Jump to content
Daniel2

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I accept that reasonable and well intentioned individuals can look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. I just don't see that anywhere that suggests just getting married would magically result in attraction.  It is always described as a gradual process. 

 

Absolutely. I'm confused as to why this seems contradictory. I think they absolutely saw it as a part of the process. I just don't think they intended people to get married without love. 

Ok.  Got it.  I think I understand better where you're coming from (especially with your very personal experience here).  Thanks again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  Got it.  I think I understand better where you're coming from (especially with your very personal experience here).  Thanks again.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

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. 

I think this is an essential point.

Even if the mental health profession and Social Sciences were changing the way academics and professionals defined homosexuality, local church leaders would rarely be part of that process and have little reason to examine their own thinking in a time period where in many communities few, if any, openly discussed their attraction.  The only 'real life' exposure many leaders had could have been in these counseling sessions.  If they had simplistic ideas about homosexuality, they may have had no reason to assume it was more complicated because of their limited exposure.

And expecting lay leaders to instinctively  understand the experience more than those going through it is unrealistic, imo.  My brother-in-law, who was not from Utah, had never told anyone about his attraction to men prior to marriage and married believing his love and interaction with my sister would "fix" him (the word he used).  In California, growing up I heard a lot of comments outside of church about what gays just needed was to have great sex with the opposite sex.  Leaders are going to bring their own filters to their own learning sessions.  And I think fundamental ideas about how people live and why things happen often don't change until there is direct engagement with the reality and often not even then.  Being told they are wrong by the people it was affecting most rather than just being told what was right by higher ups may have been necessary.

Given how I have observed leaders just assume they know what is in the Handbook or who appear to have merely skimmed it and missed exceptions, specific rules, etc., I would not be surprised if what was coming down from SL was there for decades before it penetrated for many, maybe even most at the local levels.  Just think about the habits of having men give the closing prayer or talk.  As a bulletin person, it was frustrating to me at how many just didn't think about it and assigned talks and prayers automatically.  As a mother and teacher, seeing many leaders and members who were willing to blow off the two leader at all times rule for years made me rather angry at times.  Unless my memory is way off it was over a decade after I knew about it that I started hearing it as more a given than a change.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Dup

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Homosexuality as a curable mental illness wouldn’t imply just changing behavior.  If they were coming from that mindset it seems like they were most likely referring to becoming heterosexual when they spoke of curing homosexuality.  

I understand your viewpoint and appreciate you explaining it.  For me, when I read their words “homosexuality can be cured” it seems clear to me that they were talking about “curing” them to become heterosexual. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2018 at 7:34 PM, kiwi57 said:

Alas, that is not what the documentation says.

kiwi, just a reminder that you have not responded to my CFR (or rockpond’s):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209787174

You either need to post the quotes and links to back up your claim or retract it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JulieM said:

kiwi, just a reminder that you have not responded to my CFR (or rockpond’s):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209787174

You either need to post the quotes and links to back up your claim or retract it.

He seems to have left the building.....crickets..... :lol:

Here's the other CFR issued (asking for the same quotes):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209786996

I would like to see if kiwi has written statements from the leaders that state what he has repeatedly posted they state.   If they exist, I have not seen them and I am interested to see what he has. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

He seems to have left the building.....crickets..... :lol:

Here's the other CFR issued (asking for the same quotes):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209786996

I would like to see if kiwi has written statements from the leaders that state what he has repeatedly posted they state.   If they exist, I have not seen them and I am interested to see what he has. 

So I'm not Kiwi, but in looking back at the quote you posted, I was surprised to see that you had edited one.  Was that intentional?

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.  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. {Marraige and normal life can follow.}

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

 - Pamphlet published in 1970 by the LDS church for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

Doesn't the "can follow" suggest that marriage happens after the change in romantic interest?

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Doesn't the "can follow" suggest that marriage happens after the change in romantic interest?

I think the “can follow” indicates they were NOT cured prior to dating and marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the “can follow” indicates they were NOT cured prior to dating and marriage.

I'm really confused. Gradually romantic interests can change; marriage can follow.  And that means get married and then you'll be cured?  Honestly, what do you think they mean marriage can follow?

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Homosexuality as a curable mental illness wouldn’t imply just changing behavior.  If they were coming from that mindset it seems like they were most likely referring to becoming heterosexual when they spoke of curing homosexuality.  

I understand your viewpoint and appreciate you explaining it.  For me, when I read their words “homosexuality can be cured” it seems clear to me that they were talking about “curing” them to become heterosexual. 

I think I wasn't clear enough what I meant.  I did not mean that the leaders saw homosexuality as a curable mental illness.  I meant that they were aware that that discussion was taking place.  In fact, I think the quote from the 1981 Handbook is especially clear:

Quote

Professionally trained people differ in their opinions regarding both the cause and the cure, but the gospel makes the issue clear. Homosexuality is a sin, is learned behavior (not inborn), and can be stopped.

AND LATER:

Homosexuality is not a sickness that can be easily cured by medicine or a vaccination.  It is a learned habit that can be repented of and controlled by learning other ways of life that are healthier and righteous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think I wasn't clear enough what I meant.  I did not mean that the leaders saw homosexuality as a curable mental illness.  I meant that they were aware that that discussion was taking place.  In fact, I think the quote from the 1981 Handbook is especially clear:

 

Got it.

And they were wrong when they said it is a learned behavior and learned habit. 

It’s sad that so many church members felt that they could trust these men enough to base major life decisions on the false info the promulgated as apostles. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

So I'm not Kiwi, but in looking back at the quote you posted, I was surprised to see that you had edited one.  Was that intentional?

Did I not quote it correctly?  I could have quoted much more (looking at the pamphlet now), but none of that changed the meaning, IMO.  I posted that to show what the leaders taught (to encourage a member who is gay to start dating the opposite sex and "gradually" move their "romantic interests where they belong".  ).    The gradually move their romantic interests part does not support kiwi's claim that they would have already been cured of being gay.

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Doesn't the "can follow" suggest that marriage happens after the change in romantic interest?

I don't think so,  The "can follow" indicates that first you date the opposite sex in an effort to change your attraction (or behavior), and then hopefully a desire to marry the opposite sex will "follow".  I probably should have included that part of the quote because it does support the point I was making.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did I not quote it correctly?  I could have quoted much more (looking at the pamphlet now), but none of that changed the meaning, IMO.  I posted that to show what the leaders taught (to encourage a member who is gay to start dating the opposite sex and "gradually" move their "romantic interests where they belong".  ).    The gradually move their romantic interests part does not support kiwi's claim that they would have already been cured of being gay.

I don't think so,  The "can follow" indicates that first you date the opposite sex in an effort to change your attraction (or behavior), and then hopefully a desire to marry the opposite sex will "follow".  I probably should have included that part of the quote because it does support the point I was making.

I think all comments being made in this discussion itself around these points illustrates that the language used was anything but "plain, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal" stating that marriage is only to be pursued after a cure has been found. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think all comments being made in this discussion itself around these points illustrates that the language used was anything but "plain, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal" stating that marriage is only to be pursued after a cure has been found. 

Yes, thus the complete silence now from kiwi.  There are no quotes supporting his claims.

Looks like he's moved on and maybe we all should too....

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I think all comments being made in this discussion itself around these points illustrates that the language used was anything but "plain, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal" stating that marriage is only to be pursued after a cure has been found. 

Can't argue with that.  I agree that there was a lot of ambiguity about what was meant.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Did I not quote it correctly?  I could have quoted much more (looking at the pamphlet now), but none of that changed the meaning, IMO.  I posted that to show what the leaders taught (to encourage a member who is gay to start dating the opposite sex and "gradually" move their "romantic interests where they belong".  ).    The gradually move their romantic interests part does not support kiwi's claim that they would have already been cured of being gay.

I don't think so,  The "can follow" indicates that first you date the opposite sex in an effort to change your attraction (or behavior), and then hopefully a desire to marry the opposite sex will "follow".  I probably should have included that part of the quote because it does support the point I was making.

If I understand, you would agree that they saw dating as a part of the cure(solution), and that marriage could follow a desire to marry the opposite sex?  

Just for the record: I totally agree with that.  On that, the record is perfectly clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If I understand, you would agree that they saw dating as a part of the cure(solution), and that marriage could follow a desire to marry the opposite sex?  

Just for the record: I totally agree with that.  On that, the record is perfectly clear. 

Yes, I agree.

Thanks again for your input here.  You actually helped me understand some of the thinking behind all of these past teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't think so,  The "can follow" indicates that first you date the opposite sex in an effort to change your attraction (or behavior), and then hopefully a desire to marry the opposite sex will "follow".  I probably should have included that part of the quote because it does support the point I was making.

Even if dating is meant to be part of the process of change, do you agree that marriage is not since it stated as "can follow"?  (add-on:  hadn't read the last two posts when I posted this question, I am going to leave it because I want to be sure there is no ambiguity here)

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, JulieM said:

kiwi, just a reminder that you have not responded to my CFR (or rockpond’s):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209787174

You either need to post the quotes and links to back up your claim or retract it.

 

Asked and answered.

You need to stop badgering.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Did I not quote it correctly?  I could have quoted much more (looking at the pamphlet now), but none of that changed the meaning, IMO.  I posted that to show what the leaders taught (to encourage a member who is gay to start dating the opposite sex and "gradually" move their "romantic interests where they belong".  ).    The gradually move their romantic interests part does not support kiwi's claim that they would have already been cured of being gay.

But it flatly contradicts CB's claim that marriage was expected to be the source of that cure.

Sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

But it flatly contradicts CB's claim that marriage was expected to be the source of that cure.

The "source"?  I wouldn't use that word (I haven't seen it used here either).  But it does express a teaching that dating and marriage was a part of the cure spoken of in the pamphlet.  

You claim that the instructions given were to not advise a gay member to date the opposite sex until they had already been cured of being gay.  But when asked for quotes, you simply cannot produce any to support this.

You have not responded to TWO CFRs that have been issued, asking you for quotes and links supporting your claims  You have posted none, so I can only conclude that you don't have any (or that you refuse to post them if you do).  Like I stated above, we can just move on and I think that's best.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

"But it does express a teaching that dating and marriage was a part of the cure spoken of in the pamphlet."

I disagree.  Dating part of the cure, sure...but not marriage.  Marriage was what could happen afterwards...like my daughter going to college or getting her driver's license after she knows her depression is gone or at least controlled so as not to be ruling her thoughts. (Klindley can say if that is a poor analogy for how it was viewed).  College is not going to help her not be depressed and if she went before she has control, will make the depression worse.  If she gets to the point she can go or perhaps something else she wishes she could participate in (teaching kids piano, driving, having a job have all been possibilities talked about), she sees her life as being more full.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

"But it does express a teaching that dating and marriage was a part of the cure spoken of in the pamphlet."

I disagree.  Dating part of the cure, sure...but not marriage:

But kiwi claims:

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

But kiwi claims:

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

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.  

Quote

 

If what you're claiming took place, then many local leaders were wrongly advising their gay members, while relying on instructions they'd received in writing from their leaders.  And, that this was allowed to continue for several years.  I don't believe for one minute that word would not have gotten back to Salt Lake and that they would have immediately corrected the local leaders (if they were not following the guidance, teachings and beliefs that had been sent out to them).   There are simply too many reporting that they received the same advise and guidance (that california boy received) to believe these were all leaders who misunderstood.  Why would that be allowed to continue for so long if it was in error?

I think it's much more likely that the local leaders perfectly understood the instructions and followed them when advising gay members of their local congregations to date the opposite sex and get married.  I see that it's you who have misunderstood the leader's teachings.

 

 

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.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By kiwi57
      All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.
      If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."
      None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.
      This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?
      To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
    • By Daniel2
       
      In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:


    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.
      A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.
      I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831
    • By EntropyJustKillUsNow
      I was really questioning something... Is the Mormon Church really supporting the LGBT?? The gays and lesbians aren't going to stay married or still be "in love" in the afterlife. You guys know this, right? I'm guessing this is just a way to attract more members, and it's a pretty effective way to do it. But please, we aren't seriously condoning this, are we? Must I remind you people the deadly disease epidemic these people have brought on themselves, and many other innocent individuals? Not to mention that at least a 1/3rd of the people who are gay or lesbian are only that way because of traumatic experiences of sexual abuse, which alters people's minds and bodies in extremely dysfunctional ways, including sexual confusion. The other 2/3rds is composed of people who are just born that way. So we are supporting the biproduct of sexual abuse and mental illness, we are supporting the abominable results of sexually transmitted diseases that come with it, and now the foundation of our church is finally hanging by a thread, JUST like our own prophecy said!! This is what I hate about entropy...
×