Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not surprisingly, I have a completely different reaction to this story.

So tell us your reaction.  I personally would like to know how you feel about it.  This is a discussion board after all.  We don't have to all agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, articles and talks written/delivered by the Brethren and published by the church.  

Now that you point it out... the timeframe I wrote was wrong.  You need to go back into the 70's, 80's and earlier. 

I think the time frame is not all you got wrong. 

Analytics' observation is correct. In those days it was less than common to reference being gay or homosexual without the implication of behavior, not just inclination. 

You have yet to be forthcoming with any examples, but my hunch is you'd be hard pressed to come up with any where the clear message is that the same-sex attraction alone without the behavior is enough to disqualify one from holding a Church calling. 

I won't hold my breath. 

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

And why is there the "then" and "now" that you describe?  Because of the doctrine being taught back then by Packer, Kimball, and others was different than what it is today.

No. The words used to teach it changed. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

You can start with chapter 6 of Miracle of Forgiveness. 

Please cite the actual verbiage I am to look at that supports the point you are making. I also issued a CFR for "Packer... and others" you mentioned (Packer was the first a presumably most pertinent on your list).

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the Church moving at a "glacial pace," it might have moved a millimeter by the time the earth is cleansed attendant to Christ's coming and the dawn of the Millennium, and then it won't matter anyway.

By the way, I was unaware there was ever a time when the Church did not make allowances for abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger. And my recollection goes back to the early '70s, when abortion was a prominent public issue.

Edited to add:

The U.S. Supreme Court made the Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973. At that time, the Church issued the following statement:

"The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."

"Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality."

"Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, 'Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it'." [Bold emphasis ours] _3,4

 

The statement can be read on this website which says that the it was a restatement of the Church historical position on abortion.

Where did you get the idea there had ever been a time when the Church did not allow abortion to save the life of the mother?

The 1973 First Presidency message is the earliest instance of the church making allowance for abortion in certain cases that I found. If you can provide earlier accounts I'd be interested in seeing them. But statements against abortion have been made for many decades previous to the 1973 statement. That means that prior to 1973 abortion was not permitted by the church and that the church had not yet made a statement about allowable instances.

A couple of quotes from early leaders.
 

Quote

 

John Taylor, the third prophet of the LDS Church, strongly condemned those who provided abortions by calling them “murderers and murderesses.” In this sermon given in 1881, Taylor said such people will “go to perdition” (Journal of Discourses 22:230). Three years later George Q. Cannon said that abortionists “will be damned with the deepest damnation; because it is the damnation of shedding innocent blood, for which there is no forgiveness” (Journal of Discourses 26:14-15).

In 1916 Joseph F. Smith wrote, ‘It is just as much murder to destroy life before as it is after birth, although manmade laws may not so consider it; but there is One who does take notice and his justice and judgment is sure’ (Relief Society Magazine 3:367-68)

Retrieved from http://www.mrm.org/abortion

 

Again, it is no surprise that abortion has been condemned by the church for a very long time. But I cannot find early statements allowing for abortion in certain situations. Can you provide examples of allowance going back at least to 1881 when John Taylor made his statements against abortion?

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

And why is there the "then" and "now" that you describe?  Because of the doctrine being taught back then by Packer, Kimball, and others was different than what it is today.

Here's a pretty good timeline listing LDS talks, letters, etc. and changes in teachings over the years:

http://mormoninthecloset.blogspot.com/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html

Here are a few quotes:

Quote

 

1969 - Apostle Spencer W. Kimball publishes The Miracle of Forgiveness which condemns homosexuality as a "crime against nature" and encourages homosexual men to marry women in order to overcome their attractions.

1970 - Apostle Spencer W. Kimball's New Horizons for Homosexuals (later titled A Letter to a Friend) is published as an official Church pamphlet. It includes sections titled "It Is Curable" and "Multiply and Replenish" and encourages gay men to marry and father children as a sign of their efforts to overcome their homosexual tendencies.

1975 - The First Presidency issues a letter referring to "the unfortunate problem of homosexuality which occurs from time to time among our people" which encourages leaders "not to label people as homosexual because this both discourages and tends to make the matter seem beyond solving."

 

Quote

 

1976 - Apostle Boyd K. Packer gives a (now infamous) talk in which he condones physical violence by young men of the Church (including missionaries) against men who appear to be showing sexual interest in them.

1976 - The First Presidency issues a statement declaring its position against the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among the reasons for its opposition given in a longer message is the fear that the ERA would result in "an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities".

1976 - The General Handbook of Instruction replaces "homosexual acts" with the more general term "homosexuality"in the list of excommunicable sins. This change allowed overzealous local leaders to excommunicate members of the Church who admitted a homosexual orientation, even if they had never acted on it.

 

Quote

1986 - Apostle Dallin H. Oaks gives an interview to CBS on the subject of homosexuality and AIDS, a portion of which airs on the CBS Sunday Morning News. The entire transcript of the interview includes a portion where the interviewer asks Elder Oaks about the Church's stance on the immorality of homosexuality, to which Elder Oaks replies that "the fact that it's outside the bonds of marriage is what makes it a transgression."

1987 - In a talk given in the General Priesthood Meeting of the April 1987 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinckley (at the time first counselor in the First Presidency) says that "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." This is a reversal of the earlier position that marriage was a sign of a homosexual member's willingness and efforts to overcome his orientation.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The 1973 First Presidency message is the earliest instance of the church making allowance for abortion in certain cases that I found. If you can provide earlier accounts I'd be interested in seeing them. But statements against abortion have been made for many decades previous to the 1973 statement. That means that prior to 1973 abortion was not permitted by the church and that the church had not yet made a statement about allowable instances.

A couple of quotes from early leaders.
 

Again, it is no surprise that abortion has been condemned by the church for a very long time. But I cannot find early statements allowing for abortion in certain situations. Can you provide examples of allowance going back at least to 1881 when John Taylor made his statements against abortion?

I suspect the use of "abortion" in these quotes implicates the adjective "elective."  I have a hard time believing that John Taylor or Joseph F. Smith would publicly condemn a person to the furthest reaches of hell because they were involved in a medically necessary abortion.

Even today, there are whole swaths of "anti-abortion" (or "pro-life") folks who make concessions for medically necessary abortions, and yet don't broadcast that small caveat.  I think it is elective abortion, the deliberate killing of a child in utero for reasons other than medical necessity, that is condemned as evil.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect the use of "abortion" in these quotes implicates the adjective "elective."  I have a hard time believing that John Taylor or Joseph F. Smith would publicly condemn a person to the furthest reaches of hell because they were involved in a medically necessary abortion.

Even today, there are whole swaths of "anti-abortion" (or "pro-life") folks who make concessions for medically necessary abortions, and yet don't broadcast that small caveat.  I think it is elective abortion, the deliberate killing of a child in utero for reasons other than medical necessity, that is condemned as evil.

Thanks,

-Smac

You can assume and suspect if you like but I think it reflects presentism. Discussion about distinguishing between "elective" abortion and "necessary" abortion wasn't a thing in 1881. If it was, please show a reference. If leaders distinguished between different types or reasons for abortion there should be references.

However, this is a tangent to the main topic of this thread. I was only trying to answer Scott's question.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Please cite the actual verbiage I am to look at that supports the point you are making. I also issued a CFR for "Packer... and others" you mentioned (Packer was the first a presumably most pertinent on your list).

If you want to understand the changes in LDS teachings regarding homosexuality, you'll have to invest the time to actually go back and read them.  It can't be done through the sound bite and quote clip method.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You can assume and suspect if you like but I think it reflects presentism.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your remarks.  

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Discussion about distinguishing between "elective" abortion and "necessary" abortion wasn't a thing in 1881.

Well, perhaps medical knowledge was not sufficiently advanced to allow for such a distinction to be made.  Now that it can be made, it has been recognized and accepted by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1-Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your remarks.  

Well, perhaps medical knowledge was not sufficiently advanced to allow for such a distinction to be made.  Now that it can be made, it has been recognized and accepted by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

1- Sometimes I wonder if you're even reading what I'm writing because you don't seem to understand. My statement about how  doctrine is changed reflects an understanding that doctrine often evolves over time. The church's position on abortion, to include exceptions, is new as of 1973 (the best that I can tell). That is not presentism. It's arguing against presentism. To think that everything was, just as it is now, doesn't reflect understanding of how change works.

2- Yep. That's what I said. As advances in understanding occur, doctrines evolve. Abortion is one example but there are numerous others.

Edited November 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the time frame is not all you got wrong. 

Analytics' observation is correct. In those days it was less than common to reference being gay or homosexual without the implication of behavior, not just inclination. 

You have yet to be forthcoming with any examples, but my hunch is you'd be hard pressed to come up with any where the clear message is that the same-sex attraction alone without the behavior is enough to disqualify one from holding a Church calling. 

I won't hold my breath. 

You are partly correct.  In those days there was not a distinction made between behavior and orientation.  They were considered one and the same.  And it was curable.  So the concept of being openly gay but celibate didn't really exist within the doctrinal framework of the time.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, perhaps medical knowledge was not sufficiently advanced to allow for such a distinction to be made.  Now that it can be made, it has been recognized and accepted by the Church.

Yes.  In other words, "then" vs. "now".  There has been a change.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Please cite the actual verbiage I am to look at that supports the point you are making. I also issued a CFR for "Packer... and others" you mentioned (Packer was the first a presumably most pertinent on your list).

Here's this link again:

http://mormoninthecloset.blogspot.com/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html

Read through it and you'll see the quotes by Pres. Packer and others with references. There has definitely been a change in teachings over the years regarding homosexuality.  I'm surprised you aren't already aware that changes have occurred (which is good).

There's even been a shift since Boyd K. Packer stated in GC:

Quote

  “Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"

.

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect the use of "abortion" in these quotes implicates the adjective "elective."  I have a hard time believing that John Taylor or Joseph F. Smith would publicly condemn a person to the furthest reaches of hell because they were involved in a medically necessary abortion.

Even today, there are whole swaths of "anti-abortion" (or "pro-life") folks who make concessions for medically necessary abortions, and yet don't broadcast that small caveat.  I think it is elective abortion, the deliberate killing of a child in utero for reasons other than medical necessity, that is condemned as evil.

Thanks,

-Smac

By looking more closely at their actual arguments, I disagree.   Joseph F. Smith said, "It is just as much murder to destroy life before as it is after birth."  If somebody believes that a fetus is a person with the same rights as any other person and that abortion is murder, the whole concept of a "medically necessary" abortion doesn't make sense.  It would be like somebody saying, "I was suffering from cognitive heart failure and needed a heart transplant, so I murdered my 15-year old daughter in order to harvest her internal organs.  But since it was a medically necessary murder there was nothing ethically wrong about doing this."

If somebody agrees that "medically necessary abortion" is a thing, they are conceding that abortion isn't murder--"medically necessary murder" isn't a thing. 

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you want to understand the changes in LDS teachings regarding homosexuality, you'll have to invest the time to actually go back and read them.  It can't be done through the sound bite and quote clip method.

You pointed out -- in a sound bit and quote clip of your own -- that there are changes, and I asked for references. You should retract your statement and clarify that it was your opinion.

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's this link again:

http://mormoninthecloset.blogspot.com/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html

Read through it and you'll see the quotes by Pres. Packer and others with references. There has definitely been a change in teachings over the years regarding homosexuality.  I'm surprised you aren't already aware that changes have occurred (which is good).

There's even been a shift since Boyd K. Packer stated in GC:

Again, gimmie specifics. Show me what you consider to be the most compelling example (or two or three) of a change in doctrine. You seem to hold up the President Packer quote as compelling, but I don't see what has materially changed: Heavenly Father does not pre-set His children with insurmountable "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." We are not encouraged to suppose ourselves (and by extension others) in this fashion. When was the LDS doctrine ever otherwise?

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Again, gimmie specifics. 

I gave quotes in another post above.  There has been a change in the teachings over the years on this topic as shown there.

And, let's not turn this into a discussion regarding what is church doctrine or what isn't as that's been done ad nauseam on other threads.  The teachings spoken by church leaders have changed over they years on the subject of homosexuality, read the quotes I posted.

 

Quote

1969 - Apostle Spencer W. Kimball publishes The Miracle of Forgiveness which condemns homosexuality as a "crime against nature" and encourages homosexual men to marry women in order to overcome their attractions.

1970 - Apostle Spencer W. Kimball's New Horizons for Homosexuals (later titled A Letter to a Friend) is published as an official Church pamphlet. It includes sections titled "It Is Curable" and "Multiply and Replenish" and encourages gay men to marry and father children as a sign of their efforts to overcome their homosexual tendencies.

VS:

Quote

1987 - In a talk given in the General Priesthood Meeting of the April 1987 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinckley (at the time first counselor in the First Presidency) says that "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." This is a reversal of the earlier position that marriage was a sign of a homosexual member's willingness and efforts to overcome his orientation.

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I gave quotes in another post above.  There has been a change in the teachings over the years on this topic as shown there.

And, let's not turn this into a discussion regarding what is church doctrine or what isn't as that's been done ad nauseam on other threads.  The teachings spoken by church leaders have changed over they years on the subject of homosexuality, read the quotes I posted.

These are not reliable quotes; there is a lot of loaded interpretation in the language and commentary of the blogger. You are just passing along his opinions,.

But still, from what you've posted, where/what is the salient change? Changes in terminology are to be expected. Changes in the methods to help people with sinful thoughts and behaviors is no different than changing how we teach lessons over the years.

And I see a good deal of consistency in what you posted with what we teach today: don't label people; ministering/shepherding the saints through the repentance process; resist the normalization and social acceptability of sinful behavior; the difference between sexual acts within and outside of marriage (as the Church defines marriage). These are much stronger indicators that doctrine has not changed, in comparison with a change in methods to achieve the aims of that doctrine.

Show me what you consider to be the most compelling example (or two or three) of a change in doctrine. You seem to hold up the President Packer quote as compelling, but I don't see what has materially changed: Heavenly Father does not pre-set His children with insurmountable "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." We are not encouraged to suppose ourselves (and by extension others) in this fashion. When was the LDS doctrine ever otherwise?

Edited November 3, 2016 by CV75

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You pointed out -- in a sound bit and quote clip of your own -- that there are changes, and I asked for references. You should retract your statement and clarify that it was your opinion.

I gave you references.  Chapter 6 of Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" is a good starting point.  President (then Elder) Packer's "To The One" (multi-stake address) is another.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I gave you references.  Chapter 6 of Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" is a good starting point.  President (then Elder) Packer's "To The One" (multi-stake address) is another.

Not good enough. Exactly what do Kimball and Packer say that support your conclusion? Surely you've given this some thought. CFR, CFR, CFR....

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You seem to hold up the President Packer quote as compelling, but I don't see what has materially changed: Heavenly Father does not pre-set His children with insurmountable "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." We are not encouraged to suppose ourselves (and by extension others) in this fashion. When was the LDS doctrine ever otherwise?

This:

Quote

“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? 

VS:

Quote

The Mormon Church has launched a new website, Mormonsandgays.org, to establish its official stance on homosexuality, saying that gay people were born this way, as it were. It's a surprising evolution from the church's previous attitude. Whereas, as recently as 2008, mormons didn't accept "biological determination for same-sex attraction," now the church has changed it's position, stating that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions."

http://jezebel.com/5966688/mormon-church-officially-states-that-being-gay-is-not-a-choice

 

 

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These are not reliable quotes.

You may not agree with all of the person's input regarding the quotes (who wrote the timeline), but the quotes are reliable and actual words from church leaders past and present.  Which leader is quoted that isn't a reliable quote or who is inaccurately quoted?  

CFR

(Please supply the specific quote linked to or quoted in the timeline that is inaccurate.  And not, the blogger's views, a quote from the church (publications) or church leaders.  I'll make it easier for you and just start at year 1959 on.  Or even from those that I have specifically quoted here for you.)

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not good enough. Exactly what do Kimball and Packer say that support your conclusion? Surely you've given this some thought. CFR, CFR, CFR....

You are correct, I've given it a lot of thought, study, and prayer.  You are welcome to do the same.  I have no interest in pulling quotes out of context and debating them with you.

If you want to understand how LDS teachings on homosexuality have changed and developed over the decades there is only one route.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Not good enough. 

CV, you have been supplied numerous exact quotes directly from past leader's mouths and writings. What would be good enough if those aren't?  

Just admit defeat graciously here and move on. Teachings have for sure changed and softened. Some teachings have stayed the same too (you are correct about that).  No one is claiming that ALL teachings have changed.  But there have been changes over past years to the present.

Edited November 3, 2016 by JulieM

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

This:

VS:

Yes, I’ve seen the Packer quote twice, and still, I don't see what has materially changed: Heavenly Father does not pre-set His children with insurmountable "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." We are not encouraged to suppose ourselves (and by extension others) in this fashion. That is nothing new, and it hasn't changed.

Jezebel the Bogger’s interpretation of a Buzzfeed article with biased paraphrasing and interpretation of the new website (“as it were” – really?) doesn’t change that. For example, believing that that same-sex attraction is not biologically determined (the experience is a far more complex reality than that) is not the same as believing that individuals do not choose to have such attractions (more than just biological factors are at work). Come on!

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You may not agree with all of the person's input regarding the quotes (who wrote the timeline), but the quotes are reliable and actual words from church leaders past and present.  Which leader is quoted that isn't a reliable quote or who is inaccurately quoted?  

CFR

(Please supply the specific quote linked to or quoted in the timeline that is inaccurate.  And not, the blogger's views, a quote from the church (publications) or church leaders.  I'll make it easier for you and just start at year 1959 on.  Or even from those that I have specifically quoted here for you.)

I see. But if you only meant to use the quotes within the quotes, then you should have just listed the actual quotes. I’m not sure what you’re asking for; I accept the snippets as coming from actual and reliable sources, they just don’t convey  full picture in my opinion. But I’ll give it a try:

1969 (Kimball) "crime against nature" – too short a snippet to comment.

1970 (Kimball) "It Is Curable" and "Multiply and Replenish" – too short a snippet to comment.

1975 (The First Presidency) "the unfortunate problem of homosexuality which occurs from time to time among our people" and "not to label people as homosexual because this both discourages and tends to make the matter seem beyond solving." Not enough to tell what it means, but today labels are discouraged (didn’t I point that out already?)

1976 (The First Presidency) "an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities" – in a sense I believe this has been the case since 1976, depending on what “activities” refers to (qualitatively, quantitatively, and context such as domestic, political, educational, etc.) and we still discourage them.

1986 (Oaks) “"the fact that it's outside the bonds of marriage is what makes it a transgression." That has not changed.

1987 (Hinckley) “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." That has not changed.

If I keep putting more work into this than you are, it means you haven’t a leg to stand on! I think you need to put more work into this and provide some side-by-side comparisons with fuller quotes that allow for context and content. I can't just take your word for it.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are correct, I've given it a lot of thought, study, and prayer.  You are welcome to do the same.  I have no interest in pulling quotes out of context and debating them with you.

If you want to understand how LDS teachings on homosexuality have changed and developed over the decades there is only one route.

Cop-out! LOL You evidently have no interest in pulling quotes in context and justify your claims (that practice started before any challenge or debate or my calling you out on it), even without debating...

And I'm supposed to take your word for that? Your testimony?

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

CV, you have been supplied numerous exact quotes directly from past leader's mouths and writings. What would be good enough if those aren't?  

Just admit defeat graciously here and move on. Teachings have for sure changed and softened. Some teachings have stayed the same too (you are correct about that).  No one is claiming that ALL teachings have changed.  But there have been changes over past years to the present.

Do you really think I've been supplied numerous exact quotes directly from past leader's mouths and writings? See the so-called “exact” quotes above. They do not support the claim that changes are afoot that are on a parallel with lifting the priesthood ban, which is how this conversation started.

To do that, it would have to be shown that the covenant of marriage, which informs the law of chastity, was instituted under homophobic influences and that sexual orientation was brought up in reference to Adam and Eve and the covenants and commandments they received. It would have to be shown that there is/was a doctrinal theory that justifies that same-sex orientation is a sign of divine disfavor or a curse; that it reflects one's actions in a premortal life; it is a sin; or that it makes someone inferior in any way to others, etc. None of that exists.

There are no exact quotes that point to any parallel. Instead I get mention of “Chapter Six” and a talk/booklet, and the sage advice, “If you do what I did in the way I did it you would see the light” – ho-hum…

Edited November 3, 2016 by CV75