Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[CV75]

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

Please supply a quote (I haven't seen where he stated that doctrine has changed or that anyone else has stated that either here ).  Just that different teachings have changed.

 

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

CFR that I stated that church doctrine has changed on this topic.  Exact quote with me stating this please.

Right here, an injunction in reply to me even though I didn’t broach the subject. : Posted Thursday at 11:35 AM

“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.”

The title of the thread is “Change in the doctrine…” I'm taking the statement to mean that doctrine and teaching and what is taught  and what leaders are teaching are to be treated as virtually the same thing.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, thank goodness I guess I was sheltered enough to never hear anything like this going on (especially within a group of lds boys!). And I tend to believe that if any teenage boy wanted to experiment sexually with another boy, he already had attraction to the same sex rather than that turning him gay. Heterosexual boys mainly want to experiment sexually with teenage girls.  I don't condone either, don't get me wrong.  I'm just glad no leader now teaches what Pres, Kimball did (at least publicly, maybe some random local leaders still use it or believe it when interviewing youth, but I hope not).  Masterbation certainly doesn't turn a heterosexual into a "total homosexual", and that goes for males and females.

Adolescent sexual identity tends to be much more in flux than most realize:

http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/content/34/1/29

"Although early adolescents may begin to experiment with their sexuality (particularly with sexual fantasy and masturbation), sexual intercourse is not common. Homosexual and heterosexual experimentation is common in early adolescence. If an adolescent has had sex with someone of the same sex, this experience does not mean that the teen is gay. It is important to note that many gay teens have never had a sexual experience with someone of the same sex, and that “teens who will eventually identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual do not always do so during adolescence.”(6)

Attraction occurs in late childhood/early adolescence and can precede or occur concurrently with a first romance or first sexual experience. It is not uncommon for adolescents to experience same-sex attractions; in fact, most gay youth experience opposite-sex attractions, sometimes before same-sex attractions. Previous studies report that more than 80% of same-sex–attracted girls and 60% of the boys acknowledged opposite-sex attractions. Boys reported that the onset of heterosexual attractions happened around the same age as same-sex attractions and occurring on average 1 to 2 years earlier than girls. (7)

Middle Adolescence

This stage is marked by the full establishment of secondary sexual characteristics and growth deceleration. Feelings of omnipotence and invincibility peak (although this can also be a time of increased sense of vulnerability). These feelings favor the development of autonomy but can place the adolescent at increased risk of contracting an STI or becoming pregnant, because these individuals cannot weigh consequences appropriately. Abstract thinking and other executive functions continue to develop but still are not fully formed.

During this stage, teens are moving toward forming a sexual orientation and identity. They become increasingly concerned with whether they are attractive and place more importance on their peer group. Many adolescents in this stage may “fall in love” for the first time. Sexual experimentation is common, and many will have intercourse during middle adolescence.

Late Adolescence

It can be argued that late adolescence continues through the postsecondary education period. Brain development, particularly of the prefrontal cortex, can continue until age 22 years in female subjects and 25 years in male subjects. (8) Late adolescents tend to focus on autonomy and thinking beyond themselves. Most teens during this stage are able to think abstractly; they are future oriented and more insightful. They are secure with their body image and gender role; sexual orientation also is nearly secured. Teens in late adolescence work on transitioning to adult roles in relationships, school, and work. However, they may still act impulsively. (5) Becoming a sexually healthy adult is a developmental task of adolescence that requires integrating psychological, physical, cultural, spiritual, societal, and educational factors. It is particularly important to understand the adolescent in terms of his or her physical, emotional, and cognitive stage."

[Calm]

I am not suggesting masturbation might lead to homosexuality, btw.  Just pointing out there is much more fluidity.  How much experimentation affects final identity...whether someone would end up experiencing the same no matter how or what experimentation or other sexual experience happens, I do not believe we know at this point.  Cultures vary enough and sexual identity itself is a new enough social construct that I suspect experience and culture have a major effect.

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I'm probably at least as qualified to talk about it as JulieM is about the sexual behavior of adolescent males.

 

Yet oddly enough, she somehow figured out that  President Kimballs theory that masterbation leads to homosexuality was wrong.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

90% of all people masturbate, the other 10% lie. 

Inaccurate assumptions lead to this common, but false trope:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200903/how-common-is-masturbation-really

"Bottom line: Masturbation is considerably less prevalent than many people believe, and its frequency depends on many personal and socio-economic factors."

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet oddly enough, she somehow figured out that  President Kimballs theory that masterbation leads to homosexuality was wrong.

Homosexuality meaning homosexual behavior or homosexual orientation?  

Which was Kimball postulating?  

[california boy]

homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.  

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Inaccurate assumptions lead to this common, but false trope:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200903/how-common-is-masturbation-really

"Bottom line: Masturbation is considerably less prevalent than many people believe, and its frequency depends on many personal and socio-economic factors."

I always heard that old adage as referring to men, not women.  The article you linked gave no percentages on men.  I thought that strange for a study about masterbation.  It seemed like the results were incredibly lacking detail.  It also seems strange that the author did not link to the study itself.  To me, it kind of read as an agenda piece.

Let me be clear, I have no idea what percentage of people masterbate.  But I don't think this article adds much clarification to that understanding.  The one thing is clear.  Masterbation does not lead to homosexuality

 

Then there is this rebuttal to the article

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Scott Lloyd:  The expert on how someone becomes gay.

Oh...he is the expert on just about everything ...

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Adolescent sexual identity tends to be much more in flux than most realize:

http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/content/34/1/29

"Although early adolescents may begin to experiment with their sexuality (particularly with sexual fantasy and masturbation), sexual intercourse is not common. Homosexual and heterosexual experimentation is common in early adolescence. If an adolescent has had sex with someone of the same sex, this experience does not mean that the teen is gay. It is important to note that many gay teens have never had a sexual experience with someone of the same sex, and that “teens who will eventually identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual do not always do so during adolescence.”(6)

Attraction occurs in late childhood/early adolescence and can precede or occur concurrently with a first romance or first sexual experience. It is not uncommon for adolescents to experience same-sex attractions; in fact, most gay youth experience opposite-sex attractions, sometimes before same-sex attractions. Previous studies report that more than 80% of same-sex–attracted girls and 60% of the boys acknowledged opposite-sex attractions. Boys reported that the onset of heterosexual attractions happened around the same age as same-sex attractions and occurring on average 1 to 2 years earlier than girls. (7)

Middle Adolescence

This stage is marked by the full establishment of secondary sexual characteristics and growth deceleration. Feelings of omnipotence and invincibility peak (although this can also be a time of increased sense of vulnerability). These feelings favor the development of autonomy but can place the adolescent at increased risk of contracting an STI or becoming pregnant, because these individuals cannot weigh consequences appropriately. Abstract thinking and other executive functions continue to develop but still are not fully formed.

During this stage, teens are moving toward forming a sexual orientation and identity. They become increasingly concerned with whether they are attractive and place more importance on their peer group. Many adolescents in this stage may “fall in love” for the first time. Sexual experimentation is common, and many will have intercourse during middle adolescence.

Late Adolescence

It can be argued that late adolescence continues through the postsecondary education period. Brain development, particularly of the prefrontal cortex, can continue until age 22 years in female subjects and 25 years in male subjects. (8) Late adolescents tend to focus on autonomy and thinking beyond themselves. Most teens during this stage are able to think abstractly; they are future oriented and more insightful. They are secure with their body image and gender role; sexual orientation also is nearly secured. Teens in late adolescence work on transitioning to adult roles in relationships, school, and work. However, they may still act impulsively. (5) Becoming a sexually healthy adult is a developmental task of adolescence that requires integrating psychological, physical, cultural, spiritual, societal, and educational factors. It is particularly important to understand the adolescent in terms of his or her physical, emotional, and cognitive stage."

Very enlightening. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yet oddly enough, she somehow figured out that  President Kimballs theory that masterbation leads to homosexuality was wrong.

 

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Homosexuality meaning homosexual behavior or homosexual orientation?  

Which was Kimball postulating?  

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.  

I submit that neither you nor she have any way of definitively concluding that he was speaking of homosexual orientation as opposed to homosexual behavior. It was many years of experience counseling probably hundreds of people that informed what he wrote in his book. And again, my point (which both you and JulieM seems stadfastly determined to ignore) was that if the homosexual attraction was already there to begin with as part of, say, a bisexual orientation, the sexual experimentation with peers would be apt to more quickly bring on the full-scale, overt expression of homosexuality. This would be consistent with the observation that prompted the comment Elder Kimball made in his book.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh...he is the expert on just about everything ...

Just following your example.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.  

Is that your interpretation now 47 years later, or do you have some other reason for believing that he was talking about sexual orientation way back then? If so, why would he not mention bisexuality?  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Homosexuality meaning homosexual behavior or homosexual orientation?  

Which was Kimball postulating?  

You will have to ask him

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

You will have to ask him

So you're not so certain after all.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting masturbation might lead to homosexuality, btw.  Just pointing out there is much more fluidity.  How much experimentation affects final identity...whether someone would end up experiencing the same no matter how or what experimentation or other sexual experience happens, I do not believe we know at this point.  Cultures vary enough and sexual identity itself is a new enough social construct that I suspect experience and culture have a major effect.

What I get from it is that it is not all that outlandish to suppose that a boy on the cusp of puberty, even without a homosexual orientation, might engage in sexual experimentation with his male peers, just as Elder Kimball commented in his book, probably from having encountered it in his years of counseling transgressors in the Church.

It stands to reason that it wouldn't be a great jump for some, who already had some degree of same-sex attraction, to move from those early experiences into full-scale expression of homosexual urges.

That's not saying masturbation "causes" homosexuality. It's saying that it could lead to homosexual behavior later on.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Right here, an injunction in reply to me even though I didn’t broach the subject. : Posted Thursday at 11:35 AM

Not true on both counts.  More dishonesty from you.

I stated that church "teachings have changed" (twice in the post you reference) and I never stated that doctrine has changed. (So that's a fail on your attempt to fulfill the CFR I asked for on that).

And, you state above that it was not you who broached the subject ("change in doctrine"?  That's a lie as well.  Check the link and your quoted post below (the one I was responding to):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209673904

You posted:

Quote

Again, gimmie specifics. Show me what you consider to be the most compelling example (or two or three) of a change in doctrine.

So, two false accusations and then dishonesty in owning up to the fact that it was you who broached the subject of a change in doctrine, not me.

I'll let you out of the CFR because I really do not want to continue interacting with you (at least on this topic).

Edited November 5, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true on both counts.  More dishonesty from you.

I stated that church "teachings have changed" (twice in the post you reference) and I never stated that doctrine has changed. (So that's a fail on your attempt to fulfill the CFR I asked for on that).

And, you state above that it was not you who broached the subject ("change in doctrine"?  That's a lie as well.  Check the link and your quoted post below (the one I was responding to):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209673904

You posted:

So, two false accusations and then dishonesty in owning up to the fact that it was you who broached the subject of a change in doctrine, not me.

I'll let you out of the CFR because I really do not want to continue interacting with you (at least on this topic).

Dude, to be fair, I initially interpreted the your use of teachings to suggest a change in doctrine based on the title of the thread.  And your comment wasn't entirely clear.  When you stated that you didn't want to discuss what was doctrine and what wasn't, I interpreted that to mean "It's all doctrine because it was taught as true."  As in not just a temporary application.  

Now, also to be fair, you and I were able to reach a consensus and understanding about what we each meant. (though it did take some work!)   Teachings have changed.  Doctrine has not.  How one interprets the distinction and how much room one assumes is available for further change in teachings is a matter of personal interpretation and speculation.   

[Calm]

ALarson, given the title and many posters' comments on doctrine (the title specifies this is what the discussion is about), I find it reasonable to assume someone is talking about doctrine even when they don't use that term, unless they have specified they are not (as you did in some of your posts).  Of course, someone might forget that clarification and start making the wrong assumption later on.

I think it might be best just to correct someone and to accept that correction (addressing this part to CV) and not waste time and effort trying to prove what was said when because the thread title throws in too much ongoing baggage.  Hopefully when corrections are made they will be remembered.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Dude, to be fair, I initially interpreted the your use of teachings to suggest a change in doctrine based on the title of the thread.  

I'm sorry you were confused because I never stated "doctrine".  

CV75 made a false accusation and I asked for a CFR where he responded with another false accusation (and no reference from me stating what he'd claimed I'd stated).   He needs to withdraw them both if he wants to continue with any discussion with me.  I have stressed repeatedly that it's the teaching that have changed and that I do not believe doctrine has changed.  It was also him that broached that topic (doctrine) and he stated that it was me.

And. in the very beginning of this discussion, rockpond explained about why he chose the title of the thread and then agreed it was not the doctrine that has changed:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209672901

Edited November 5, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

ALarson, given the title and many posters' comments on doctrine (the title specifies this is what the discussion is about), I find it reasonable to assume someone is talking about doctrine even when they don't use that term, unless they have specified they are not (as you did in some of your posts).  Of course, someone might forget that clarification and start making the wrong assumption later on.

I think it might be best just to correct someone and to accept that correction (addressing this part to CV) and not waste time and effort trying to prove what was said when because the thread title throws in too much ongoing baggage.  Hopefully when corrections are made they will be remembered.

I have stressed repeatedly that it's the teachings and not the doctrine.  CV75 could not find a quote from me stating that "doctrine had changed" (after I issued a CFR) and he should withdraw the accusation that I was claiming doctrine had changed.  CV75 also claimed he never brought the topic up and it was indeed from him that brought it up in a post to me.

You know, I'm pretty much done on this thread.  A lot of dishonesty and now even you are backing up someone who made false claims (two) and who couldn't fulfill a CFR honestly.

Over and out here.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're not so certain after all.

How could I be certain.  He is dead.  He can't comment on what he meant.  Anyone who thinks they know what President Kimball meant is just speculating.  

Quite frankly, I don't see what all this back and forth is about.  What difference does it make?  Everyone knows what the church thinks of gays.  What are we suppose to be grateful the church likes us a little more than it used to?  

Edited November 5, 2016 by california boy

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

How could I be certain.  He is dead.  He can't comment on what he meant.  Anyone who thinks they know what President Kimball meant is just speculating.  

Quite frankly, I don't see what all this back and forth is about.  What difference does it make?  Everyone knows what the church thinks of gays.  What are we suppose to be grateful the church likes us a little more than it used to?  

But everyone claims they know what was meant when they make fun of or get offended by older Church teachings.  

It makes a huge difference if sexual orientation is a recent 20th century social construct and there really are eternal truths about the nature of man and our divine potential.  

Edited November 5, 2016 by kllindley

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true on both counts.  More dishonesty from you.

I stated that church "teachings have changed" (twice in the post you reference) and I never stated that doctrine has changed. (So that's a fail on your attempt to fulfill the CFR I asked for on that).

And, you state above that it was not you who broached the subject ("change in doctrine"?  That's a lie as well.  Check the link and your quoted post below (the one I was responding to):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209673904

You posted:

So, two false accusations and then dishonesty in owning up to the fact that it was you who broached the subject of a change in doctrine, not me.

I'll let you out of the CFR because I really do not want to continue interacting with you (at least on this topic).

You have made your point.  You have clarified your post.  CV75 just can't admit that she misread what you wrote.  Good for you to know when to just back away.  Sometimes that is the only civil thing to do

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

ALarson, given the title and many posters' comments on doctrine (the title specifies this is what the discussion is about), I find it reasonable to assume someone is talking about doctrine even when they don't use that term, unless they have specified they are not (as you did in some of your posts).  Of course, someone might forget that clarification and start making the wrong assumption later on.

I think it might be best just to correct someone and to accept that correction (addressing this part to CV) and not waste time and effort trying to prove what was said when because the thread title throws in too much ongoing baggage.  Hopefully when corrections are made they will be remembered.

He clarified his point three times.  CV continued to harass him.  Continued to mischaracterize his post.  Just how many times is required for CV to get the point? CV should apologize in my opinion.

Edited November 5, 2016 by california boy