Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Calm]

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?  

There may have been quotes, but most were only partial quotes which much more interpretation attached to them.  I would be more impressed with actual full quotes with, if possible, links to the original material for an even greater context.  I believe this is what CV is asking for and is the board standard.

add-on:. Written before seeing CV's response, it is now knowledge and not belief

Edited November 3, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.…

Now you're just being obtuse.  I'll let you out of the CFR since you aren't willing to list the quotes that are inaccurate (hint they are direct quotes and are accurate, if you'd click on the links and spend some time reading).  I'll just assume you can't back up the claim you made.  .

You are impossible to have an honest conversation with because even when given proof of the changes in some of teachings, you deny they occurred.  I'm done here.

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

No, you aren't supposed to take my word for it.  Nor are you supposed to based your belief on my testimony.  And I wouldn't want or expect you to change your beliefs or position based on a few quotes that I could provide.  That would be ridiculous.

I provided you with two references.  You can start with those.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

There may have been quotes, but most were only partial quotes which much more interpretation attached to them.

With links provided to read more (or enough of the quote to find the entire quote).  These quotes are not inaccurate and I never stated that I agreed with all of the blogger's opinions.  It would be a huge dump to give all of the entire quotes here on this forum in a post.  A person who is interested can follow the links provided and read them in their entirety if they truly are interested.

There was ample information given for them to look up and read the quotes provided.  

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Now you're just being obtuse.  I'll let you out of the CFR since you aren't willing to list the quotes that are inaccurate (hint they are direct quotes and are accurate, if you'd click on the links and spend some time reading).  I'll just assume you can't back up the claim you made.  .

You are impossible to have an honest conversation with because even when given proof of the changes in some of teachings, you deny they occurred.  I'm done here.

Huh? I clearly stated, “I accept the snippets as coming from actual and reliable sources, they just don’t convey  full picture in my opinion.”

You can't take that at face value, or understand it, and conclude that I'm "impossible"... So be it; I listed the quotes and commented on each one as you asked, and showed that there was no change, or that the actual quote was insufficient to form a conclusion. is it really a conversation when one party just parrots what he cut and pasted off a blog, and ignores what the other has clearly written?

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I provided you with two references.  You can start with those.

The call for reference was to provide the actual passage(s) that inform your opinion. My experience with "CFRs" is to not just name the author, book and chapter and the like, but to quote the pertinent passages. Anything is just blathering. I'm trying to help you show some legitimacy! LOL

Otherwise all I need to do is go by memory and assert, as you do, something like, "Using the language of the day, this chapter (6) is about abandoning same-sex lust and sinful behavior that contradict the divinely instituted covenant of marriage between a man and woman. The approach to repentance involves recognition of mental and physical sin; using the Church and its agencies and programs to repent; relying upon the miracle of the gospel of Jesus Christ with its purity, beauty, and rich promises; and realizing the blessings of proper attitudes and self-mastery through activity and good works. Nothing material has changed since this book was published."

I don't think you've met the standard for a valid response to a CFR, which corresponds with the believableness of your statements.

Edited November 3, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

You have no greater justification for reading your assumption into statements that were made earlier than Smac does for making the very reasonable assumption that Church leaders in earlier days would have made allowance for medically necessary abortions.

Quote

 

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

 

You are the one who introduced the "tangent" by blithely tossing off an accusation devoid of substance.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It would be a huge dump to give all of the entire quotes here on this forum in a post.

Just give a couple of cogent quotes, with your own conclusions, that you feel make your point! I am interested in having such a conversation. I presume the Packer quote was one, but I don't see how it makes your point.

Edited November 3, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Your argument is absurd.

If it was not yet scientifically possible in earlier times to determine that an abortion was medically necessary, how can you expect Church leaders of that era to allow for abortions that were medically necessary? And how can you fault them for not doing so? That is presentism at its most blatant and egregious.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

With links provided to read more (or enough of the quote to find the entire quote).  These quotes are not inaccurate and I never stated that I agreed with all of the blogger's opinions.  It would be a huge dump to give all of the entire quotes here on this forum in a post.  A person who is interested can follow the links provided and read them in their entirety if they truly are interested.

There was ample information given for them to look up and read the quotes provided.  

He is asking for just a couple though in terms of original context, iirc.  In my opinion that is reasonable and in line with board standards.  Mods in the past have dinged people for telling others to look them up on their own since it is easily done (not a threat, just using to support the board standard claim  ).

Personally I believe any quote used to support a claim should be provided that way and if one would prefer not to do so and ultimately won't do so, then one shouldn't use the partially original, mostly paraphrased secondhand (thirdhand?) quotes...though I probably make that error myself.  I hope I catch all the requests to find original sources though.  If I have missed or erred in that way, anyone should feel free to point it out to me for correction.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Articles published by whom? The Church?

I've never seen a Church-published article to indicate that as recently as 1996, a person was forbidden to hold a Church calling merely for having the attraction but not acting on it. Or forbidden to serve a mission, for that matter.

 

 

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

I did a quick Google search on this, and I have to agree with you Scott.  When we say "homosexuality" today, we mean sexual orientation.  In the past, "homosexuality" wasn't considered an identity--it was considered a behavior.

In 1986, the Ensign said,

 

 

 

17 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. 

 

8 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. 

 

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

You're distorting what I said.

And you keep tossing off the a priori assertions as though they were given without providing any substance or documentation.

Where I come from, we call that sophistry.

Of course the concept of being homosexual but celibate existed. All that is needed for it would be for one to acknowledge his own homosexual tendencies but to pledge -- and abide by that pledge -- not to act on them.

And at long last, you still have not come forth with any examples where the clear message was that same-sex attraction alone without the behavior is enough to disqualify one from holding a Church calling. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The call for reference was to provide the actual passage(s) that inform your opinion. My experience with "CFRs" is to not just name the author, book and chapter and the like, but to quote the pertinent passages. Anything is just blathering. I'm trying to help you show some legitimacy! LOL

Otherwise all I need to do is go by memory and assert, as you do, something like, "Using the language of the day, this chapter (6) is about abandoning same-sex lust and sinful behavior that contradict the divinely instituted covenant of marriage between a man and woman. The approach to repentance involves recognition of mental and physical sin; using the Church and its agencies and programs to repent; relying upon the miracle of the gospel of Jesus Christ with its purity, beauty, and rich promises; and realizing the blessings of proper attitudes and self-mastery through activity and good works. Nothing material has changed since this book was published."

I don't think you've met the standard for a valid response to a CFR, which corresponds with the believableness of your statements.

My statement that prompted the CFR was that the teachings have changed over time.  Trying to demonstrate that with a few selected quotes is antithetical to the statement itself.  One must understand the teachings, their meaning, and context over the decades.  It took me many months of study, I don't know of a way to shorten that.

There is much more in the chapter but if that is all you are going to glean from your study of it then I don't think I can really help you understand my POV.  If you go back and read the Crime Against Nature chapter and you read Packer's "To The One" and you think those align perfectly with today's teachings, than I won't be able to change your opinion.

But, as you study those past teachings you might also consider that both Miracle of Forgiveness and the To The One pamphlet have been pulled from publication.  Likely because they no longer accurately represent church doctrine.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

He is asking for just a couple though in terms of original context, iirc.  In my opinion that is reasonable and in line with board standards. out to me for correction.

I've done this (in several posts) with links provided.  I actually just posted the timeline to see if it would help rockpond find what had been asked of him with the CFR issued for him (I'll learn to stay out of things in the future  )

Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're distorting what I said.

And you keep tossing off the a priori assertions as though they were given without providing any substance or documentation.

Where I come from, we call that sophistry.

Of course the concept of being homosexual but celibate existed. All that is needed for it would be for one to acknowledge his own homosexual tendencies but to pledge -- and abide by that pledge -- not to act on them.

And at long last, you still have not come forth with any examples where the clear message was that same-sex attraction alone without the behavior is enough to disqualify one from holding a Church calling. 

I have no idea why you think I am distorting what you have said.  If I have, I apologize.

I don't think that being gay (having a homosexual orientation) without the behavior was ever something that disqualified one from holding a church calling.  But the concept of someone being openly gay and celibate was not something that existed in the church prior to the 90's.  I don't see any evidence of us even having the language for it within our church terminology.  As you read Kimball and Packer, they describe homosexuality as a behavior that came from curable disease that is caused by masturbation and selfishness.  So how would someone have gone to their bishop and said that they are gay, publicly open about it, but celibate and worthy of a calling.  Per the doctrine of the day, the first order would have been to repent of one's homosexuality.

Do I have evidence of these conversations happening?  Of course not.  Do you have evidence that they didn't?  No.  I'm going off of the published teachings of the day and what they meant.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've done this (in several posts) with links provided.  I actually just posted the timeline to see if it would help rockpond find what had been asked of him (I'll learn to stay out of things in the future    rock is the one who was issued the CFR....)

I appreciate it, ALarson,  I just have no interest in trying to take people on little baby steps through the material.  If they want to study it out for themselves, they are free to do so.  If not, and they want to disagree with me - there is absolutely nothing I can do to change their minds.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, as you study those past teachings you might also consider that both Miracle of Forgiveness and the To The One pamphlet have been pulled from publication.  Likely because they no longer accurately represent church doctrine.

Or because they use outdated language to teach the same doctrine, and are speaking to people in a culture that is substantially different in terms of understanding sexuality and homosexuality in particular.  

 

Sorry, but I really don't but the claims that church teachings changed.  At all.  You cite months of study.  I cite years.  8 to be exact.  Including archives of old Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists conventions.  What I see is not any doctrine changing.  But the way things are talked about has changed.  

I used to hate both the Miracle of Forgiveness and Elder Packer's pamphlet.  Then one day after having a prompting about the evolution of language, I read them again, this time substituting "homosexual behavior" for "homosexuality."  Suddenly they didn't seem so bad.  

When I first heard Elder Packer's talk and when I read it again and again and again, I can't see what is so wrong with it.  He doesn't say God doesn't give us inborn tendencies toward the evil and impure."   He states that the belief that we cannot overcome (rise above not eliminate) those feelings and urges is false.  What is so controversial about that?     

[Calm]

The Packer quote to me is about dismissing the idea that God gives insurmountable obstacles (whether inborn or not) to following his Gospel.  Thus someone might be given an attribute he can't change, but that wouldn't prevent him from living the Gospel...only his choice to choose otherwise will.  That is the doctrine he is teaching and that hasn't changed.

This doctrine could be debated using the example of being born somewhere the Gospel isn't known and cultural standards are vicious (plenty of cultures dominated by what we would see as criminal behaviour to choose from).  Did Elder Packer view that differently than mental/emotional attributes?, etc. etc....but that is different, if I am following the conversation, from what is being debated here, which is if the doctrine has changed itself (I am not settled on that issue...iffy on what is tone and framing ---which has changed significantly---and what is doctrine, some comments come close, being ambiguous enough it might indicate changed doctrine and the decision requires looking into patterns of teaching of that person, IMO, which I have not done enough yet).

Elder Packer may have believed homosexuality was not an inborn characteristic and if so, that likely influenced his phrasing, but the context of that quote IMO was about not using the idea of being born a certain way as a reason to give up on seeking to obey God.  I don't think one can claim that because Elder Packer believed homosexuality wasn't inborn and he framed some of his teaching within that context, that makes 'homosexuality is not inborn' a doctrine of the Church.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Calm

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 I'm going off of the published teachings of the day and what they meant.

What you say they meant.  

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As you read Kimball and Packer, they describe homosexuality as a behavior that came from curable disease that is caused by masturbation and selfishness

That is how you read them.  I read them to say that sometimes young men who masturbated in the 60s and 70s did it together (i.e. a significant minority, but the latter didn't come without the former), and then a smaller subset of those engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.  This could lead a young man to question his sexuality, especially as there was even less terminology for bisexuality than homosexual orientation.  There is a clear gap between one pathway into same-sex behavior and the solutions recommended by Elder Kimball (who would have been addressing behaviors.)

 

I read (Now.  At the time I hated it because I didn't understand the language barrier) Packer to say that acting on homosexual feelings stems from selfishness.  It comes from choosing personal gratification over eternal glory and the blessings that could be granted to posterity.  And that anyone currently acting on those feelings needed to repent.     

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've done this (in several posts) with links provided.  I actually just posted the timeline to see if it would help rockpond find what had been asked of him with the CFR issued for him (I'll learn to stay out of things in the future  )

I have been inconsistently reading the thread, so it is quite possible I missed them.

I know you are generally, overwhelmingly IMO, very good at documenting claims.  

I have been a bit surprised at the less than usual quality of documentation by posters in this thread, it may be my missing stuff though.  Otoh, given CV's posting style, I would be also surprised if he was being unreasonable in his calls for better documentation.

(I need to get some work done so I may not get back to the thread before people lose interest in it and I am not going to get it going again in that case because it is way too distracting and short answers just don't work; my apologies if I miss some substantial request, feel free to message me if you feel a response is important).

Edited November 3, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Or because they use outdated language to teach the same doctrine, and are speaking to people in a culture that is substantially different in terms of understanding sexuality and homosexuality in particular.  

 

Sorry, but I really don't but the claims that church teachings changed.  At all.  You cite months of study.  I cite years.  8 to be exact.  Including archives of old Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists conventions.  What I see is not any doctrine changing.  But the way things are talked about has changed.  

I used to hate both the Miracle of Forgiveness and Elder Packer's pamphlet.  Then one day after having a prompting about the evolution of language, I read them again, this time substituting "homosexual behavior" for "homosexuality."  Suddenly they didn't seem so bad.  

When I first heard Elder Packer's talk and when I read it again and again and again, I can't see what is so wrong with it.  He doesn't say God doesn't give us inborn tendencies toward the evil and impure."   He states that the belief that we cannot overcome (rise above not eliminate) those feelings and urges is false.  What is so controversial about that?     

What Pres. Packer said vs. what was published for that particular talk you references are different.

I agree that substituting "homosexual behavior" for "homosexuality" would improve things but that is changing the teachings.  Changing the way things are talked about (by our leaders) is changing the teachings.  What you call evolution of language, I see as evolution of our doctrine.

Do you see anything that has changed with Kimball and Packer's teachings regarding the cause and curability of homosexuality?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have no idea why you think I am distorting what you have said.  If I have, I apologize.I don't think that being gay (having a homosexual orientation) without the behavior was ever something that disqualified one from holding a church calling.  .

You appear here to be backing off from an earlier assertion, a thing I would welcome.

Quote

But the concept of someone being openly gay and celibate was not something that existed in the church prior to the 90's.  I don't see any evidence of us even having the language for it within our church terminology.

 

Maybe because it was not something that people, for the most part, wanted to disclose about themselves. It would be very understandable if they didn't.

Quote

 As you read Kimball and Packer, they describe homosexuality as a behavior that came from curable disease that is caused by masturbation and selfishness.  

I'm unconvinced that's what they meant.

If one had the latent tendency, masturbation and selfishness might render it more difficult to keep the tendency under control. That could be a way of reading what they were saying.

Quote

So how would someone have gone to their bishop and said that they are gay, publicly open about it, but celibate and worthy of a calling.  Per the doctrine of the day, the first order would have been to repent of one's homosexuality.

If one had not acted out his homosexuality, he would have had nothing to repent of in that respect. That's the "doctrine of the day" today. I'm not at all persuaded it wasn't in the past.

Quote

Do I have evidence of these conversations happening?  Of course not.  Do you have evidence that they didn't?  No.  I'm going off of the published teachings of the day and what they meant

So at long last, all you have to offer by way of example is your own subjective interpretation of "published teachings of the day." That's pretty much what I suspected.

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is how you read them.  I read them to say that sometimes young men who masturbated in the 60s and 70s did it together (i.e. a significant minority, but the latter didn't come without the former), and then a smaller subset of those engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.  This could lead a young man to question his sexuality, especially as there was even less terminology for bisexuality than homosexual orientation.  There is a clear gap between one pathway into same-sex behavior and the solutions recommended by Elder Kimball (who would have been addressing behaviors.)

 

I read (Now.  At the time I hated it because I didn't understand the language barrier) Packer to say that acting on homosexual feelings stems from selfishness.  It comes from choosing personal gratification over eternal glory and the blessings that could be granted to posterity.  And that anyone currently acting on those feelings needed to repent.     

That's a good way to cast it now.  But that is not what he said.  He said that selfishness could be the "cause" of the "disorder", that it was at the root.  And that the cure would be unselfishness.  He actually used a form of the word selfish 31 times in that address.

We can now look back, having been taught the current doctrine of the church, and change his language to make it fit our current paradigm but that doesn't mean the teachings haven't changed.  Quite the opposite.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You appear here to be backing off from an earlier assertion, a thing I would welcome.

Nope, you had altered what I originally stated.

 

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So at long last, all you have to offer by way of example is your own subjective interpretation of "published teachings of the day." That's pretty much what I suspected.

We're all going off our subjective interpretations, Scott.  I hope that isn't news to you.

[kllindley]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you see anything that has changed with Kimball and Packer's teachings regarding the cause and curability of homosexuality?

You mean the cause and curability of homosexual behavior?  Not really.  Stop doing it.  Stop putting yourself in situations where it is likely to happen.  Repent.  Focus less on self than others.  Put trust and Faith in God and Christ that even though it may feel natural, it is just that: natural man; and that following the commandments around chastity really will bring the most happiness eternally.  

I respect, but disagree that changing words changes teaching when the words have changed in society at large.  Just as I try to translate 15th century English to modern English when reading scripture, I think it is valuable to look at what words meant when they were used.  The fact that those words are not used today (not in publication) suggests to me that when the original meaning became sufficiently different from the present meaning, the former was retired.   

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My statement that prompted the CFR was that the teachings have changed over time.  Trying to demonstrate that with a few selected quotes is antithetical to the statement itself.

Huh? Compare quote(s) teaching A with those teaching B to show which (and that) teachings have changed over time.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

There is much more in the chapter but if that is all you are going to glean from your study of it then I don't think I can really help you understand my POV.

Those I've known with a credible POV can lay it all out, with compelling examples, so that others can understand.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

But, as you study those past teachings you might also consider that both Miracle of Forgiveness and the To The One pamphlet have been pulled from publication.  Likely because they no longer accurately represent church doctrine.

Who knows? You already confessed a POV that would speculate such. Show me which teachings from those books warranted their being pulled.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You mean the cause and curability of homosexual behavior?  Not really.  Stop doing it.  Stop putting yourself in situations where it is likely to happen.  Repent.  Focus less on self than others.  Put trust and Faith in God and Christ that even though it may feel natural, it is just that: natural man; and that following the commandments around chastity really will bring the most happiness eternally.  

I respect, but disagree that changing words changes teaching when the words have changed in society at large.  Just as I try to translate 15th century English to modern English when reading scripture, I think it is valuable to look at what words meant when they were used.  The fact that those words are not used today (not in publication) suggests to me that when the original meaning became sufficiently different from the present meaning, the former was retired.   

I see the change in wording as a change in understanding, which therefore became a change in teachings.