Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The definitions still apply: fornication if they are not married (under the traditional definition), adultery if they are. 

So you are saying that they are committing adultery with the spouse that they are married to?  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Elder Perry is (was) not your father, who I trust you love, and who I hope is alive and well, but in any case merits being treated above post-mortem mockery.

I would have laughed too, but your father's understanding is not reflected in Elder Perry's and Clarke's equally concise answers. I think you are reading too much personal experience into it, or with too much bias.

See above and here  Posted 6 minutes ago and here: Posted 22 minutes ago

 

This is a really hilarious statement for you to be making.  I take the actual words the Elder Perry uses and base my answers on the exact statement.

Quote

 

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)


 

You take Elder Perry's statement and spin an entirely different meaning to his words based on your own bias and then you tell me I am reading too much personal experience into it????  I don't even see how you can even think like that.  Look at what you wrote. None of that is in the statement by Elder Perry.  You injected all of that yourself.  And just to be clear, we are only talking about Elder Perry's statement not Clarks.  He is the apostle, not Clark.  As far as I know, 70's have not been instrumental in forming church policy related to gay issues.

 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Hmm, you seem to assume that this newer, more "enlightened" generation actually knows something that those old, silly men have never learned.  Or it could be that the young are just plain stupid, silly babies that have lost touch with the reality.  Just sayin

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is a really hilarious statement for you to be making.  I take the actual words the Elder Perry uses and base my answers on the exact statement.

You take Elder Perry's statement and spin an entirely different meaning to his words based on your own bias and then you tell me I am reading too much personal experience into it????  I don't even see how you can even think like that.  Look at what you wrote. None of that is in the statement by Elder Perry.  You injected all of that yourself.  And just to be clear, we are only talking about Elder Perry's statement not Clarks.  He is the apostle, not Clark.  As far as I know, 70's have not been instrumental in forming church policy related to gay issues.

But unlike you, I provided a factual basis for my interpretation of “the actual words” that would override whatever bias you think I might have or that I recognize that I have: the definition of manly, especially in a generational context; the apostolic role (which includes any general authority); and the actual question that was asked in the setting and the context in which it was asked. On the other hand, your interpretation is informed by your reaction to your fathers’ reaction to your exchange (even though I doubt very much you ended the conversation there—too bad it you did)

I’ve had a similar conversation with another poster – I suggest you review those posts so we can pick up from there.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But unlike you, I provided a factual basis for my interpretation of “the actual words” that would override whatever bias you think I might have or that I recognize that I have: the definition of manly, especially in a generational context; the apostolic role (which includes any general authority); and the actual question that was asked in the setting and the context in which it was asked. On the other hand, your interpretation is informed by your reaction to your fathers’ reaction to your exchange (even though I doubt very much you ended the conversation there—too bad it you did)

 

I’ve had a similar conversation with another poster – I suggest you review those posts so we can pick up from there.

 

What factual basis.  You quoted two talks NEITHER of which were given by Elder Perry.  And neither talk is about homosexuality.   That is the person we are talking about.  His statement.  His belief about homosexuality.  

I didn't say that what my father said was an interpretation of what Elder Perry said did I.  Yet you on the other had are asserting that what President Hinkley said  and Carlos E. Asay said is the same thing that Elder Perry stated when neither one of them were addressing what a person should do if they are gay.  You have not come up with a single thing Elder Perry had ever said that matches your spin of his actual words.  Yet you are the one accusing me of injecting my own beliefs into what Elder Perry actually said.  It is your accusation towards me is what I find unbelievable given what you have done.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

What factual basis.  You quoted two talks NEITHER of which were given by Elder Perry.  And neither talk is about homosexuality.   That is the person we are talking about.  His statement.  His belief about homosexuality.  

I didn't say that what my father said was an interpretation of what Elder Perry said did I.  Yet you on the other had are asserting that what President Hinkley said  and Carlos E. Asay said is the same thing that Elder Perry stated when neither one of them were addressing what a person should do if they are gay.  You have not come up with a single thing Elder Perry had ever said that matches your spin of his actual words.  Yet you are the one accusing me of injecting my own beliefs into what Elder Perry actually said.  It is your accusation towards me is what I find unbelievable given what you have done.

The two talks (by Asay and Hinckley) are about being a man -- yes, "manly" -- which is what Elder Perry's (and Clarke's) doctrinal responses hinged on.

You do seem to be looking at Elder Perry's remarks through the same emotional lens with which you see your father's reaction to your coming out, affecting your rational interpretation of the former's remark, as well as the question: The question was about how to help someone thinking through his orientation and identity, not about what said person should do. See the difference? You are projecting way too much. This is partly way I suggest you review those other posts so we can pick up from there.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hmm, you seem to assume that this newer, more "enlightened" generation actually knows something that those old, silly men have never learned.  Or it could be that the young are just plain stupid, silly babies that have lost touch with the reality.  Just sayin

Older generations once thought that burying a potato under the moonlight could cure warts. Did we miss out on something by switching to Compound W?

Link to comment

It seems that the consensus  on this forum is that sexual orientation is almost 100% biological.  How does a person explain the fact that only 46% of British people ages 18-24 describe themselves as completely heterosexual?  Almost 50% of British individuals in this age group claim to be either gay or some degree of bisexual.  

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

It certainly seems that for some individuals, culture has a very significant influence on one's sexual orientation.  At least the percentage of the population that is not heterosexual is growing very significantly.  And if culture plays a part or has an influence, Elder Perry's statement is not just an old-fashioned and uninformed opinion. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

It seems that the consensus  on this forum is that sexual orientation is almost 100% biological.  How does a person explain the fact that only 46% of British people ages 18-24 describe themselves as completely heterosexual?  Almost 50% of British individuals in this age group claim to be either gay or some degree of bisexual.  

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

It certainly seems that for some individuals, culture has a very significant influence on one's sexual orientation.  At least the percentage of the population that is not heterosexual is growing very significantly.  And if culture plays a part or has an influence, Elder Perry's statement is not just an old-fashioned and uninformed opinion. 

That we, as a culture, have come to a greater understanding and acceptance of sexual orientation as a continuum does not support what Elder Perry said nor does it speak to the biological nature of orientation. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That we, as a culture, have come to a greater understanding and acceptance of sexual orientation as a continuum does not support what Elder Perry said nor does it speak to the biological nature of orientation. 

Our current culture also elected our current president. Cultural acceptance is a very questionable barometer.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That we, as a culture, have come to a greater understanding and acceptance of sexual orientation as a continuum does not support what Elder Perry said nor does it speak to the biological nature of orientation. 

What is accepted is not necessarily reality.  Chronocentrism is extremely common- almost inevitable.  Recognizing it is crucial to avoiding the all-too common pitfall of naively repeating history.

Culture has an influence on sexual mores and orientation.  It does not dictate such entirely.  Not even close.  But it has an influence.  And if that is the case, why not consider good influences to effect behavior for good?  There is nothing more basic to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it demonstrates what we all are better off recognizing: it is an apostolic view and is perfectly valid. The apostle will remind someone seeking help with this question of who he really is, which is not “gay,” as Elder Bednar did this with the youth in a Face2Face session.

Modern scientific study of homosexuality provides genetic and in utero etiologies for homosexual tendencies or self-identification.  There are also some etiologies based on habituation to molestation in youth.  Homosexuals typically claim not to choose that self-identification.  Indeed, gender-preference is built in to nearly all of us, just as it is in dogs, cats, and other mammals.  Animals don't choose their gender-identity.  They are born with it.

You might want to reflect on the question put to Jesus about how a man was born blind:  Did he or his parents sin that he was consequently born blind?  Clearly neither was the case.  John 9:1-3.  He nor his parents sinned.  He was simply born blind, just as someone can be born homosexual.  No one needs to be blamed.

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

........................................

The idea here is that we see in the Q&A a general request for help that is connected with identifying as "gay." The answer to that is to recognize that there is a deeper and more well-rounded identification than that. The answer transcends sexualness and the tendency to enable a counterproductive identity by focusing on those common activities, relationships and attributes all LDS males can have as sons of God in the covenant. Elders Perry and Clarke’s answers conveyed that God sees His child as greater than one aspect of his makeup, and a way to find happiness in cultivating a more well-rounded self-image and persona.

Not sure what you are saying here.  Appears to me to be incoherent.  Perhaps you could clarify.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The two talks (by Asay and Hinckley) are about being a man -- yes, "manly" -- which is what Elder Perry's (and Clarke's) doctrinal responses hinged on.

You do seem to be looking at Elder Perry's remarks through the same emotional lens with which you see your father's reaction to your coming out, affecting your rational interpretation of the former's remark, as well as the question: The question was about how to help someone thinking through his orientation and identity, not about what said person should do. See the difference? You are projecting way too much. This is partly way I suggest you review those other posts so we can pick up from there.

Naw.  I am pretty done here.  If you are willing to spin Elder Perry's remarks to mean that the definition of a man is from a couple of talks not given by him and addressing a completely different subject, then I will let you live in that fantasy all by yourself.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Naw.  I am pretty done here.  If you are willing to spin Elder Perry's remarks to mean that the definition of a man is from a couple of talks not given by him and addressing a completely different subject, then I will let you live in that fantasy all by yourself.  

Well, I'll keep him company then.  I believe in trying to understand what people mean rather than assuming.  Like I've shared several times here before with understanding former leaders comments about homosexuality meaning behavior rather than orientation.  Elder Perry himself has spoken about "What is a Quorum?" as a fraternity, and expressed the brotherhood and fellowship that ought to exist between Priesthood holders.  I think that is a far better assumption about what he meant than assuming anything about cars, sports, or violence.  Yet, you haven't called those posters out for spinning the comment out of context.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That we, as a culture, have come to a greater understanding and acceptance of sexual orientation as a continuum does not support what Elder Perry said nor does it speak to the biological nature of orientation. 

Actually, I can't see how that understanding doesn't support what Elder Perry said.  It makes it so much more relevant than assuming some sort of false dichotomy between straight and gay.  From that perspective Elder Perry isn't saying that association with righteous examples of manhood will change orientation.  That seems to be completely unnecessary.  It does help anyone on the bisexual spectrum gain courage and confidence to embrace the plan of salvation.  Wouldn't that be great advice considering our current greater understanding and acceptance of the fact that the odds of a person with a questioning their orientation is 10 times more likely to be bisexual than exclusively homosexual?   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, DJBrown said:

It seems that the consensus  on this forum is that sexual orientation is almost 100% biological.  How does a person explain the fact that only 46% of British people ages 18-24 describe themselves as completely heterosexual?  Almost 50% of British individuals in this age group claim to be either gay or some degree of bisexual.  

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

It certainly seems that for some individuals, culture has a very significant influence on one's sexual orientation.  At least the percentage of the population that is not heterosexual is growing very significantly.  And if culture plays a part or has an influence, Elder Perry's statement is not just an old-fashioned and uninformed opinion. 

Shhhh.  You'll upset people if you actually start to explore scientific data itself rather than just accept the narrative that "science" has proven their worldview. ;) 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Not sure what you are saying here.  Appears to me to be incoherent.  Perhaps you could clarify.

I read CV as saying the counsel was to focus on the entire set of behaviors that make a man a better man, focus on the identity of being a good man, the whole picture, but especially those parts that involve Priesthood, rather than focusing on one particular part of identity, sexual attraction/orientation.  Replacing a limited focus with a greater, fuller identity can bring balance where there is imbalance and knowledge of eternal purpose so that even if attraction doesn't change, knowing what to do in order to live a faithful, full life will also replace any confusion.

He can of course correct me if I have misread him.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gray said:

Older generations once thought that burying a potato under the moonlight could cure warts. Did we miss out on something by switching to Compound W?

In many cases over the counter remedies don't work as well as traditional ones. Newer isn't always better. Lots of natural anti-virals and anti-microbials. I find pepper oil settles my stomach much better than PeptoBismal. Lots of scientific studies on many traditional cures. Which is not to say all are as effective as contemporary drugs - nor is it to buy into the false idea that "natural" is somehow without side effects. Sometimes the side effects are worse.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, DJBrown said:

It seems that the consensus  on this forum is that sexual orientation is almost 100% biological.

Almost by definition it is biological. I think what you want to ask is whether it is genetic or how much of it is open to choice, which are rather different questions.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...