the family between a
husband and a wife.

* No change.

So there's that one paragraph.  But I don't see the need to pull that one paragraph out as the "position" and ignore everything else that they put into the hands of priesthood leaders.  Counsel from the prophet and apostles sent to local priesthood leaders regarding how to implement doctrine within their stewardship also constitutes the position of the church.  Even if the position of the Church as defined by that one single paragraph hadn't changed (and it has as I've indicated) the rest of the document is an official publication of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Call if whatever you want -- it came from prophets, seers, and revelators.

[Duncan]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

How do you get that?  The pamphlet clearly states that this is the position of the church, not that it is a survey of academic thinking.  This is hardly presented as a review of current scientific research on the subject any more than any other pamphlet the church puts out.  Are we to assume that all pamphlets are just a review of current thinking amongst the secular world?  

No.  This is church leaders telling Stake Presidents the message from church leaders who claim to be led by God Himself when clearly they are just giving their opinions based on secular ideas.  Is there anything in current church policy that would suggest that todays thinking did not also come from just the opinions of men?  The same claims of revelation that occur today were the exact same claims of revelation back in 1981.  To think otherwise, you would have to say that revelation on gay issues only kicked in in 2016 when NOW we know what God wants.  Before we were only going on the wisdom of men.  Now we know that God doesn't want children of gay couples baptized while they are growing up.  Now we know gay couples should be called apostates.  What changed from 1981 to today?  

they keep talking about studies and research and yeah, at the time it was the position of the church but this isn't 1981 anymore. Homosexuality wasn't the church pamphlet on a review of Joseph Smith's teachings or what the church teaches on tithing, I agree with what you're saying but from then till now it still isn't known what the cuase of homosexuality is or why it develops, why some people are bi sexual or asexual, it's unknown. I think the wheat has gotten wheatier and the tares have gotten tarrier, in and out of the church

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

they keep talking about studies and research and yeah, at the time it was the position of the church but this isn't 1981 anymore. 

So are you saying that you agree that the 1981 position of the church regarding homosexuality has changed because the research has changed since that time?

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So are you saying that you agree that the 1981 position of the church regarding homosexuality has changed because the research has changed since that time?

slowly but yes, it's still not accepted but today it's the act of not the thought of and there must be some inborn aspect to it, otherwise any guy can be gay but that isn't the case

[rongo]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So the church still believes you can become gay by masterbating? It is your parents fault that you are gay?  You can be cured if you just try hare enough?  If you marry someone of the opposite sex, you will no longer be gay?  Yet all of this was given out as inspiration from God.

The only thing that hasn't changed is the claim that church leaders are lead by the Spirit/revelation when it comes to gay issues.  Perhaps that is what should really change.

I don't think "the church" ever believed a, b, c, or d above. Even now, what does the church actually "teach" about these things? I think people are left to their own views on these, and many continue to share these views. With no sanctions or repercussions from the Church. 

I'm not clear on how broad the distribution of the referenced pamphlet actually was. Was this given to all priesthood leaders, or was it simply available? For that matter, what, exactly, is put into priesthood leaders hands *right now*, in 2017, laying out the Church's stance on masturbation and homosexuality, parental culpability, and prospects of recovery? The Church doesn't overtly recommend marriage to "cure" homosexuality (did it ever officially and overtly do that?), and does say that this is unwise counsel to give homosexuals as a means of recovery or change. This is probably the biggest "change" in approach, but I don't think it was a seismic shift. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I had read it I just didn't connect the "I.A." reference but I've got it now.  Here's what it says:

***
So there's that one paragraph.  But I don't see the need to pull that one paragraph out as the "position" and ignore everything else that they put into the hands of priesthood leaders.  Counsel from the prophet and apostles sent to local priesthood leaders regarding how to implement doctrine within their stewardship also constitutes the position of the church.  Even if the position of the Church as defined by that one single paragraph hadn't changed (and it has as I've indicated) the rest of the document is an official publication of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Call if whatever you want -- it came from prophets, seers, and revelators.

I am happy that you read it. To address your asterisked question/comments:

* Note that there is no distinguishing here between what the Brethren now speak of as "Same Gender Attraction" (presumably referring to orientation) and "homosexual behavior" (taken as acting on the attraction, not clearly defined). “SSA” is just a refinement in terminology; adultery and fornication mentioned in the position statement are acts and so in this context, homosexuality is treated an act.

* The Church now appears to be one of those power forces as it supported non-discrimination legislation. This is cheap political rhetoric and an example of not appreciating the Church’s moral positions on sin and religious freedom and her recent efforts in the political arena to address both.

* Isn't this now also the what Elder Holland believes when he stated that not everyone will be free of same gender attraction in this life?  Do we ever hear the Brethren claim that homosexuality is curable? This comment is an example of either intellectual dishonesty or not understanding the Church’s rejection of the rationale that homosexuality (as an act or behavior as covered in the 1981 position statement) is “incurable” and thus the rationale for creating a “legitimate minority group.” Again, the 80’s political strategy of presenting homosexuality as “incurable” for the purpose of justifying a “legitimate minority group” was not the Church’s idea. Elder Holland is not speaking politically (and which Church publication describes death and resurrection as "cures"?), and the incurability of a moral sin, or the notion that immorality is incurable, is as false today as it was in 1981.

* Were we deceived when the Church supported non-discrimination legislation? Of course not. This polemic misrepresents by using a partial quote. The Church did not rationalize her support of non-discrimination related legislation on the notion that homosexuality is incurable.

Like it or not, that one paragraph is the position. Everything else is not. The counsel is only consistent with the position. It came from prophets, seers, and revelators and they use all the resources at their disposal as does anyone following their counsel in upholding the Church's position, and just as others use all the resources (and techniques) at their disposal to misrepresent and undermine the Church's position.

Edited December 15, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think "the church" ever believed a, b, c, or d above. Even now, what does the church actually "teach" about these things? I think people are left to their own views on these, and many continue to share these views. With no sanctions or repercussions from the Church. 

I'm not clear on how broad the distribution of the referenced pamphlet actually was. Was this given to all priesthood leaders, or was it simply available? For that matter, what, exactly, is put into priesthood leaders hands *right now*, in 2017, laying out the Church's stance on masturbation and homosexuality, parental culpability, and prospects of recovery? The Church doesn't overtly recommend marriage to "cure" homosexuality (did it ever officially and overtly do that?), and does say that this is unwise counsel to give homosexuals as a means of recovery or change. This is probably the biggest "change" in approach, but I don't think it was a seismic shift. 

Excellent questions.  I don't think we know the answers to most, but they are good questions.

Regarding recommending marriage to gay members... I didn't see that in the doc on my first reading.  But they document does counsel that the homosexual member begin dating.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The counsel is only consistent with the position. It came from prophets, seers, and revelators and they use all the resources at their disposal as does anyone following their counsel in upholding the Church's position, just, as others use all the resources (and techniques) at their disposal to misrepresent and undermine the Church's position.

So the counsel has changed but not the position?

Apparently, a major resource that they used in this document was the faulty research of the day.  I wonder why one of the resources at their disposal wasn't revelation from God to let them know that the research they were basing their counsel on was incorrect.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the counsel has changed but not the position?

Apparently, a major resource that they used in this document was the faulty research of the day.  I wonder why one of the resources at their disposal wasn't revelation from God to let them know that the research they were basing their counsel on was incorrect.

what do you think the causes of homosexuality and the different sexual manifestations like bi, trans etc. are?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Duncan

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what do you think the causes of homosexuality and the different sexual manifestations like bi, trans etc. are?

Does it matter? Current research suggests an epigenetic influence, but the bottom line is that it's not learned behavior or simply a lifestyle choice. 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does it matter? Current research suggests an epigenetic influence, but the bottom line is that it's not learned behavior or simply a lifestyle choice. 

Ever? What about in prison?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Ever? What about in prison?

Do you think people become gay in prison? Interesting.

Either way, again, does it matter what the source is? 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

.