Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New HBO News Segment focuses on LGBT issues, touches on Monson, Priesthood


Recommended Posts

Quote

Thankfully, in recent years, Church leaders have said that heterosexual marriage should NOT be considered as a step to overcome 'SSA,' even though it's (unfortunately, IMO) still strongly considered to be a goal to aim towards for most devout gay LDS men.

Define "recent years" please.

I cannot find a link to the specific 1983 quote klindley cites, but I am assuming his is accurate.

There is also the FairMormon page that lists some quotes over the years.  Elder Oaks in 1986 sounds like he is leaving it open as a possibility a local leader was inspired to teach it, but hardly seems to be saying it is a policy or consistent teaching in any way:

"CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions."

In 1987:

"The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormon_leaders_recommend_marriage_as_"therapy"_for_those_with_same-sex_attraction%3F

Since I got married in '80 myself, that doesn't seem recent to me.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes.

1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors."

1981 pamphlet "Homosexuality."

Additionally, I point to the reluctant witness of the critics here.

Rockpond: "Can it be proven that Church leaders promised gay men that they would be straight if they married a woman?  Of course not."  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69970-homosexuality-1981-handbook-for-priesthood-leaders/?page=12&tab=comments#comment-1209780785

And, of course, the clever shell game played by both california boy and ALarson in this very thread, something that would not be necessary, were it not for the fact that the documents on which they rely do not support their claims.

That quote of mine does not respond to JulieM's question.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Define "recent years" please.

I cannot find a link to the specific 1983 quote klindley cites, but I am assuming his is accurate.

There is also the FairMormon page that lists some quotes over the years.  Elder Oaks in 1986 sounds like he is leaving it open as a possibility a local leader was inspired to teach it, but hardly seems to be saying it is a policy or consistent teaching in any way:

"CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions."

In 1987:

"The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormon_leaders_recommend_marriage_as_"therapy"_for_those_with_same-sex_attraction%3F

Since I got married in '80 myself, that doesn't seem recent to me.

Thanks for sharing!  That's good info.

I suppose I see Oak's 1986 interview different than you do.  I agree that marriage wasn't presented "as an act of repentance," even by my bishops and therapist, but It was presented as the NEXT step following repentance, as I mentioned in my last post.  Oaks certainly doesn't deny that marriage is recommended; in fact, contrary to Kiwi's claims of knowing what church leaders were saying, Oak freely admits he doesn't know what was being said:

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that... I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions.[1]

That being said, I'm actually shocked to see that the quote by Hinckley is from 1987...  I appreciate you bringing those dates up, because I agree with you--it is actually much earlier than even I realized.  I first heard that quotation in the early 2000's when I started doing some personal study on the internet about it, and I presumed it was a recent quote (from the early 2000's), given my experiences to the contrary. 

As I reflect on why that may have been the case, I suppose it's because of two things: in 1987, I was only 14 and whatever was going on that General Conference, I clearly missed that one... And additionally, we simply didn't have the power of internet search engines.

I would presume that the lack of internet resources (and an aversion to avoiding talking about certain subjects with the intent of avoiding premature exposure and arousing curiosity, in my experience with LDS culture) may also have contributed to that quote taking a while to trickle down into practice with local bishoprics.  I don't pretend to know what kind of counsel or training bishops received on this issue; I only know what I experienced and the testimony of other men like me who likewise received similar counsel well into the 1990's--I received the counsel to marry as a step to overcome my SSA from my two bishops and the LDS BYU-employed therapist between 1992-1995 before eventually marrying in 1997.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I also question that past leaders believed that the cure for homosexuality was to become heterosexual.  I've tried in the past to explain how vastly different I see the idea of homosexuality as the 20th Century social construct is is and homosexuality as the social and psychological phenomena t is hand has been for millennia.  I have a hard time maintaining an assumption of good faith when I continually see that distinction blurred or denied.  

 

In addition, I strongly disagree with the assertion that General Leaders ever suggested marriage as a means to a cure.  We've had this discussion before and I continue to maintain that the source document do not advocate that getting married would make a person straight.  The most "damning" quote is probably: "If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong."   That doesn't say get married and then gradually they will become straight.  It says with patience and determination they can develop heterosexual romantic interests.  

Again, that in 1983, when it became known that some local priesthood leaders were misapplying this counsel, the Leadership specifically and clearly opposed it.  In that announcement, they did not say, "we've taught this, but now it's changing."  They said "To clarify what we've taught, marriage should never be recommended as a cure."  

You may not be open to even considering that this claim can be made in good faith.  I can accept that.  

I'm confused at how you can say:  "I also question that past leaders believed that the cure for homosexuality was to become heterosexual."  And then follow it with the quote and explanation I have bolded above.  I'm not talking about the "marriage as a cure" issue, I'm referring to what they meant when they said that homosexuality could be cured.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

For all Kiwi's blustering about whether or not it was "policy," I personally experienced two different bishops in two different stakes in the early 1990's (as well as a straight, LDS graduate student at BYU who ran the local Evergreen group and had an on-campus office where he met with and specialized in helping male BYU students 'overcome their SSA') who advised me to marry a woman--knowing full well I still experienced 'same-sex attraction'--and promised, "in the name of the Lord," that He would then bless me with 'natural' heterosexual affection for my wife once (as in after) I started "having relations" (their words) with her.  Further, I was told by both bishops not to tell my wife of my attractions, because a) I had already confessed and repented of it through the proper Priesthood channels and the Lord remembered it no more, and b) that it would only cause my future fiancé "to question her own femininity and worth as a woman," and that it would "only damage our relationship."  These were not isolated incidents in which I may have 'misunderstood' what the bishops and therapist were saying... they occurred over years' worth of meetings with both bishops and the therapist.

Several years ago, when I helped found The Utah Gay Father's Association in Pleasant Grove, Utah, our first meeting consisted of 19 formerly LDS men, all RMs, 3/4 BYU grads, all formerly married in the temple, and all of whom were told the exact same thing I was.

Call it policy, practice, ill-founded advice, or whatever you want... but LDS bishops from the 70's to the 90's were advising gay men to get married with the promise ("in the name of the Lord," no less) that we would be cured. 

Trying to argue over semantics of whether it was advice/policy/practice/counsel minimizes the very real damage that many of us personally endured from following well-intentioned, but tragically ill-advised, counsel.  The pain of everyone involved--straight spouses, gay spouses, children, etc.--in many of these ill-advised mixed orientation marriages (the vast majority of which ended in suffering, pain, and divorce for most of us involved, gay or straight, adult or child) is reason enough to condemn recommending the practice of marriage as a step in becoming straight, and especially when concealing it from one's straight fiancé.

Thankfully, in recent years, Church leaders have said that heterosexual marriage should NOT be considered as a step to overcome 'SSA,' even though it's (unfortunately, IMO) still strongly considered to be a goal to aim towards for most devout gay LDS men.

The Brethren apparently bear no responsibility for how local priesthood leaders interpret their teachings.  Even when many seem to interpret them the same way.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The Brethren apparently bear no responsibility for how local priesthood leaders interpret their teachings.  Even when many seem to interpret them the same way.

I think, for some like Kiwi, it sounds like it's really, really important to draw a distinction between what the highest LDS leadership (the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) were saying, vs. what local leaders were saying.

While that's understandable purely on an intellectual level, I'm not sure the distinction matters (speaking only for myself) on a practical level.  In my experience, individual members usually never meet over individual issues with the Twelve; rather, individual members are directed to seek counsel with and guidance through their appropriate local leadership.  Taught that the Lord's appointed Judges in Israel and the shepherds of their flocks, I believed that my bishops received revelation for me and all the members of our wards, and Latter-day Saints are taught to view their local leaders' counsel as revelation from the Lord (obviously, while being counseled to pray about things to receive a personal witness of the bishop's counsel, as well).

Perhaps Kiwi and those like him find some relief in the belief that drawing the distinction between what local leaders are saying deflects accountability, fallibility, and blame from the FP and Twelve.  But I'm well past trying to blame anyone for the ill-advised counsel I was receiving, because I've already made peace with the fact that everyone at every level had the best of intentions in mind; no one was offering that (unwise) counsel out of malice; they were doing so out of ignorance.  I mean that term in the purest sense, not as an epithet; they simply didn't know better and believed they were doing the best thing, especially presuming most of them were likely straight and genuinely believed from their own personal experience that having relations with a woman was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and how could anyone not enjoy it...?  I don't mean to be graphic there---but I've tried to put myself in their shoes.  As much as I may have wanted to blame them at one point in my life, I alone am ultimately responsible for my choices and mistakes, even my own misguided ones that were none-the-less well-supported and advocated for by virtually all the personal authority figures I was taught to trust in my life.

What I am grateful for is that today, it seems clear that the message not to marry as a step in overcoming one's homosexual attractions is now commonly understood by even local leaders. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think, for some like Kiwi, it sounds like it's really, really important to draw a distinction between what the highest LDS leadership (the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) were saying, vs. what local leaders were saying.

While that's understandable purely on an intellectual level, I'm not sure the distinction matters (speaking only for myself) on a practical level.  In my experience, individual members usually never meet over individual issues with the Twelve; rather, individual members are directed to seek counsel with and guidance through their appropriate local leadership.  Taught that the Lord's appointed Judges in Israel and the shepherds of their flocks, I believed that my bishops received revelation for me and all the members of our wards, and Latter-day Saints are taught to view their local leaders' counsel as revelation from the Lord (obviously, while being counseled to pray about things to receive a personal witness of the bishop's counsel, as well).

Perhaps Kiwi and those like him find some relief in the belief that drawing the distinction between what local leaders are saying deflects accountability, fallibility, and blame from the FP and Twelve.  But I'm well past trying to blame anyone for the ill-advised counsel I was receiving, because I've already made peace with the fact that everyone at every level had the best of intentions in mind; no one was offering that (unwise) counsel out of malice; they were doing so out of ignorance.  I mean that term in the purest sense, not as an epithet; they simply didn't know better and believed they were doing the best thing, especially presuming most of them were likely straight and genuinely believed from their own personal experience that having relations with a woman was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and how could anyone not enjoy it...?  I don't mean to be graphic there---but I've tried to put myself in their shoes, and as much as I want to blame them, I alone am ultimately responsible for my choices and mistakes, even misguided ones that were none-the-less well-supported and advocated for by virtually all the personal authority figures I was taught to trust in my life.

What I am grateful for is that today, it seems clear that the message not to marry as a step in overcoming one's homosexual attractions is now commonly understood by even local leaders. 

Well said.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm confused at how you can say:  "I also question that past leaders believed that the cure for homosexuality was to become heterosexual."  And then follow it with the quote and explanation I have bolded above.  I'm not talking about the "marriage as a cure" issue, I'm referring to what they meant when they said that homosexuality could be cured.

I believe you are sincerely confused.  I admit that modern usage has made the issue more confusing.  Do you really want an explanation or would that be wasting my time?  

Link to comment
Just now, kllindley said:

I believe you are sincerely confused.  I admit that modern usage has made the issue more confusing.  Do you really want an explanation or would that be wasting my time?  

I would like to know how you reconcile those two statements.  I sincerely don't get it.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think, for some like Kiwi, it sounds like it's really, really important to draw a distinction between what the highest LDS leadership (the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) were saying, vs. what local leaders were saying.

I would agree.  It's at least one really important for me. 

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While that's understandable purely on an intellectual level, I'm not sure the distinction matters (speaking only for myself) on a practical level.

And I can understand this, too. 

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What I am grateful for is that today, it seems clear that the message not to marry as a step in overcoming one's homosexual attractions is now commonly understood by even local leaders. 

I also agree!

Edited by kllindley
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I would like to know how you reconcile those two statements.  I sincerely don't get it.

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. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

For all Kiwi's blustering about whether or not it was "policy," I personally experienced two different bishops in two different stakes in the early 1990's (as well as a straight, LDS graduate student at BYU who ran the local Evergreen group and had an on-campus office where he met with and specialized in helping male BYU students 'overcome their SSA') who advised me to marry a woman--knowing full well I still experienced 'same-sex attraction'--and promised, "in the name of the Lord," that He would then bless me with 'natural' heterosexual affection for my wife once (as in after) I started "having relations" (their words) with her.  Further, I was told by both bishops not to tell my wife of my attractions, because a) I had already confessed and repented of it through the proper Priesthood channels and the Lord remembered it no more, and b) that it would only cause my future fiancé "to question her own femininity and worth as a woman," and that it would "only damage our relationship."  These were not isolated incidents in which I may have 'misunderstood' what the bishops and therapist were saying... they occurred over years' worth of meetings with both bishops and the therapist.

Several years ago, when I helped found The Utah Gay Father's Association in Pleasant Grove, Utah, our first meeting consisted of 19 formerly LDS men, all RMs, 3/4 BYU grads, all formerly married in the temple, and all of whom were told the exact same thing I was.

Call it policy, practice, ill-founded advice, or whatever you want... but LDS bishops from the 70's to the 90's were advising gay men to get married with the promise ("in the name of the Lord," no less) that we would be cured. 

Trying to argue over semantics of whether it was advice/policy/practice/counsel minimizes the very real damage that many of us personally endured from following well-intentioned, but tragically ill-advised, counsel.  The pain of everyone involved--straight spouses, gay spouses, children, etc.--in many of these ill-advised mixed orientation marriages (the vast majority of which ended in suffering, pain, and divorce for most of us involved, gay or straight, adult or child) is reason enough to condemn recommending the practice of marriage as a step in becoming straight, and especially when concealing it from one's straight fiancé.

Thankfully, in recent years, Church leaders have said that heterosexual marriage should NOT be considered as a step to overcome 'SSA,' even though it's (unfortunately, IMO) still strongly considered to be a goal to aim towards for most devout gay LDS men.

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.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Define "recent years" please.

I cannot find a link to the specific 1983 quote klindley cites, but I am assuming his is accurate.

There is also the FairMormon page that lists some quotes over the years.  Elder Oaks in 1986 sounds like he is leaving it open as a possibility a local leader was inspired to teach it, but hardly seems to be saying it is a policy or consistent teaching in any way:

"CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions."

In 1987:

"The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormon_leaders_recommend_marriage_as_"therapy"_for_those_with_same-sex_attraction%3F

Since I got married in '80 myself, that doesn't seem recent to me.

These quotes are long after the time I was told to marry.  I got married in 1974, long before Elder Oaks was even called to be an apostle.  So it is certainly expected that he didn't know what past promises were given by church leaders in 1974.  Elder Oaks was called to be an apostle in 1984. It was around this time that the church was abandoning this policy.  If anything the quotes from Elder Oaks confirm that he was not sure what advice was given.  Notice that he does not say that the church NEVER had such a policy.  It was never referred to as part of the repentance process.  It was a promise of a cure for being gay.

Hope that helps give better understanding to what was going on.

I might add that this attitude is much more in keeping with the 1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors." where promises of being cured is quite prevalent in the pamphlet.  In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the pamphlet.  There is no mention of modern day counsel that being gay is not a sin and celibacy is the preferred route to take.

I also might add that it is personally insulting that Kiwi thinks he knows more about what church leaders were promising gay members during the early 70's than all those who have testified to quite a different story when it is highly doubtful he EVER brought up how to deal with homosexuality to ANYONE during this time.  Yet he stands as a self proclaimed expert on this subject without any direct quotes to back up that assumed status.  Frankly it is disgusting, and I am tired of his insults hurled at me.  Those that I should have been able to trust the most failed me.  And now I am getting attacked for that failed promise made to me in the name of God,  I feel like a rape victim being blamed for being raped.  Yeah it is that raw for something that has affected my life for decades.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

These quotes are long after the time I was told to marry.  I got married in 1974, long before Elder Oaks was even called to be an apostle.  So it is certainly expected that he didn't know what past promises were given by church leaders in 1974.  Elder Oaks was called to be an apostle in 1984. It was around this time that the church was abandoning this policy.  If anything the quotes from Elder Oaks confirm that he was not sure what advice was given.  Notice that he does not say that the church NEVER had such a policy.  It was never referred to as part of the repentance process.  It was a promise of a cure for being gay.

Hope that helps give better understanding to what was going on.

I might add that this attitude is much more in keeping with the 1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors." where promises of being cured is quite prevalent in the pamphlet.  In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the pamphlet.  There is no mention of modern day counsel that being gay is not a sin and celibacy is the preferred route to take.

I also might add that it is personally insulting that Kiwi thinks he knows more about what church leaders were promising gay members during the early 70's than all those who have testified to quite a different story when it is highly doubtful he EVER brought up how to deal with homosexuality to ANYONE during this time.  Yet he stands as a self proclaimed expert on this subject without any direct quotes to back up that assumed status.  Frankly it is disgusting, and I am tired of his insults hurled at me.  

I agree.  Thanks for the personal insights and information (regarding the dates) as that explains Elder Oaks statements better.  Those that I am personally acquainted with who received the same promises you did (if they would start dating and then marry someone of the opposite sex, their attractions would change and they'd no longer be gay) took place in the early 1970's.

kiwi has two open (active) CFRs issued.  He's been asked for those direct quotes and it will be interesting to see if he can find any.  

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Okay.  I can accept all that.  No significant disagreements.  So what do you think the Brethren meant when they said that homosexuality could be cured?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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.  

I always appreciate your thoughts on this topic, kllindley.  Thanks

The only part that I have a question about is what I put in bold above.  Do you believe the local leaders misunderstood their instructions from church leaders and gave bad advice, or do you believe the instructions and advice were erroneous?  (Just trying to clarify because I think the instructions were very clear.)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I always appreciate your thoughts on this topic, kllindley.  Thanks

The only part that I have a question about is what I put in bold above.  Do you believe the local leaders misunderstood their instructions from church leaders and gave bad advice, or do you believe the instructions and advice were erroneous?  (Just trying to clarify because I think the instructions were very clear.)

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?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  I can accept all that.  No significant disagreements.  So what do you think the Brethren meant when they said that homosexuality could be cured?

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. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, kllindley said:

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?

Yes.  Thanks (and I do agree that in some cases,  following the instructions given ended up being successful for some.)

However, I don't see evidence that what took place was local leaders doing this out of "ignorance and misunderstanding",  I have to believe it would not have been allowed to continue for so many years, if this was the case.  I think the local leaders simply followed the instructions given (which were clearly spelled out, IMO).  I do believe that the instructions given were really well intentioned even though they were wrong to give (for most).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Then wouldn't it follow (if they indeed believed that homosexuality was a choice and a behavior that needed to be abandoned), the leaders would advise them to turn their attentions to the opposite sex to date and marry (as a part of abandoning the behavior)?  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

So you believe that they were saying the behavior could be “cured”?  That seems like an odd word choice, but okay. 

And I second ALarson’s question. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

However, I don't see evidence that what took place was local leaders doing this out of "ignorance and misunderstanding",  I have to believe it would not have been allowed to continue for so many years, if this was the case.  I think the local leaders simply followed the instructions given (which were clearly spelled out, IMO).  I do believe that the instructions given were really well intentioned even though they were wrong to give (for most).

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. 

 

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then wouldn't it follow (if they indeed believed that homosexuality was a choice and a behavior that needed to be abandoned), the leaders would advise them to turn their attentions to the opposite sex to date and marry (as a part of abandoning the behavior)?  

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. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you believe that they were saying the behavior could be “cured”?  That seems like an odd word choice, but okay. 

And I second ALarson’s question. 

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. 

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