Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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

You stated it was corrected and clarified "in the 80's".  Oak's talk was in 2008.

So are you retracting your claim that it was done in the 80's or do you have quotes from back then?

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You stated it was corrected and clarified "in the 80's".  Oak's talk was in 2008.

So are you retracting your claim that it was done in the 80's or do you have quotes from back then?

The quote from Hinckley is 1987. General Conference April

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The quote from Hinckley is 1987. General Conference April

Wow, this is confusing.  Either way, this was a change in teachings and it's been corrected (the entire point of posting the quotes requested).  

What was taught in 1970 is no longer taught regarding that. 

(What's funny is you used that Oak's quote to prove that this teaching was still being taught "to some extent" AND to show that this teaching had been corrected and clarified 

You answered both CFRs issued with the same quote for different purposes.)

ETA: 

I've got to get off of here now.  Members can read all the quotes provided and see how some of the teachings have changed and evolved from past years (which is extremely positive).  I'm not going to get into another back and forth nit picky discussion again that is pretty meaningless when you study the quotes and see how far we've come.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

Just now, ALarson said:

Wow, this is confusing.  Either way, this was a change in teachings and it's been corrected.  

What was taught in 1970 is no longer taught regarding that. 

I'm sorry you're confused

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm sorry you're confused

I'm not the one using the same quote as a reference to support two opposite statements 

And now, I really have to go get some work done!

.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Has anything changed in the last 12 hours? LOL

 

It appears that we still have a version of “It’s in the Bible; look it up!” to assert indefensible claims that the Church’s doctrines on [insert the least offensive term] have changed. It appears we still have an embarrassing dependence on parroting bloggers' spin on snippets with expectations to link to links to do the same.

What do you think about the quotes posted today by Alarson?  

I think they definitely give evidence of what you had asked for here.

Edited November 4, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I'm honestly confused. 

I'm sorry you're confused. (Couldn't resist)!

But seriously, I think the point is that gay members are no longer encouraged to date and marry the opposite sex as part of any therapy or cure.  This is so great to see changed too as it hasn't worked out great for many (maybe most) who followed that counsel.  I see why Dallin Oaks did express that he's happy for those who have found happiness doing this.

Edited November 4, 2016 by JulieM

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

Ah, and I see the meanings of words change with changes in understanding, requiring different words to teach the same principles.  I try to understand what people meant when they wrote/spoke, rather than imposing a modern definition on their words.  

 

But you're suggesting we change his words so that what he said fits our modern understanding.  

I'm suggesting we read what he said, as he actually said it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

What do you think about the quotes posted today by Alarson?  

I think they definitely give evidence of what you had asked for here.

I haven't seen them; I typically only respond to posts directed at me, or within the line of vision of same. When I get a chance I'll take a look, but my experience with his quotes does not make it a priority for me.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't have a lot of time to spend on this today, but here are a few quotes regarding some of the changes that have occurred over the years in what was taught by our leaders on this topic:

I don't believe it is taught anymore that masturbation leads to homosexuality:

Or from failure in the home:

Or that homosexuality is caused by selfishness that can be cured:

I think “homosexuality” means voluntary homosexual acts, and that masturbation, especially in same-sex groups, “all too often” leads to that. I’ve heard first-hand accounts of it, it makes sense the practice can be a gateway for some to further/other exploration/experimentation. I don’t know how often such group activity takes place among children/adolescents today, but it used to be ‘a thing.”

Similarly, I think “perversion” means voluntary/willful perverse acts, and selflessness is a cure for committing them.

Failure in the home can lead to homosexual activity (second to promiscuity, which is the first of the seven immoral activities listed) if that child needed more support to keeping the commandments. Normal, loving father-son relationships contribute to success in the home and prevent the child from making sinful choices.

In the quotes, the acts are condemned and their prevention is greatly fostered by a successful home life involving good relationships with parents. Obviously you didn't have  lot of time to think them through!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

Can you find any evidence that this bracketed comment is part of the original? 

Behaviour isn't usually described as being "cured", though.  That tends to refer to a state of being.  It makes more sense to interpret it as the desire to act out homosexual behaviours can be cured than to say homosexual behaviour can be cured.  If the term had been "stopped" or "changed", that generally works with behaviours IMO.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Here are a few quotes regarding what was taught that homosexuality could be cured and how to cure it (and I believe these are no longer taught by our current leaders):

From the Pamphlet for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors (1970) ;

And, thank goodness we do not teach that we should "wipe them out" today:

One can overcome homosexual sin “if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.” This occurs both individually and as a society. No change in that position today.

Homosexual tendencies and activities refers to the sinful nature of lust and unchaste acts, and there is no difference in discouraging them today

Treatment options and recommendations have certainly changed; the prophets and apostles typically acknowledge the existing professional expertise of the day over their own. No change in that position today.

The Lord can and will wipe out sinners, according to current doctrine; homosexual sinners won’t get a pass. No change in that position today.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Behaviour isn't usually described as being "cured", though.  That tends to refer to a state of being.  It makes more sense to interpret it as the desire to act out homosexual behaviours can be cured than to say homosexual behaviour can be cured.  If the term had been "stopped" or "changed", that generally works with behaviours IMO.

That actually wasn't part of the quote and I edited it out.   Just to clarify  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

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

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

This quote can be read as saying that once homosexual behaviours and feelings were resolved (cured), that they should be replaced by acting in heterosexual ways, etc. rather than using heterosexual behaviours to change homosexual desires.

(Intermittent reading while waiting for phone calls, so if going off track, my apologies).

[ALarson]

 

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think “homosexuality” means voluntary homosexual acts, and that masturbation, especially in same-sex groups, “all too often” leads to that. I’ve heard first-hand accounts of it, it makes sense the practice can be a gateway for some to further/other exploration/experimentation. I don’t know how often such group activity takes place among children/adolescents today, but it used to be ‘a thing.”

 

Similarly, I think “perversion” means voluntary/willful perverse acts, and selflessness is a cure for committing them.

 

Failure in the home can lead to homosexual activity (second to promiscuity, which is the first of the seven immoral activities listed) if that child needed more support to keeping the commandments. Normal, loving father-son relationships contribute to success in the home and prevent the child from making sinful choices.

Can you supply quotes from our current leaders supporting that these are still teachings today?   If not, the teachings have changed from when these were taught years ago.  Your own opinions may not have changed, but that's different than what is being discussed or asked for here.

Again, I'm not going to get drawn into a nit picky discussion again.  I've provided quotes from past leaders stating some of what used to be taught regarding homosexuality, if no one can provide quotes from current leaders teaching the same, then I think it's obvious the teachings have changed.  

Again, that's a good thing and I'm not sure why some here are fighting to state we still teach some of what used to be taught (see quotes).

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That actually wasn't part of the quote and I edited it out.   Just to clarify  

Are there other quotes that use the term "cured"? (Very confusing day, trying to do three things at once...avoiding frustration by distraction through reading)

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

This quote can be read as saying that once homosexual behaviours and feelings were resolved (cured), that they should be replaced by acting in heterosexual ways, etc. rather than using heterosexual behaviours to change homosexual desires.

I'd recommend going to the source and reading if you get the chance.   That's just a suggestion since I couldn't possibly copy and paste everything in the pamphlet.  The directions given here to local leaders are not what is given to day.  There has been a change.

Here is the source if you're interested:

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

Again, I'm not going to argue every single point.  I think it's evident that teachings have changed (unless you agree that masturbation leads to homosexuality and so on).  I think this is extremely positive (progress).

 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are there other quotes that use the term "cured"? (Very confusing day, trying to do three things at once...avoiding frustration by distraction through reading)

I supplied some (I just gave you the link again to another one).  I'm not going to post every single one I found.  I supplied enough quotes to show there are many teachings that are no longer taught by our leaders (and again, that's a good thing).

Also, many teachings have remained constant (I think no one has claimed otherwise here at least from I've seen).

Edited November 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd recommend going to the source and reading if you get the chance.   That's just a suggestion since I couldn't possibly copy and paste everything in the pamphlet.  The directions given here to local leaders are not what is given to day.  There has been a change.

Here is the source if you're interested:

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

Again, I'm not going to argue every single point.  I think it's evident that teachings have changed (unless you agree that masturbation leads to homosexuality and so on).  I think this is extremely positive (progress).

 

I lean to having changed some as well, but not as drastically as some claim in terms of overall approach (some leaders were much less in line than others, im, and I think it is important to distinguish personal beliefs from general doctrine/teachings for this discussion)..  I tend to separate "teachings" from "doctrine" in my head. Teachings may include personal and cultural ideas attached to doctrine, which for me is the core concepts of the Church (and of course when the distinction is not important to the conversation in my view, I am probably wuite sloppy in using it.

[kllindley]

I agree. Let the quotes stand for themselves.  I entered the thread with the point that maybe they didn't mean what you think they meant re:homosexuality meaning sexual orientation or sexual behavior, suggesting that in 1970,  the entire APA saw homosexuality as a disease and therefore not an innate identity or orientation, therefore it seems silly to think that is what Church leaders were referring to.  

I still stand by the claim that if interpreted that way, the teaching themselves may have changed significantly, but in regards to the core meaning, the doctrine is consistent.  I believe this is an important clarification to make because seeing the shift in verbiage as a shift in meaning may lead people to the false belief that current teachings and doctrine will someday change.  I think that is a false hope.  

Yes some of the teachings changed!  I have not been arguing against that!  Many have and I am grateful.  Very grateful.  You're right.  My only contention was with the claim that we don't encourage anyone with same-sex attraction to date or marry the opposite sex.  I think we encourage them to be open to it.  I don't see that as substantially different in meaning than the quote you supplied.  I don't think the quote encourages marriage as a cure.  If it did it was wrong and I am grateful we don't teach marriage as a cure.  If it did encourage marriage as a cure, (then) Elder Hinkley made it clear in 1987 that marriage was not to be seen as a therapeutic step or part of a cure.  So that's a correction/clarification (since we don't know what people actually meant).  I would claim that it was a clarification, but I can't prove that and will happily accept the correction if that is was indeed what was intended.

But we still hold heterosexual marriage as the eternal standard and are thrilled when anyone is able to make those covenants and keep them happily.  Please don't make my mixed-orientation marriage seem so abnormal or only a church thing.  Tons of bisexual men inside and outside of the church are in relationships with women. Some of those men are Kinsey 2 bisexual others Kinsey 5.  Those men have same-sex attraction too.  We still encourage them to date and marry heterosexually.  Not as a cure, but as a goal.  

Edited November 4, 2016 by kllindley

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I lean to having changed some as well, but not as drastically as some claim in terms of overall approach (some leaders were much less in line than others, im, and I think it is important to distinguish personal beliefs from general doctrine/teachings for this discussion)..  I tend to separate "teachings" from "doctrine" in my head. Teachings may include personal and cultural ideas attached to doctrine, which for me is the core concepts of the Church (and of course when the distinction is not important to the conversation in my view, I am probably wuite sloppy in using it.

I agree.  It's the teachings that have changed or evolved  Teachings vs. doctrine gets sticky though (I'm sure you've seen the debates on here regarding what truly is church doctrine).

I was supplying quotes that had been asked for to show that teachings have changed over the years which I understood the discussion to be about.  If someone has claimed that the doctrine has changed (I haven't claimed that), then I guess it'll be up to them to back that up with quotes or sources if asked for them.

I've got to get off of here now  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes some of the teachings changed!  

Thanks for that and I am glad we agree (the only reason I supplied the quotes).

Now, I am really out of here!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd recommend going to the source and reading if you get the chance.   That's just a suggestion since I couldn't possibly copy and paste everything in the pamphlet.  The directions given here to local leaders are not what is given to day.  There has been a change.

Here is the source if you're interested:

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

Again, I'm not going to argue every single point.  I think it's evident that teachings have changed (unless you agree that masturbation leads to homosexuality and so on).  I think this is extremely positive (progress).

 

I think it has been reasonably explained how masturbation can lead to homosexual <behavior> (not orientation). Whether you choose to entertain that explanation is beyond anyone else's control. 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it has been reasonably explained how masturbation can lead to homosexual <behavior> (not orientation).

Not in the quote by Spencer W. Kimball. 

He states that it leads to "total homosexuality". That's pretty clear in my opinion that it's not just behavior he is speaking of.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by JulieM

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not in the quote by Spencer W. Kimball. 

He states that it leads to "total homosexuality". That's pretty clear in my opinion that it's not just behavior he is speaking of.

 

You are arguing that he meant something the APA didn't even acknowledge existed at the time?  

Two boys masturbating together can say it was "no homo"  but much more becomes "totes homo"