Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

To an extent.

No, advising gays to marry the opposite sex as a cure or to help them overcome their homosexuality is not still taught by church leaders "to an extent".   

Show me where that is still taught (bolded part above).  Please supply a quote from a current leader.

CFR

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

Just now, ALarson said:

as a cure or to help them overcome their homosexuality

CRF this part of your assertion regarding past teachings. Especially as referring to homosexuality as sexual orientation and not sexual behavior. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

CRF this part of your assertion regarding past teachings. Especially as referring to homosexuality as sexual orientation and not sexual behavior. 

See the quote already supplied.  You know that this advise was given to even members of our board here (who have posted about it).  So please do not play ignorant on this.  Gay members were most certainly counseled to date and marry the opposite sex to overcome their same sex attractions.  And, it led to many disastrous marriages, heart break and broken families.

Quote again from above:

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.

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

 

Now, please answer my CFR that leaders are still teaching and recommending this today for homosexual members even "to an extent" as you claimed.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Sexual orientation or homosexual behavior? Which was Elder Packer referring to? 

From the context of his quote, it sounds like both. Of course his use of the word perversion is pretty inflammatory and is thankfully not a word used anymore. 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, advising gays to marry the opposite sex as a cure or to help them overcome their homosexuality is not still taught by church leaders "to an extent".   

Show me where that is still taught (bolded part above).  Please supply a quote from a current leader.

CFR

Holland Ensign 2007: 

We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness.

Oaks, 2008

We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

See the quote already supplied.  You know that this advise was given to even members of our board here (who have posted about it).  So please do not play ignorant on this.

By bishops who misunderstood that counsel.  Which they corrected and clarified back in the 80s.  

CFR that Kimball meant as a cure for attraction rather than as a natural next step after repenting from and forsaking homosexual behavior?

Edited November 4, 2016 by kllindley

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

"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.

 

This seems to be talking about dating and being open to the possibility that heterosexual attractions emerge or that their already present bisexual attractions to develop.  This about closing the door to gay relationships and opening the door to opposite sex relationships, patiently until there are romantic interests.  Not even necessarily a shift in sexual orientation, but an attraction to a daughter (or son) of God. "When he is ready." 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Holland Ensign 2007: 

We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness.

Oaks, 2008

We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

Those quotes are depressingly recent. Thanks for providing.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

By bishops who misunderstood that counsel.  Which they corrected and clarified back in the 80s.  

 

Where do you have on record that it was corrected and clarified "back in the 80's".  Another CFR on that please.

 

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

CFR that Kimball meant as a cure for attraction rather than as a natural next step after repenting from and forsaking homosexual behavior?

You cannot CFR regarding what someone meant.   Good grief.   The quotes speak for themselves, IMO, and are very clear.  

And, I'm not even sure which Kimball quote you are referring to (?).  That advice came from church leaders in a pamphlet in 1970 (Hope For Trangressors)

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Those quotes are depressingly recent. Thanks for providing.

But Oak's states that "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.”

So there has been a change since the instructions given by church leaders in 1970.

This was the CFR issued and Oak's quote says the opposite:

Quote

 

No, advising gays to marry the opposite sex as a cure or to help them overcome their homosexuality is not still taught by church leaders "to an extent".   

Show me where that is still taught (bolded part above).  Please supply a quote from a current leader.

CFR

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But Oak's state that "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.”

So there has been a change since the instructions given by church leaders in 1970.

This was the CFR issued and Oak's quote says the opposite:

 

 

I'm telling you it was never taught.  When did Hinkley make the statement Oaks quoted.  There is the answer to your own CFR.  

[ALarson]

Anyone truly interested in how far church leaders have come should read this from 1970:

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

 

It starts out with:

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."

.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm telling you it was never taught.  When did Hinkley make the statement Oaks quoted.  There is the answer to your own CFR.  

You seem to be ignoring the quotes provided. It has absolutely been taught. It was practiced. BYU was involved in reparative therapy to change gayness. Mixed orientation marriages were encouraged. At this point it's hard to see your CFR as anything other than willful ignorance and/or attempted obfuscation of the facts.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm telling you it was never taught.

These were instructions given to local leaders from the leaders of the church in 1970:

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.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

You stated these instruction were  "corrected and clarified back in the 80's".

 Please supply quotes/quote that this took place.  CFR again.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You said this instruction was corrected and clarified "back in the 80's".

 Please supply quotes that this took place.

Of course, even if it was corrected and clarified, it is clear it WAS taught.

KLindly- Claiming it was "never" taught, after repeatedly being shown proof that it was is disingenuous. Please accept this fact.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course, even if it was corrected and clarified, it is clear it WAS taught.

KLindly- Claiming it was "never" taught, after repeatedly being shown proof that it was is disingenuous. Please accept this fact.

Very true. 

I'd still like to see if any leader made statements correcting and clarifying the instructions that were given to local leaders back in 1970.  This is what Kllindley has claimed happened "in the 80's".

(But even if he can supply them that would prove a change in teachings   Right?)

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Rock_N_Roll]

Wow!  Kllindley continually asks for quotes, ALarson, HappyJ and others provide them. Kllindley then either ignores them or says they don’t mean what they say and asks for quotes again. It’s getting tiresome.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Rock_N_Roll

[kllindley]

Both of you are refusing to enter the discussion with an acknowledgement that the term homosexuality was defined in 1986 as sexual relations with members of the same sex. This makes it hard to communicate honestly with each other when you state that the quote from the pamphlet,  written incidentally primarily by Elders Kimball & Peterson, somehow indicates that marriage was seen as a cure for sexual orientation. Rather than the next logical step to be taken when successfully leaving homosexual behavior, in patience when romantic interest had developed.

 

Quote

. 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.

Hinckley, 1987

Oaks states that Hinckley made that comment to correct the erroneous notion that marriage was part of the cure, even if some local leaders had so taught.

I can't see where I'm being so obtuse.  I'm asking about what teachings actually meant when they were given and not how people interpret them now.   

Edited November 4, 2016 by kllindley

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Both of you are refusing to enter the discussion with an acknowledgement that the term homosexuality was defined in 1986 as sexual relations with members of the same sex. 

If you want to start another discussion on this different topic, go ahead.  What was asked for here (evidence or quotes showing that some teachings have changed over the years), have been supplied.

You still have an active CFR to respond to.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

These were instructions given to local leaders from the leaders of the church in 1970:

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.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

You stated these instruction were  "corrected and clarified back in the 80's".

 Please supply quotes/quote that this took place.  CFR again.

Kllindley, here's the CFR that is still active.

.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

That "to an extent"  and the above three quotes don't adequately answer it?  Are you serious?

I said "to an extend" to your comment "they aren't told to date and get married"  You then added "as a cure for homosexuality"  You misrepresented what I said and so I have no obligation to defend what I did not say.  So I ignored that and addressed the fact that it is not taught now and I don't believe was taught based on semantic shifts to common language.  I believe you are comparing apples and oranges and saying my how they've changed.    

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Quote

 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.

Hinckley, 1987

Oaks states that Hinckley made that comment to correct the erroneous notion that marriage was part of the cure, even if some local leaders had so taught.

Here's the answer which was given at the time and is still the answer.

[ALarson]

Just now, kllindley said:

That "to an extent"  and the above three quotes don't adequately answer it?  Are you serious?

I said "to an extend" to your comment "they aren't told to date and get married"  You then added "as a cure for homosexuality"  You misrepresented what I said and so I have no obligation to defend what I did not say.  So I ignored that and addressed the fact that it is not taught now and I don't believe was taught based on semantic shifts to common language.  I believe you are comparing apples and oranges and saying my how they've changed.    

You stated that the instruction given to local church leaders in 1970 was "misunderstood" and was "corrected and clarified back in the 80's".  Here's what you posted:

Quote

By bishops who misunderstood that counsel.  Which they corrected and clarified back in the 80s.  

Please supply quotes that these instructions were "corrected and clarified back in the 80's".  That is the CFR

[ALarson]

dup

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

I'm honestly confused. The above quote from Hinckley  and the explanation from Oaks don't count. Is that what you're saying?