MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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

My understanding is that science on the whole only supports the conclusion that we are born – period -- and that there are many factors that contribute to the continuum of human sexual experience. I think the moral, religious and spiritual aspects of the question and answers would remain the same regardless of the weight given any scientific information or conclusion one might have, and the responses were not anti-scientific anyway.

I think the answers clearly avoid blaming anyone for asking for help or thinking they are gay. At the same time, they avoid the notion that a person’s personal sexual experience defines him, and also acknowledges gender as a God-given characteristic. There is no need to ask Jesus’ rhetorical question as to who sinned.

An attempt to be coherent: this request for help is in connection with a person thinking he is "gay," and the answer is to expand and raise the identity to one of a covenant-keeping child of God, in this case, a male child. This serves as the foundation for resolving any other considerations. This is a constructive frame of reference for both the helper and the helped, and the responses reflect that.

[CV75]

28 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.  

The reference to the priority for worthiness in one's self image in being a man is not from, but consistent with, the other, earlier talks by Asay and Hinckley. Do you have some talks that show Elder Perry's counsel is inconsistent with priesthood ideals?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My understanding is that science on the whole only supports the conclusion that we are born – period -- and that there are many factors that contribute to the continuum of human sexual experience. I think the moral, religious and spiritual aspects of the question and answers would remain the same regardless of the weight given any scientific information or conclusion one might have, and the responses were not anti-scientific anyway.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the scientific literature on gender-identity.  We are not "born - period."  Many are born with congenital defects.  That is entirely normal.  What do we do about those defects?  Deny them?  Blame someone for them?

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the answers clearly avoid blaming anyone for asking for help or thinking they are gay. At the same time, they avoid the notion that a person’s personal sexual experience defines him, and also acknowledges gender as a God-given characteristic. There is no need to ask Jesus’ rhetorical question as to who sinned.

And yet his disciples asked him the question. What is you answer?  What was Jesus' answer?  And, if being blind is not a defect, then why did Jesus heal him?  Physicians regularly try to heal congenital defects in newborns.

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

An attempt to be coherent: this request for help is in connection with a person thinking he is "gay," and the answer is to expand and raise the identity to one of a covenant-keeping child of God, in this case, a male child. This serves as the foundation for resolving any other considerations. This is a constructive frame of reference for both the helper and the helped, and the responses reflect that.

.When is a "male child" not really male?  Can someone be a hermaphrodite?  Is that a congenital defect?  Should a physician try to fix it?

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

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

Sounds ;good to me, Calm, and I share the view that one can ignorantly make one's sexual identity the center of one's life -- as Hugh Hefner does.  When I think of Leonardo DaVinci, for example, I am only concerned with his great art, medical drawings, and technology, and not with his homosexuality -- which is his own private business, and no concern of mine.  Thankfully, he kept his focus on the more important matters.  I feel very sorry for those who make a religion out of sexuality.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

 

Who are you actually talking about here?  You do realize that gay people have jobs, have hobbies. take vacations. Mow laws, do gardening, clean house, wash cars, take out the trash, go to the movies, read books, attend church, raise families, visit their parents, are involved in charities, shovel snow, go to the gym, go out to dinner with friends, do the laundry, scrub the bathroom, do dishes, etc etc etc.  Where did Mormons get this idea that we are one dimensional cartoons that only care about being gay.  Newflash.  We are humans just like everyone else.  It is party why I find some of these remarks by church leaders so offensive.  It is them that can only see one aspect of our lives.  

[USU78]

4 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?

...  or, better said, tweener runaway pirate wannabees thought in a fictional story "that burying a potato under the moonlight could cure warts."

You say potato  ...

[USU78]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

  Nicely done.

Seriously, whatever causes or contributes to feelings that may (or may not) inform behaviors, behaviors are, for the most part, under our control (assuming no serious neurological or developmental problems).

Subjective feelings, being subjective, have demonstrated themselves to be very poor bases for making taxonomic decisions.

[Dexter Eli]

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but can someone tell me why the posts to the Elder Hamula excommunication thread have been locked? Is that common on this site? 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but can someone tell me why the posts to the Elder Hamula excommunication thread have been locked? Is that common on this site? 

Quite common. 

Moderators often close threads and reserve the right to do so without explanation. 

[Dexter Eli]

Thank you. 

[deli_llama]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Who are you actually talking about here?  You do realize that gay people have jobs, have hobbies. take vacations. Mow laws, do gardening, clean house, wash cars, take out the trash, go to the movies, read books, attend church, raise families, visit their parents, are involved in charities, shovel snow, go to the gym, go out to dinner with friends, do the laundry, scrub the bathroom, do dishes, etc etc etc.  Where did Mormons get this idea that we are one dimensional cartoons that only care about being gay.  Newflash.  We are humans just like everyone else.  It is party why I find some of these remarks by church leaders so offensive.  It is them that can only see one aspect of our lives.  

I don't think it is Mormons, or just the topic of gay people. It seems to me that perceiving the other as one dimensional is something, unfortunately, that is part of having the human experience. Kinda like thinking that all Mormons are one dimensional and they can't perceive others as anything more than one dimensional.  Maybe we all do it? 

 

[Dexter Eli]

I think the term "born gay" can be misleading. For example, let's say an individual is gay due to his genetics mingling with his environment during his formative years. In other words, whether he was born gay is unknown, but experts in science would say he didn't choose to be gay. His genes, coupled with his environment at an age when he had no control over his environment, led him to be gay.  Is this reasonable? Do you believe this is true or do you believe people choose to be gay? Or do you believe some become gay beyond their control and some choose to be gay? If so, roughly what percentage of each?

 

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but can someone tell me why the posts to the Elder Hamula excommunication thread have been locked? Is that common on this site?

Moderators close threads without explanation.
But the most common reasons are derails, insulting arguments, and circular discussion.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Dexter Eli said:

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but can someone tell me why the posts to the Elder Hamula excommunication thread have been locked? Is that common on this site? 

Annoyingly, yes.  I participate in a number of message boards, and this is the only one that seems to have these mystery closings and seemingly arbitrary moderator actions (and I say that in the context of the fact that I'm a moderator on another board; car related, not religion related).

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Annoyingly, yes.  I participate in a number of message boards, and this is the only one that seems to have these mystery closings and seemingly arbitrary moderator actions (and I say that in the context of the fact that I'm a moderator on another board; car related, not religion related).

Actually, the reasons for the closings are not all that difficult to discern most of the time.

The board discussion guidelines are clearly posted.

 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, the reasons for the closings are not all that difficult to discern most of the time.

The board discussion guidelines are clearly posted.

 

Well, Scott, I'm not going to debate moderator etiquette with you.  The fact is, the readers are left to interpret for themselves rather than the moderators providing a clearly stated reason.  Again, this is the only board of the half dozen dozen I read regularly that does that.

Edited August 10, 2017 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, Scott, I'm not going to debate moderator etiquette with you.  The fact is, the readers are left to interpret for themselves rather than the moderators providing a clearly stated reason.  Again, this is the only board of the half dozen dozen I read regularly that does that.

All in all, I think the moderators do a great job.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

...  or, better said, tweener runaway pirate wannabees thought in a fictional story "that burying a potato under the moonlight could cure warts."

You say potato  ...

So no one in real life ever believed that? It's about as effective as "manly things" and "vigorous men" in the "curing" of homosexuality.

[ttribe]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All in all, I think the moderators do a great job.

 

I'm sure they very much appreciate your stamp of approval.

[rockpond]

Speaking of closing threads...

As the originator of this one, I feel like it has run its course.  If the moderators agree, I invite them to go ahead and close it.

[Honorentheos]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

...behaviors are, for the most part, under our control (assuming no serious neurological or developmental problems).

This is disputable, and the opposite is generally considered to be the case in most branches of philosophy. Neuroscience seems to constantly revealing more and more how limited our actual agency is, and it's not considered radical to believe it's more illusion than fact.

For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-the-neuroscience-of-free-will/

[Honorentheos]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's "legal" in scriptural terms, as used in D&C 68:16, 18; 107:16, 76. And "lawful" as used in scripture as well: D&C 49:16; 76;115; 86:9; 132;65.

And that's just the D&C. The point is, marriage needs to be legal and lawful unto the Lord.

D&C 68:16-18

16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;

17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.

18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.

Legal in this context means they have a claim on priesthood by birthright. It has no bearing on our point of discussion.

D&C 107:16, 76

16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.
76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.

Again, birthright. Not relevant. Unless you mean you were given your wife through an arranged marriage that was your birthright and this colors your view? That WOULD be something, wouldn't it?

D&C 49:16

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

Polygamy much?

D&C 76:114-115

114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;

115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for man to utter;

A verse where God commands something so it's not lawful to utter. Ok. Again, the language re: the law of chastity doesn't include a claim about homosexuality.

D&C 86:8-9

8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—

9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—

Another one about priesthood birthrights. Weird, too, given it's saying in 1832 that Joseph Smith has such a claim on the priesthood. I know, much of his work in developing the inspired Biblical version inserts Smith into the lineage of the prophets so it's to be expected. What it isn't, though, is something that applies to married same-sex persons and if they are breaking the law of chastity when they honor their wedding vows in a consummated same-sex marriage.

Section 132? The polygamy section? Really? Ok...

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

When has the standard been whatever a society accepts is the best thing?  Ever studied history....maybe just a little?  Humans can be convinced of anything being acceptable or good - and now we want to use it as the standard because "we" agree with it?  Satan, get thee behind me.

[Honorentheos]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not every argument is equivalent to every other...
There is no likelihood that legal homosexual marriage will be acceptable within Mormonism at any time in the future, much less by 2025.

The priesthood ban is now widely understood by faithful LDS to have been a product of culture not revelation. Can you point to a genuine revelation that ties marriage equality to God dictating the current direction to the leadership? The closest I recall was Elder Nelsen's account that Monson made a decision in a meeting and the apostles felt the spirit afterward. But was it canonized or actually released to the saint or the world as a bona fide revelation from God to his living oracle? Of course not.

Anyway, "no likelihood" is a silly position to stake out. You can't say that and claim to be rational. The probability is absolutely greater than zero. I did take on a bit of risk by offering 2025 as a date by which we'll have LDS confirmation or at least acquiescence to the legal reality that any couple legally married and faithful is not living in sin but is living in line with the law of chastity. I had wanted to go with 2030 but I guess this may make it more interesting.

[Honorentheos]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Of course the testimonies of those in actual attendance at the councils is of no consequence, and Loving and Colorado State's football players are the real reasons for OD2  ...  

 

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not at all what Honorentheos said or even implied.

Thank you, rockpond. I would have guessed zeitgeist would have more meaning to USU78 considering, but let's assume I meant Loving and the BYU boycott were causal rather than all manifestations of the zeitgeist of the times.

We're moving quickly as a society on the issue of marriage equality, with the SCOTUS and the majority aged generation in the workforce manifesting the zeitgeist of our times. When I pointed to Loving, it was as a milestone in the culture rather than as a source of pressure on the Mormon leadership.

That said, I do think that the issues in South America with many having some recent African ancestry were causal. I don't think there is a meaningful parallel with marriage equality, either.