Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, and given the quote that he was using if I recall correctly I see that as a possible reading, especially given the other context.  It was how I read it, though I understand why others might read it differently.  English is a flexible language. (Add-on:  it wasn't a quote he was using, but quotes in others' posts he responded to)

The quote klindley put up separated dating from marriage.  It was less ambiguous.

As far as I can tell, that response wasn’t referring to any specific quote.  It’s in the same post where he states it’s written  “plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally”.  Thus the 2 CFR’s asked for from kiwi for where that is written (links and quotes).  So far he has refused to honor those.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

As far as I can tell, that response wasn’t referring to any specific quote.  It’s in the same post where he states it’s written  “plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally”.  Thus the 2 CFR’s asked for from kiwi for where that is written (links and quotes).  So far he had refused to honor those.

I believe he is referring to the 3? quotes that ALarson provided since the full context of his claim was:

Quote

 

As far as I can tell, that question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the documentation that has been provided.

Which [documentation] plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found. Anyone who points to that documentation and claims that it says that marriage was offered as the means by which the cure was to be effected is making demonstrably false claims.

 

 

 

Ignoring what was said about dating eliminates much of the ambiguity, imo.  If he is only making the claim about marriage at that point, I think he has a case that if it talks about marriage at all, it talks about it after a cure or return to "normalcy" has taken place.  I wouldn't claim there is no ambiguity though.

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

I believe he is referring to the 3? quotes that ALarson provided since the full context of his claim was:

Ignoring what was said about dating eliminates much of the ambiguity, imo.  If he is only making the claim about marriage, I think he has a case that if it talks about marriage at all, it talks about it after a cure or return to "normalcy" has taken place.  I wouldn't claim there is no ambiguity though.

Exactly.

And, he still has not responded to the CFR.  I know I and others would like to see where it’s written as clearly as he claims.

 

Link to comment

Here are the quotes:

Quote

 

"In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them to effect a cure and bring their lives back into total normalcy."

 

 
Since there is nothing about marriage, this can be ignored.
------
Another...here is the full quote of two paragraphs, the last bit, "Homosexuality can be Cured" comes in the Appendix that follows after several more paragraphs about prayer not being sufficient on its own, homosexuality being as serious as adultery and fornication (but apparently no more serious, it appears they were concern it would be dismissed as a more trivial sin interestingly enough) and the potential for discipline, but only as a last resort after all efforts of love and inspiration are not effective due to resistance, finishing up with offering additional help from leaders called to serve in this capacity.

 

Quote

 

"The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step. When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl and though they never indulge in sex until after their marriage makes it proper and meaningful, there are many of the afflicted ones who have no interest in the opposite sex and must now gradually developed it.  Some homosexuals become effeminate and some lesbians become masculine in the dress, voice and mannerisms.  

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.  Marriage and normal life can follow.

...

Appendix

REMEMBER:

Homosexuality CAN be cured,  if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.

 

 

Without the correction, there is no information provided on marriage.  With the correction, it becomes explicit and unambiguous that marriage as a possibility comes after the cure, imo, since "follow" places it after and is considered quite separately from dating.

-----

The third one:

Quote

 

There is no easy or even commonly accepted cure for homosexuality.  Professionally trained people differ in their opinions regarding both the cause and the cures, but the gospel makes the issue clear.  Homosexuality is a sin, is learned behavior (not inborn), and can be stopped.

....

Through discussions ,activities, and imitation, he needs to learn what a heterosexual life is and what a manly priesthood leader and father does.  He needs to learn that sex, while important between husband and wife, is not the consuming issue it often is between homosexual partners.  He needs to learn of the fulfillment men feel through fatherhood, vocation, and avocation.  In essence, he must be introduced to and learn the heterosexual or straight way of life

 

While this speaks of fatherhood and attitude towards sex of a husband and wife, there is nothing that requires his learning to be from personal experience rather than learning of new ways of looking at things through being taught principles and perhaps observation of successful marriages.

I think the only documentation here that addresses marriage (and kiwi did not use "dating" in that particular comment unlike previous comments) is clear in my opinion that it comes after a cure so if he is intentionally leaving out dating, my opinion is he is right about it being clear and unambiguous.

However, I pretty certain he talked about dating AND marriage originally and it was only later he was posting only about marriage.  If this wasn't intentional and he meant dating and marriage, I would disagree that the whole comment was unambiguous stating dating and marriage came after the cure.  It looks like when he first responded to a CFR, he mentioned "dating and marriage" clearly being taught to occur after a cure.  I think he is only right about marriage:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209787138

  
Quote

 

On 2018-01-15 at 8:48 PM,  JulieM said: 

"Not true.  It does not state to only date and marry when fully cured.  So, what was the “cure” kiwi?  

Do you have the source for where the leaders stated to only date and marry “after a cure has been found”?"

Kiwi:  "Yes.

1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors."

1981 pamphlet "Homosexuality."..."

 

 

Dating was taught officially imo as part of the cure process in at least the one case.  Marriage was not, so one can't claim the combination of the two ("date and marry as a cure") was taught in official materials...at least not with these quotes.

In ALarson's documentation, only one quote refers to marriage and it uses the phrase "can follow" after discussing the process of a cure.  I think that is unambiguous.

I think ambiguity comes in if you view dating and marriage as different steps of the same process of developing an eternal relationship and do not separate them out for this quote.  But my opinion is the quote itself does that, especially when viewed in total.

Sorry if my obsessiveness is annoying, I can delete it...but I needed something to fill the hours of no sleep.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Sorry I cannot quote the PDF I am studying.

The 1981 pamphlet clearly includes dating as part of the repentance process.  Under Section C, Helping the Member Set Effective Goals, they also paraphrase and quote Pres. Kimball saying homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized, etc...  

Part of the process is setting goals and achieving them.  The second section of goals is labeled Social Goals, with b) encourage him if single to begin to date and gradually increase its frequency.

Pretty clear there, imo, dating is part of the cure.

Otoh, pretty much the only mention of marriage came at the end of the booklet in the testimony section, summarizing that many individuals have been able "to overcome homosexual problems and found peace and success in dating, marriage, and Church activity."  If it had said "through" as opposed to "in", I would say it was suggesting marriage could be part of the process, but as written it sounds more like the reward that comes after the struggle.

Link to comment

Has anyone posted this yet, a lit review in 1993 of the past 20 of teachings on homosexuality:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1344&context=irp

Have to be quick, they used the word cure or a variation four times in three comments talking about curing homosexuality.

Date or dating had no hits.

Marriage had 15 hits, all talking about the concept of marriage.

Talks about maintaining healthy friendships (section almost at the end on confidence in success of the repentance and forgiveness process), but nothing about romantic relationships I saw

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Not sure this has been posted, a 1981 training manual for mental health professionals...talks about being able to change, but didn't see any mention of curing in my skimming (some pages blurry),

No mention of marriage, talking about past experiences with women, some guided thoughts, but noting about actual dating that I caught.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384917/1981-Understanding-and-Changing-Homosexual-Orientation-Problems-LDS-Social-Services

Link to comment

In politics, one of the most important goals is to "control the narrative" and to do so in such a way that no one reflects upon the fact that they are following a narrative that does the paradigmatic controlling.   And from my perspective, one of the most obvious things about the dominant narrative is that it completely avoids the issue of sex addiction as a potential factor in individual behavior.   Of course, if a person is "born that way", and therefore has no options but to behave that way, then their narrative is going to be constructed to support the narrative that they are born that way and have no other options.  On the other hand, if a person has been sexualized from an early age, and views the world and their experience through the lens of addiction, and therefore assume that "this is just the way I am," then it also happens that two basic behaviors will also be obvious.  A key diagnostic factor in addicts is the utter conviction that "sex is my most important need."  Another, relevant to the discussion of "controlling the narrative" is that addicts characteristically justify themselves through the medium of constant grievance:

Quote

Blindness and delusion

As soon as we set into motion the process of covering our wrongs, there is an increasing inability to see ourselves as we really are and others as they really are. The alcoholics call this pride-blindness. How sharply we became attuned to the defects of others. Our ability to detect hypocrisy in others seemed to increase in proportion to our own self-blindness., as though we had to sharpen our critical spirit more to keep from looking inward. Often our judgmental attitude took on great heat as we raged against people, places and things...

We were particularly blind to the perception of our addiction, Even though a part of us knew the habit controlled us, it was often the one thing in our lives we thought we were controlling

From the SA Whitebook, page 54.

So, if it happens that there were a community that was heavily populated with addicts, it would follow that such a community would be characterized by a focus on protecting their own sexual behavior above all other considerations, and doing that by telling grievance stories about someone else.

And that protection of their own sexual behavior would include an avoidance of the topic of addiction.  Because one of the characteristics of recovery from addiction is that sex becomes subjectively optional, no longer the first and greatest need, to which all other values and loyalties must bow.  And one of the characteristics of addiction recovery involves the demonstration of a spiritual awakening, a willingness to serve other people trapped in addiction, helping them to see that "this is not just the way you are," but that there are options.

Now even if you don't believe that you personally are addicted (despite the obvious life-defining priority given to sexuality and the constant recourse to grievance stories to justify one's self), think about the consequences of not telling an person who (even if they were born that way, and not, say, groomed and initiated when young and lonely and vulnerable) that they may actually have options.  The last thing an addict needs to hear is that this is just the way you are, your grievances are completely justified, and you have no option options but to let your desires rule your life.  A recovered sex addict still has desires, but they don't have to act on them because they can see past momentary desires and base their choices on preferred consequences.  Sex becomes optional, not the first and great commandment.

On the other hand, the possibility that sex addiction could account for behavior in a significant portion of any social group turns out to be a threat to the supply of dopamine and seratonin and such, so addicts prefer to avoid even mentioning the existence of the line of thought.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited by Kevin Christensen
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has anyone posted this yet, a lit review in 1993 of the past 20 of teachings on homosexuality:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1344&context=irp

Have to be quick, they used the word cure or a variation four times in three comments talking about curing homosexuality.

Date or dating had no hits.

Marriage had 15 hits, all talking about the concept of marriage.

Talks about maintaining healthy friendships (section almost at the end on confidence in success of the repentance and forgiveness process), but nothing about romantic relationships I saw

 

So why have church leaders moved away from the “cure” language so prevalent in early teachings on the subject?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In politics, one of the most important goals is to "control the narrative" and to do so in such a way that no one reflects upon the fact that they are following a narrative that does the paradigmatic controlling.   And from my perspective, one of the most obvious things about the dominant narrative is that it completely avoids the issue of sex addiction as a potential factor in individual behavior.   Of course, if a person is "born that way", and therefore has no options but to behave that way, then their narrative is going to be constructed to support the narrative that they are born that way and have no other options.  On the other hand, if a person has been sexualized from an early age, and views the world and their experience through the lens of addiction, and therefore assume that "this is just the way I am," then it also happens that two basic behaviors will also be obvious.  A key diagnostic factor in addicts is the utter conviction that "sex is my most important need."  Another, relevant to the discussion of "controlling the narrative" is that addicts characteristically justify themselves through the medium of constant grievance:

From the SA Whitebook, page 54.

So, if it happens that there were a community that was heavily populated with addicts, it would follow that such a community would be characterized by a focus on protecting their own sexual behavior above all other considerations, and doing that by telling grievance stories about someone else.

And that protection of their own sexual behavior would include an avoidance of the topic of addiction.  Because one of the characteristics of recovery from addiction is that sex becomes subjectively optional, no longer the first and greatest need, to which all other values and loyalties must bow.  And one of the characteristics of addiction recovery involves the demonstration of a spiritual awakening, a willingness to serve other people trapped in addiction, helping them to see that "this is not just the way you are," but that there are options.

Now even if you don't believe that you personally are addicted (despite the obvious life-defining priority given to sexuality and the constant recourse to grievance stories to justify one's self), think about the consequences of not telling an person who (even if they were born that way, and not, say, groomed and initiated when young and lonely and vulnerable) that they may actually have options.  The last thing an addict needs to hear is that this is just the way you are, your grievances are completely justified, and you have no option options but to let your desires rule your life.  A recovered sex addict still has desires, but they don't have to act on them because they can see past momentary desires and base their choices on preferred consequences.  Sex becomes optional, not the first and great commandment.

On the other hand, the possibility that sex addiction could account for behavior in a significant portion of any social group turns out to be a threat to the supply of dopamine and seratonin and such, so addicts prefer to avoid even mentioning the existence of the line of thought.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Interesting but I don’t see the relevance to this thread.  We aren’t talking about sex addiction. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting but I don’t see the relevance to this thread.  We aren’t talking about sex addiction. 

The relevance is that no one in this thread sees the relevance, from HBO on.  That is my point.  Sex addiction is a significant factor in why the discussion is even taking place, and in the shape the discussion has.  No one is talking about something that makes the discussion what it is.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, and given the quote that he was using if I recall correctly I see that as a possible reading, especially given the other context.  It was how I read it, though I understand why others might read it differently.  English is a flexible language. (Add-on:  it wasn't a quote he was using, but quotes in others' posts he responded to)

The quote klindley put up separated dating from marriage.  It was less ambiguous.

(add-on:  my memory may have fixated on one quote that I remember but haven't come to yet, but reading other stuff that was provided, I still read them as ambiguous about timing and purpose of dating.  And from my POV, kiwi was critiquing the claim that both dating and marriage were intended to be part of the cure process where most of the quotes imply in my opinion at most dating could be part of the cure.)

I believe the quoting of specific passages started here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209786904

The first one doesn't mention dating or marriage, but a cure that leads to "normalcy" as I read it.

The second quote places dating before moving towards "the normal" in the sentence, but after once they are ready.  "Ready" could mean "ready to be cured" or "ready because they are cured" (they 'just' have to fill in the void of the removal of homosexual desires with heterosexual desires).  Given the dating reference, I think it is more likely the first just as in klindley's quote, but if I was the parent of the intended object of their desires, I would be telling them it meant after they no longer feeling homosexual attraction because I wouldn't want my child's feelings to be part of therapy (having seen what my sister and her husband went thru because he decided---on his own as he related it---to use a relationship with her to "fix" himself and just because marriage is hard enough without using it to "cure" anything).

In the next post it talks about learning the heterosexual way of looking at life.  There is no specific info about dating or marriage, so I think that is useless for claiming dating and/or marriage was intended to be part of a cure...or the reverse.

As far as I can tell, there were no other quotes prior to my original summary of my view of kiwi's point, which he then stated I understood him correctly.

-----

I also think this below that ALarson stated is what encouraged most people to interpret that dating and marriage was pushed as a cure from SL either explicitly or implied through not forcing change, but I don't have such faith that communication works that effectively on a regular basis given what I have seen with other longstanding misunderstandings and incorrect implementation of policies.  

 

I understand that for many if SL was aware of an error in teaching marriage was a cure, that they would of course be making a big scene about it...such as the quick reaction mentioned on the board not too long ago to a bishop or SP who was considering changing scheduling from the designated variations in the Handbook (hoping this is not a fantasy of mine, maybe someone can confirm this is a real occurrence) and that they had to be aware of it given the frequency reported.  Marriage is just too important to mess around with.  I feel the same way about racism (and I wish to the bottom of my heart somehow it had been different with the advice given for homosexuality because maybe my sister would now be in a happy marriage instead of divorced twice and my brother-in-law alive) and can't understand why more vigorous methods weren't used to root it out, but I recognize I am not the one with actual experience in spreading the word through the world, so I try not to get frustrated and I am going to reserve judgment until I know what decisions were made, if any, and why and how much effort was put into followthrough...in other words, I figure I am going to be waiting until the next world for info on this as well as a myriad of other things.

There is one big flaw in your reading the direction from church leaders this way. If gay men were being advised that dating would cure them from. being gay, you have to first believe that dating a woman would actually cure you from being gay.  Is there any evidence that will actually happen for the vast majority of gay men?  If there is actual evidence of that happening, then why wouldn't the church still advise gay men to just start dating women until they are cured and then marry instead of advising most gay men to remain celibate?

And secondly, If gay men were suppose to wait until they were "cured" before marrying, why is there hundreds of gay men that married even though they were still gay?

 I don't see much harm in encouraging gay men to try dating women.  Certainly some like Klindery and others that might be more on the bi side dating might very well work. But the trail of broken homes and failed marriages does not support that dating was the only thing gay men were being told to do to be "cured".  Look at the evidence instead of speculating what the advice might mean.

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

I think ambiguity comes in if you view dating and marriage as different steps of the same process of developing an eternal relationship and do not separate them out for this quote.  But my opinion is the quote itself does that, especially when viewed in total.

Sorry if my obsessiveness is annoying, I can delete it...but I needed something to fill the hours of no sleep.

Wow. Thanks Calm for taking the time and putting in so much effort to answer kiwi’s CFR for him.  Interesting to read through all of that!

I do disagree that any of what you quoted or written above states things in a “plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally” manner when it comes to instructing leaders to make sure a member who is gay is completely cured before dating the opposite sex or marriage is advised. Those quotes have been discussed here and interpreted differently by different members.  They are ambiguous, IMO (and others) and certainly not what kiwi claimed.

Kiwi stated both of those (regarding dating and marriage) and refused to respond AFTER my CFR was issued (and rockpond’s too) with any quotes posted or links as was requested.

 Kiwi stated:

Which plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found."

And

"Dating is suggested after the person feels that he is free of his temptations and not before."

None of what you provide for him states that. The one quote comes close to inferring that a person hopefully is “normal” (but not before “dating is suggested”).  The word “cured” is never used to make it plain, unambiguous, and unequivocally clear.

But once again, it’s very generous of you to step in and attempt to do that for kiwi.  Thanks again.

I’m pretty satisfied though that those quotes don’t exist as thorough as I know you are.  

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Sorry I cannot quote the PDF I am studying.

The 1981 pamphlet clearly includes dating as part of the repentance process.  Under Section C, Helping the Member Set Effective Goals, they also paraphrase and quote Pres. Kimball saying homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized, etc...  

Part of the process is setting goals and achieving them.  The second section of goals is labeled Social Goals, with b) encourage him if single to begin to date and gradually increase its frequency.

Pretty clear there, imo, dating is part of the cure.

Otoh, pretty much the only mention of marriage came at the end of the booklet in the testimony section, summarizing that many individuals have been able "to overcome homosexual problems and found peace and success in dating, marriage, and Church activity."  If it had said "through" as opposed to "in", I would say it was suggesting marriage could be part of the process, but as written it sounds more like the reward that comes after the struggle.

In other words, ambiguous.  I've seen no quotes supporting what kiwi stated and then claimed was included in the pamphlet.  After that, when a CRF was given for him and he was asked for specific quotes or links, he stopped posting and returned only long enough to tell people to stop "badgering" him.  

I've been following this thread and am amazed that kiwi has been allowed to do what he's done regarding not responding to the two CFRs issued.

Quote

 

Banned Behaviors  include but are not limited to::

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

 

How is what kiwi has done here in response to a CRF issued, not  "Refusing to provide appropriate references to support" his statements"?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

There is one big flaw in your reading the direction from church leaders this way. If gay men were being advised that dating would cure them from. being gay, you have to first believe that dating a woman would actually cure you from being gay.  Is there any evidence that will actually happen for the vast majority of gay men?  If there is actual evidence of that happening, then why wouldn't the church still advise gay men to just start dating women until they are cured and then marry instead of advising most gay men to remain celibate?

And secondly, If gay men were suppose to wait until they were "cured" before marrying, why is there hundreds of gay men that married even though they were still gay?

 I don't see much harm in encouraging gay men to try dating women.  Certainly some like Klindery and others that might be more on the bi side dating might very well work. But the trail of broken homes and failed marriages does not support that dating was the only thing gay men were being told to do to be "cured".  Look at the evidence instead of speculating what the advice might mean.

Yes... the simple fact is that dating a woman will not make a gay man turn straight.  So the entire premise was wrong regardless of what the Brethren taught to local leaders and how the local leaders interpreted it.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... the simple fact is that dating a woman will not make a gay man turn straight.  So the entire premise was wrong regardless of what the Brethren taught to local leaders and how the local leaders interpreted it.

That and also the statement the blanket statement that "Homosexuality CAN be cured".

I'm grateful both harmful teachings are no longer believed or taught by our leaders.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Homosexuality does not equal sex addiction.  So, yes, I fail to see the relevance.

I second this.

I also reject the notion that I suggest that "sex is my most important need," nor do I "focus on protecting [my] own sexual behavior above all other considerations."  I am fairly confident that none of my gay friends or acquaintances would characterize themselves as such, either.

I was not "sexualized at an early age."

I am not "addicted to sex."

The idea that Kevin wants to throw "sex addition" at anything homosexual as if it is a root cause is entirely alien to me and entirely unsupported by science or any health findings.

Additionally, my ongoing engagement on this board hasn't been about "protecting my sexual behaviors" at all, but about protecting my familial relationships through marriage and equal civil rights around equal access and service laws based on public accommodations, as well as building bridges of understanding and mutual respect between the LDS and LGBT communities, none of which have to do with "protecting my sexual behaviors," which already have been legally protected for the last 15 years since SCOTUS's 2003 ruling Lawrence v. Texas.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

So why have church leaders moved away from the “cure” language so prevalent in early teachings on the subject?

Because experience has demonstrated using the language causes more harm than good, imo.

And they have probably had the chance to talk with gays who have been able to be successful in MOM long term and heard in many/most cases, the attractions stay with them and don't disappear even if they have been able to learn to love one woman romantically (I know of three men who describe their experience that way). 

"Cure" implies no longer having them, sets up wrong expectations for vast majority I expect.

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

I've been following this thread and am amazed that kiwi has been allowed to do what he's done regarding not responding to the two CFRs issued.

How is what kiwi has done here in response to a CRF issued, not  "Refusing to provide appropriate references to support" his statements"?

Has anyone reported him?  I haven't, as I wasn't sure exactly how the conversation had developed (too many interruptions and sidetracks) and if the CFR was appropriate and not based on a misreading at the beginning (I now believe it is but am waiting to see his response first)

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not claiming the advice was accurate.

No you weren't.  But both you and Kiwi seemed to indicate that marriage was only advised after a "cure" took place.  There are way too many examples where the gay person was told to marry when no cure had taken place. Nor does it state anywhere that marriage should ONLY take place after the person is "cured" from being gay.  What is certain is that the direction at best is very unclear what the Bretheren were counseling gay men to do.  Not really surprising that church leaders were. going around telling gay men to marry and they would become straight is it?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has anyone reported him? 

I don't know.  I didn't issue either of the CFRs, so I'll leave that up to those who did, but I'm surprised  that anyone would defend his behavior here regarding this.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I haven't, as I wasn't sure exactly how the conversation had developed (too many interruptions and sidetracks) and if the CFR was appropriate and not based on a misreading at the beginning (I now believe it is but am waiting to see his response first)

Appropriate?  Really?  Kiwi made statements (repeatedly) and many questioned them and asked for sources.  Two members here issued him a CFR for quotes and links to where they could read statements from church leaders that agreed with his statements.  What is not "appropriate" about that? 

Or, do you mean that you think that it was kiwi who misread?  

Because it's difficult to think that anyone misread his statements as they are clearly stated, IMO.

Kiwi stated:

Quote

"Which plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found."

And:

Quote

"Dating is suggested after the person feels that he is free of his temptations and not before."

These statements were posted by him and then 2 members issued a CFR asking for quotes and links backing these up.  So, I'm not sure what you mean by "a misreading" or wondering if the CFR was "appropriate"?

It's up to him if he chooses to come back to this thread and clarify and honor the requests for the quotes (references with links).  I think it's been pretty well established that his statements are not correct.  At best, there is one quote that is still ambiguous (as evidenced by the different interpretations here),  

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  I didn't issue either of the CFRs, so I'll leave that up to those who did, but I'm surprised  that anyone would defend his behavior here regarding this.

Appropriate?  Really?  Kiwi made statements (repeatedly) and many questioned them and asked for sources.  Two members here issued him a CFR for quotes and links to where they could read statements from church leaders that agreed with his statements.  What is not "appropriate" about that? 

Or, do you mean that you think that it was kiwi who misread?  

Because it's difficult to think that anyone misread his statements as they are clearly stated, IMO.

Kiwi stated:

And:

These statements were posted by him and then 2 members issued a CFR asking for quotes and links backing these up.  So, I'm not sure what you mean by "a misreading" or wondering if the CFR was "appropriate"?

It's up to him if he chooses to come back to this thread and clarify and honor the requests for the quotes (references with links).  I think it's been pretty well established that his statements are not correct.  At best, there is one quote that is still ambiguous (as evidenced by the different interpretations here),  

 

Contrary to your claims, I provided the references.

Even though the CFR's were a direct reversal of the burden of proof.

You and your fellow accusers bear the burden of supporting your accusation that the General Authorities of the Church taught that marriage was a therapeutic strategy. Note that every time I challenged that accusation, you and your fellow accusers immediately retreated to  "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex," as if the two things were synonymous.

When I issued a CFR to california boy, he refused, saying that he wasn't going to "play that game" with me. Evidently, he only wants to play it with those who are more easily gamed.

So if I've done something ban-worthy, please note that your little friend (whose intense personal sufferings render him completely immune to any challenges) did so first.

 


Answer the CFRs or leave the thread.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Contrary to your claims, I provided the references.

After JulieM issued the CFR asking for quotes and links?

You can't just post previously to someone issuing you a CFR and mention two different pamphlets (that are many pages long each and without even a link) and count that as answering a CFR.  At least most can't get away with doing that here.

You should post the exact quote with a link to that quote as a reference.

Or...you can just do as you wish and not honor the CFR it seems :lol:

Either way, if the quotes existed that supported the two statements you made, I'd imagine you'd have posted them.  Too bad, because I was interested to see what you had and read the actual quotes.  I'm actually only familiar with the earliest pamphlet and would like to see what was stated in the second one you mentioned.

ETA:

I did a search for the pamphlet from 1981 and will read through it.  A specific page (or pages) would have been helpful to know.

Here's the link for anyone who wanted it:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/4/4c/Homosexuality-1981.pdf

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