Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Reading through the directive or pamphlet for Bishops (or Stake Presidents) from the church leaders is very revealing regarding what was taught back then (1970).

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

One thing of interest is this statement:

I was not aware that these two were "appointed" for this.

 

Also, much of what this pamphlet contains supports what californiaboy describes as the advise he received from his Bishop to marry the opposite sex as a cure for being gay:

Ugh!  I read that entire booklet and it's horrible and sad to read. 

And to know it was written under guidance by Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen is upsetting too.  The views in it only make what President Kimball wrote in his miracle of forgiveness book more clear (the meaning).  So good the leaders now know how wrong that thinking was!!  

Edited August 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I was asking about adultery and premarital sex. I agree that there is pressure to relax its stance on gay marriage. But who do you think is pressuring the church to change on adultery and premarital sex? That was my question.

Well, for example, here is an article by a classic clergyman about how how the secular West has been eagerly anticipating the day of "the great capitulation" when Catholicism wold knuckle under to the sexual revolution.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-the-church-vs-the-sexual-revolution
 

Quote

 

The sexual revolution has crushed everything in its path, including most Christian communities in the West, which it rendered both impotent and sterile. The Catholic Church has been the lone institutional holdout, earning for itself puzzlement from friends and ferocious hostility from enemies. Catholic teaching has insisted that both natural reason and biblical revelation teach that sex, love, marriage and babies all belong together in the complementarity of men and women made in the image and likeness of God. For both human happiness and holiness, Catholic teaching holds that what God has joined together, man must not put asunder.

The sexual revolution was the great putting asunder. Though it has routed all rivals in almost every corner of the public square, it is a jealous god, suspicious of rivals. So for 50 years, it has waited for the day of the great capitulation, when a great exhaustion would befall the Catholic Church, and it would make its peace with the sexual revolution. The giddy global headlines this week announced that the moment was at hand.

 

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you honestly believe that just because a person is gay, they are not worthy of this?

 

 

CA, help me out "worthy of what" that was a very long paragraph? This is an emotional issue, one that hits very close to home. So I am not seeking to be cruel, as it is not, nor every was in my nature to do so. I am only seeking to be accurate in my understanding of the scripture and  teach doctrine and principles. So, I mean no harm, no forethought of malice, as this too is not in my nature. So again, "not worthy of what"? 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, for example, here is an article by a classic clergyman about how how the secular West has been eagerly anticipating the day of "the great capitulation" when Catholicism wold knuckle under to the sexual revolution.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-the-church-vs-the-sexual-revolution
 

 

The Catholic church faces great pressure on their stances toward divorce and contraception - stances that the LDS church doesn't take and isn't under pressure to change. I don't see any real or significant pressure on them to accept premarital sex or adultery.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ugh!  I read that entire booklet and it's horrible and sad to read. 

And to know it was written under guidance by Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen is upsetting too.  The views in it only make what President Kimball wrote in his miracle of forgiveness book more clear (the meaning).  So good the leaders now know how wrong that thinking was!!  

I haven't read it, and it has been a very long time since reading the book. It is a difficult read, especially the chapter, "These things the Lord doth hate" (hope I listed it properly). Marriage is not a cure for being Gay, in fact such a remedy can cause life changing tragedies for more than just that couple. However, at the time this book was written this was not only the ideas of our Faith, but of all others. It was also written in medical journals, that being Gay was a mental disorder, and a disorder that could possibly be cured. So in that, I would not be so hard or disappointed with President Kimball and Elder Peterson. 

It is an emotional topic, one filled with misunderstanding and mystery for those who are not Gay. I had a very close friend (he has passed away now) who married (another dear friend) and they were married for 25 years, had five children. During that time even while his family was growing, he was involved in many affairs with other men, sadly which came to light when he contracted AIDs, which took his life. From the outside looking in, it seemed as if all was well in this marriage, but it was a horrible tragedy. In the final years before their divorce, neither could afford to go elsewhere, so they shared the home. It was so toxic that two of the five children asked for and received permission to go live with their older siblings who were married. I only mention this story, to both agree with you and to point out that marriage is "never" an option, if one of the persons is Gay, it is not a cure. I would think in this day an age, no Bishop would suggest marriage knowing what we know now, if he did, he would really be stepping outside his role and acting upon opinion only. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

 

I wonder why it is you left out this crucial sentence immediately following what you quoted here:
 

Quote

 

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

 

I'm going to be charitable and presume it was just an oversight as opposed to a deliberate design to remove context, but this certainly eviscerates your silly argument that the proclamation teaches "men to be irresponsible parents or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world."

Quote

To your point (at least what I think is your point), the proclamation does allow for individual adaptation. Nevertheless, mothers and fathers should be equally involved in the nurturing of their children. Anything less than that is an abdication of fatherly responsibilities. My opinion, of course. I would consider my life wasted had I not taken an equal role to my wife in the nurturing of our child. And in the mean time she is also working on her own career.

Again, I'm wondering why you left out the sentence that you left out that essentially states what you did here. It even uses the phrase "equal partners." Did you really not notice it?

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

.

.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder why it is you left out this crucial sentence immediately following what you quoted here:
 

I'm going to be charitable and presume it was just an oversight as opposed to a deliberate design to remove context, but this certainly eviscerates your silly argument that the proclamation teaches "men to be irresponsible parents or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world."

Again, I'm wondering why you left out the sentence that you left out that essentially states what you did here. It even uses the phrase "equal partners." Did you really not notice it?

 

I noticed it - it says equal partners, not equally involved each role. Mother, as primary caregiver, is equal to father, as primary breadwinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about parents being equally involved in both roles.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I noticed it - it says equal partners, not equally involved each role. Mother, as primary caregiver, is equal to father, as primary breadwinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about parents being equally involved in both roles.

Then I do believe you fundamentally reject a tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ. It runs deeper than the proclamation being outdated in wording.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Do you have any statements from Spencer W. Kimball clarifying what he meant when he stated that "Homosexuality is an ugly sin" or stating that different sins can lead to being homosexual?  ("...it [masterbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even the sin against nature, homosexuality."). Or that being too selfish causes homosexuality?  Why teach it can be cured if he didn't believe it was a sin or a disease?  Or call a gay person a "pervert"?  We all know the definition of that word!!

You seem to be putting your own wishful thinking or meaning to his words.  I agree that by the 90's church leaders were very much more emphasizing behavior.  I'm just curious if you just believe that is what President Kimball meant or if he ever made more statements that back up your feelings.  That would strengthen your position I think.  

Good questions.  I'm not aware of any statements from Pres. Kimball clarifying or defining his usage of the word "homosexuality" or "homosexual".   But that he believed and taught that sin could lead to becoming gay, is a good indication he believed it was a sin to choose to be gay or to give into sin that would lead to becoming gay.   It is obvious that he felt the most grievous sin was to act upon those feelings (punishable sin) and I do agree with Scott on that.  Although, it was expressed that homosexual thoughts also needed to be "repented of".

President Oaks and other leaders started to be more clear in the 1990's regarding the stressing of acting upon the feelings (or behavior) being a sin rather than just stating that homosexuality itself was a sin.   

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you have a problem with definitions. When you see the word homosexuality in those writings you interpret it to mean everything including sexual orientation, whether or not it is expressed in behavior.

Homosexuality is defined as both:

1.  Sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex :  the quality or state of being homosexual

2.  Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede the writers meant it in that way and I don't believe you have any way of knowing they did.

Nor do you know that they didn't.    

But taking into account all of Pres. Kimball's writing on this topic, leads me to believe he felt that sinning could lead to choosing to be gay or to becoming gay.  He wrote of the causes and he wrote of the cures.  His writings indicate that he was using both definitions above.

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[kllindley]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

I noticed it - it says equal partners, not equally involved each role. Mother, as primary caregiver, is equal to father, as primary breadwinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about parents being equally involved in both roles.

Well, it actually uses the word "responsibility." I can see that read as "expected to do the work of" but I have always heard it explained as "responsible to see that the work is done, whether by self or assignment." Like the Bishop is responsible for collecting fast offerings and the administration of the sacrament. Not that he alone does those tasks, but sees that they are done and done correctly. 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Homosexuality is defined as both:

1.  Sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex :  the quality or state of being homosexual

2.  Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Is this from a current source or one from 1960?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Is this from a current source or one from 1960?

It's the current online definition from Mariam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality

Do you have a source for what the definition was in 1960?  Has it changed or did it used to be that a person was not a homosexual unless they were sexually active with a member of their own sex? (Serious question...).  I know that I had a friend who openly admitted he was a homosexual when we were in college together, but he had not had any relations with another man, so I'm just curious.

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I do believe you fundamentally reject a tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ. It runs deeper than the proclamation being outdated in wording.

 

I sincerely hope that rigidly defined gender roles are not fundamental to Mormonism. But I have never claimed to be a fundamentalist.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, it actually uses the word "responsibility." I can see that read as "expected to do the work of" but I have always heard it explained as "responsible to see that the work is done, whether by self or assignment." Like the Bishop is responsible for collecting fast offerings and the administration of the sacrament. Not that he alone does those tasks, but sees that they are done and done correctly. 

That's not much better. Are men supposed to be overseeing the professional work their wives are doing? I know I wouldn't be qualified.

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But taking into account all of Pres. Kimball's writing on this topic, leads me to believe he felt that sinning led to choosing to be gay or to becoming gay.  He wrote of the causes and he wrote of the cures.  His writings indicate that he was using both definitions above.

Well, at least in my experience, the initial attraction was completely involuntary. However, only after entertaining and feeding those thoughts did the attraction become first a behavior and then an orientation, and then an identity. And I do believe that I needed to repent for the behaviors and the thoughts and fantasy I entertained. Not the ones that initially came up. But it just surprises me that straight people can read something and be so sure it is completely wrong that they have to work to convince other members who have lived experience that we just can't acknowledge the truth. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I sincerely hope that rigidly defined gender roles are not fundamental to Mormonism. 

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

Quote

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.

The mutuality of this "solemn responsibility" belies the notion that the Church imposes "rigid" gender roles.

Quote

“Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

Again, lots of mutual responsibility here.

Quote

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

All of this pertains to having both a mother and a father where possible ("is most likely to be achieved...").  Again, not a lot of rigidity here.

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

The emphasized portion above also belies notions of rigidity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

I noticed it - it says equal partners, not equally involved each role. Mother, as primary caregiver, is equal to father, as primary breadwinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about parents being equally involved in both roles.

So exact parity is required?  Both husband and wife must have exacting and equal proportions of breadwinning and caretaking?  

That seems like an odd proposal.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not much better. Are men supposed to be overseeing the professional work their wives are doing? I know I wouldn't be qualified.

You mean you wouldn't be qualified to know if the income your wife contributes is sufficient to provide for the needs of your family? I would suggest being more involved in family finances. 

[smac97]

.

Edited August 28, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, at least in my experience, the initial attraction was completely involuntary. However, only after entertaining and feeding those thoughts did the attraction become first a behavior and then an orientation, and then an identity. And I do believe that I needed to repent for the behaviors and the thoughts and fantasy I entertained. Not the ones that initially came up. But it just surprises me that straight people can read something and be so sure it is completely wrong that they have to work to convince other members who have lived experience that we just can't acknowledge the truth. 

I have complete respect for you kllindley, and do not doubt your own unique experience.  I have not asked you to acknowledge any "truth" regarding what you have been through and I would not do that to anyone.  I was only referring to acknowledging past teachings from our church leaders.  And once again, I would hope that you'd be grateful many of those teachings are no longer expressed or believed (in the church or out).   

I don't know where you're at in your life, but I hope you've found some peace.

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, at least in my experience, the initial attraction was completely involuntary. However, only after entertaining and feeding those thoughts did the attraction become first a behavior and then an orientation, and then an identity. And I do believe that I needed to repent for the behaviors and the thoughts and fantasy I entertained. Not the ones that initially came up. But it just surprises me that straight people can read something and be so sure it is completely wrong that they have to work to convince other members who have lived experience that we just can't acknowledge the truth. 

I find your description interesting here.  The progression of "attraction" --> "behavior" --> "orientation" --> "identity".

What are the characteristics of "orientation" that differentiate it from "identity"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I find your description interesting here.  The progression of "attraction" --> "behavior" --> "orientation" --> "identity".

What are the characteristics of "orientation" that differentiate it from "identity"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Here are some thoughts:

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Beyond the qualitatively diverse and subjective experiences of attraction and desire, we then look at the question of persistence in various patterns of attraction and desire, because there’s a lot of fluidity and variability across the lifespan. In addition, as previously noted, the idea that gender is the chief organizing principle of our “sexual orientation” is the current social construct the dominant culture uses. But it is far from the only possible one. We could just as easily label our sexual orientation around shape, size, race, personal values, ethnic traits, emotional bond, religious belief, social class, or economic status. And there may be greater persistence in some of these variables than the variable of gender preference. We are the ones, as a culture, who have drawn the conceptual lines. They are not inherent. Anyone who is “heterosexual” knows they are not attracted to all or even most people of the opposite sex, and those who are “homosexual” know they are not attracted to all or even most people of the same sex. The mere fact that someone is male or female is insufficient to make them erotically desirable. Therefore, some other factor or cluster of factors is more decisive than mere gender when it comes to erotic attraction. So, why are we attracted to the few of either sex we are attracted to, and how might that inform our “orientation”?

Similarly, in an article for Psychological Review, “What does Sexual Orientation Orient?”, Dr. Diamond proposes a biobehavioral model for romantic love and sexual desire that is based on an assumption that “the evolved processes underlying sexual desire and affectional bonding are functionally independent,” given that sexual and affectional components relationship orientation “do not always agree.”¹¹Meaning that just finding someone sexually desirable does not mean one will always be romantically bonded to them, or vice versa.

The concept of “sexual orientation,” particularly as it’s been narrowly and exclusively defined by gender, is simply limited and not very explanatory.

IDENTITY

“Being gay” is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The “gay” person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be “same-sex attraction,” which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or “gay,” “lesbian,” or “LGBT,” which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the “self” and “self-hood” through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as “gay” simply as shorthand for the mouthful “son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality,” while another person experiences themselves as “gay” as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of “selfhood”—what it means to have a self, and what it means to “be true to” that self. The question of what it means to be “true to ourselves” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of “selves” who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, “You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!”

As a final note here, however one chooses to self-identify here in a fallen, temporal world limited by human culture and human language, I firmly believe that, like Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which all social and political constructs were swallowed up in the gospel stone that rolled forth to consume the nations, so will the spiritual ideals and identities of the kingdom of God and the Celestial nature swallow up all of our social identity constructs that blur eternal identity (see Daniel 2:31-45).

While I identified as gay for a time, at one point I had a very strong spiritual prompting that if I continued to identify as gay, it would limit my progression. I believe that the more deeply we understand and feel spiritually connected to eternal realities and our eternal identity, the less meaningful any proximate, mortal identities feel to us. If others refer to me as gay, I typically tolerate it for practical purposes, but it’s not how I see myself, and occasionally it can feel particularly oppressive when others seem to insist on projecting and LGBT identity construct on me even after I’ve specified that that is not how I see myself. It’s not a construct that adequately captures who I am, what I believe, or how I feel.

 

See more on the distinction between attraction, desire, and behavior:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You mean you wouldn't be qualified to know if the income your wife contributes is sufficient to provide for the needs of your family? I would suggest being more involved in family finances. 

I mean what I said - I wouldn't be qualified to oversee her work. And are men ultimately supposed to be the overseers of the family budget? By some divine decree perhaps?