MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

[rockpond]

The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/08/08/mormonleaks-releases-priesthood-leadership-conference-meeting-minutes/

There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position:  When asked how to deal with a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay", Elder Perry counsels them to "Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds." (quoting the document, not Elder Perry)

In a later question about temple recommends he states that he does not believe that gay people are "born with it".  I know that the Church does not take a position on that, I just thought his statement of belief was interesting.

[Gray]

Yeah, that's a really common belief among that generation. Like playing football and watching gladiator movies can turn you straight.

 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/08/08/mormonleaks-releases-priesthood-leadership-conference-meeting-minutes/

There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position:  When asked how to deal with a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay", Elder Perry counsels them to "Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds." (quoting the document, not Elder Perry)

In a later question about temple recommends he states that he does not believe that gay people are "born with it".  I know that the Church does not take a position on that, I just thought his statement of belief was interesting.

So sad...  Its funny that they say they aren't out of touch, but statements like this show just how old fashion and antiquated their ideas are.  Its a generational thing for sure.  

[thesometimesaint]

There is only one man that can speak for the Church, and Elder Perry isn't him.

[hope_for_things]

What did you think of this section: 

Quote

Q. How should you address a same-sex couple in a Sacrament Meeting who are showing inappropriate affection?  
A. Elder Perry: Refer to the Jan 9th letter by the Senior Brethren.  We do not turn anyone away from Sacrament Meeting, but all are to behave appropriately while there.  I would invite them to come into my office right after and let them know how they were out of line.  I would let them know that repentance is possible.  The scriptures have not changed.  Adultery is still adultery.  Fornication is still fornication.  We should continually warn those living in sin that they are jeopardizing their eternal salvation.  Sin is sin.  There is no way they can develop laws which will change the laws of the Lord.  We must show them now that we believe in the right type of marriage and use the Proclamation to teach this.  This is what we have always believed in.  This is what all the prophets and the Savior himself believed in.  We must be on the strong side of defending marriage and defending God’s plan for His children.  This evil will divide our nation in half.  We have to be more vigorous.  We have to be certain that our legislature protects the Church.  You know they [evil] never stop.  They move one inch at a time until they have forced upon all.  You would be amazed at the network we have among other religious organization to protect religious freedom.  Unfortunately the Supreme Court is listening to the voice of the people through the administration that is currently in place.  The individual members of the Church must step up and get involved.  It must come from the people, not the general authorities.  As local leaders you have a fine line to walk between dictating and teaching doctrine so that there will be a revival of lay members stepping up to fight for God’s cause.  So that people in important positions and courts will see that the majority voice of the people will always be in favor of the Lord.  If we do not follow him you can expect calamities to come.  He will not let this go forward to destroy the basic family unit He has created for the progression of His children.  We have a great responsibility on us and I hope you take it seriously.  Teach correct principles and doctrines of what the Lord established.  

The kind of paranoia shown here definitely shines some light on actions the church took after the supreme court decision.  I'm not completely surprised.  Its funny that he says at first that they shouldn't turn anyone away, but then goes on what i would characterize as a rant about gays and slippery slope fear-mongering.  

I wonder how people would view these comments in contrast with the talk last conference from Elder Uchtdorf about not using fear as a motivating tactic.  

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

 Adultery is still adultery.  Fornication is still fornication.

Of course SSM, which is now legalized, is neither adultery nor fornication. Adultery is an extramarital relationship, so that doesn't apply. Fornication is a relationship when one is unmarried, so that doesn't apply.

Quote

Unfortunately the Supreme Court is listening to the voice of the people through the administration that is currently in place.

I find it interesting that he seems to be blaming the Obama administration, but IIRC even Obama was against SSM at the beginning of his term. So the Elder Perry seems to be more accurate in claiming that the Supreme Court is listening to the voice of the people...ie the citizenship. Of course that's not really true either since the courts aren't democratic in that way. There seems to be an inability for church leaders to recognize that their desire to discriminate against SSM couples ise simply on the wrong side of the law.

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The kind of paranoia shown here [snips]

Weasely attack word alert!

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Weasely attack word alert!

I'm a Harry Potter fan, but not sure what Weasely attack you're referring to or how it applies, can you enlighten me?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course SSM, which is now legalized, is neither adultery nor fornication. Adultery is an extramarital relationship, so that doesn't apply. Fornication is a relationship when one is unmarried, so that doesn't apply.

Yeah, it seemed like really poor advice for a same sex couple showing "inappropriate affection".  Which he never really addresses, so we're not clear if hand holding or a kiss on the cheek were the inappropriate affection being asked about.  And I agree with you the terms make no sense, its amazing how dated this sounds and its just 3 years ago.   

[thesometimesaint]

My response to a SSM couple behaving inappropriately in church is the same as an OSM couple behaving inappropriately in church. Get a room.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

My response to a SSM couple behaving inappropriately in church is the same as an OSM couple behaving inappropriately in church. Get a room.

Do you think the standards would really be the same?  Would a opposite sex couple giving each other a peck on the lips (which I've done countless times with my wife) be considered inappropriate?  What about a same sex couple?  

I'm using the BYU honor code guidelines that restrict public displays of affection, only for same sex couples, and that is what I assume local church leaders are interpreting as "inappropriate behavior".  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.

If the brethren were focus on the issue the past few years - especially after Obergefell - then I'm not sure it's terribly relevant anymore. i.e. almost certainly views have changed. Although I'd agree with Gray that this represents common views for those who came of age 40 - 50 years ago. I'm not sure they're accurate in many people. Also others, such as Oaks, clearly seem to think it's biological in at least some cases.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course SSM, which is now legalized, is neither adultery nor fornication. Adultery is an extramarital relationship, so that doesn't apply. Fornication is a relationship when one is unmarried, so that doesn't apply.

I'm not sure that's true. If a marriage isn't recognize by the relevant church body then it'd still be adultery. For instance the Church doesn't recognize common law marriages whereas the state does in various ways. From a church discipline perspective all that counts are what marriages the church recognizes. 

A good example of this was in Provo in the late 80's when a bunch of kids from Branbury went to Vegas, got married at a wedding chapel, had wild sex, got divorced, and came back to Provo. Guess what happened to them? (It wasn't full recognize that they weren't committing adultery or fornication)

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If the brethren were focus on the issue the past few years - especially after Obergefell - then I'm not sure it's terribly relevant anymore. i.e. almost certainly views have changed. Although I'd agree with Gray that this represents common views for those who came of age 40 - 50 years ago. I'm not sure they're accurate in many people. Also others, such as Oaks, clearly seem to think it's biological in at least some cases.

Yes, I agree that this is a common view for those who came of age 40 to 50 years ago.  But, Elder Perry isn't there representing his generation.  He is there as an apostle so his words will take on greater meaning to many in his audience.

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

My response to a SSM couple behaving inappropriately in church is the same as an OSM couple behaving inappropriately in church. Get a room.

As Hope pointed out, the problem is that there is no discussion of what behavior they were engaged in.  In sacrament meeting, I hold my wife's hand.  I put my arm around her shoulders.  At the end of the meeting when she heads off to teach primary, I give her a quick kiss.  Is Elder Perry advising bishops to take a gay couple into his office for having done any of these things?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What did you think of this section: 

The kind of paranoia shown here definitely shines some light on actions the church took after the supreme court decision.  I'm not completely surprised.  Its funny that he says at first that they shouldn't turn anyone away, but then goes on what i would characterize as a rant about gays and slippery slope fear-mongering.  

I wonder how people would view these comments in contrast with the talk last conference from Elder Uchtdorf about not using fear as a motivating tactic.  

Good point.  His remarks fit well with the handbook additions from Nov 2015.  I guess we can't have happily married gay couples and their families in our midst... we'll be lured into homosexuality.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good point.  His remarks fit well with the handbook additions from Nov 2015.  I guess we can't have happily married gay couples and their families in our midst... we'll be lured into homosexuality.

Exactly.   His comments never would have made it past the correlation committee, but in a smaller venue in a Q&A session the more honest views are reflected.  Its not totally shocking because most of us have heard similar talk in local wards and stakes.  Of course we can always say that none of these comments reflect the official publicly espoused doctrines of the church, but does that even matter if a large portion of members think like this?  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

My response to a SSM couple behaving inappropriately in church is the same as an OSM couple behaving inappropriately in church. Get a room.

 But they keep putting windows on all the classroom doors...

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Yeah, that's a really common belief among that generation. Like playing football and watching gladiator movies can turn you straight.

 

Nothing like the sight of oiled sweaty muscled men with the bodies of Greek gods glistening in the sun to turn a guy straight.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Exactly.   His comments never would have made it past the correlation committee, but in a smaller venue in a Q&A session the more honest views are reflected.  Its not totally shocking because most of us have heard similar talk in local wards and stakes.  Of course we can always say that none of these comments reflect the official publicly espoused doctrines of the church, but does that even matter if a large portion of members think like this?  

Correct... what is pronounced from the Twelve and FP matters but mostly to the degree that it is adopted by local leaders who both counsel and discipline according to their personal beliefs.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What did you think of this section: 

The kind of paranoia shown here definitely shines some light on actions the church took after the supreme court decision.  I'm not completely surprised.  Its funny that he says at first that they shouldn't turn anyone away, but then goes on what i would characterize as a rant about gays and slippery slope fear-mongering.  

I wonder how people would view these comments in contrast with the talk last conference from Elder Uchtdorf about not using fear as a motivating tactic.  

It is not fear. It is an understanding of cause and effect. Otherwise every prophet warning of calamities if people do not repent is operating off the principle of fear.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/08/08/mormonleaks-releases-priesthood-leadership-conference-meeting-minutes/

There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position:  When asked how to deal with a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay", Elder Perry counsels them to "Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds." (quoting the document, not Elder Perry)

In a later question about temple recommends he states that he does not believe that gay people are "born with it".  I know that the Church does not take a position on that, I just thought his statement of belief was interesting.

Oh dear.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Exactly.   His comments never would have made it past the correlation committee, but in a smaller venue in a Q&A session the more honest views are reflected.  Its not totally shocking because most of us have heard similar talk in local wards and stakes.  Of course we can always say that none of these comments reflect the official publicly espoused doctrines of the church, but does that even matter if a large portion of members think like this?  

I feel sorry for what any gay person endured during it. 

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nothing like the sight of oiled sweaty muscled men with the bodies of Greek gods glistening in the sun to turn a guy straight.

If straightness doesn't occur after 6 hours, switch to swashbuckling pirate movies featuring a shirtless Errol Flynn.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

If straightness doesn't occur after 6 hours, switch to swashbuckling pirate movies featuring a shirtless Errol Flynn.

I prefer twinks personally but this is a decent substitute.