Scrutinizing general conference

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Disciplinary councils are kept confidential, you know I can’t cite anything and if I could it would be a one-sided story (because the church wouldn’t comment) which you would immediately dismiss. 

Disciplinary councils are not necessarily kept confidential by those being disciplined. You know that as well as I do. 

And whether or not it could be considered one-sided, you thus far have not been able to cite even one such instance. I think that says a great deal. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You claimed the Church in the past (at first, you said 20 years ago, then you backed away from that time frame) did not differentiate between homosexual feelings and behavior. If that’s true you ought to be able to cite an instance when someone was disciplined for having homosexual tendencies alone, since you said the Church did not distinguish between that and behavior. Or, failing that, you ought to be able to cite an unambiguous statement to that effect from a Church leader. 

I can do that Scott.

Perhaps the best place to start is with President Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness. He wrote:

Quote

 

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality.

Sin of the Ages

Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it is discussed in this chapter.

This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex," whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages. It was present in Israel's wandering days as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot's visitors indicates. (See Gen. 19:5.) So degenerate had Sodom become that not ten righteous people could be found (see Gen. 18:23-32), and the Lord had to destroy it. But the revolting practice has persisted. As far back as Henry the Eighth this vice was referred to as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature." Some of our own statutes have followed that apt and descriptive wording.

Sin in sex practices tends to have a "snowballing" effect. As the restraints fall away, Satan incites the carnal man to ever-deepening degeneracy in his search for excitement until in many instances he is lost to any former considerations of decency. Thus it is that through the ages, perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk even to seeking sexual satisfactions with animals.

There is this fun thing in here about how homosexuality is a result or development of earlier sins - and is a progressive behavior that starts with masturbation. (Actually, if masturbation leads to homosexuality, we ought to expect humanity to have disappeared ages ago ....). But you can see that homosexuality is defined as both "sexual desire" (same-sex attraction) and as sexual relations between same-sex individuals. This is the ambiguity where the behavior and the attraction are clearly connected, and identified as part of the same issue. Both are defined as perversions, and as sins.

This was published in 1969? So in 1984, we a memo written by Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, on August 7, 1984, titled "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals"

Quote

The word homosexuality is used in two senses: (1) as a condition, and (2) as a practice. Thus, in his pamphlet, Letter to a Friend (1971, revised edition, 1978), President Kimball summarises as follows:

"Homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.

[This obviously refers to the condition of sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.]

"Homosexuality, like other serious sins, can be forgiven by the Church and the Lord if the repentance is total, all-inclusive, and continuous." (Rev. ed., p. 28.)

[This obviously refers to the practice of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.]

It is important to distinguish between these two different meanings in attempting to communicate on the subject of homosexuality. Condemnations directed at the practice of homosexuality are condemnations of sexual acts, which are sinful. Thus, the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.

In contrast, condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought (like a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her), but not necessarily sinners in deed. Evil thoughts are of course also sinful, but for most purposes we do not consider the evil thinker to be guilty of as grave a sin as the evil doer.

Similarly, in considering our position on legislation affecting "homosexuals" we need to be clear on whether the proposed laws would affect only persons with perverted acts, or whether the proposed legislation and our position on it could be understood also to affect persons guilty of no more than perverted thoughts or tendencies.

So Elder Oaks confirms that we had this language that was ambiguous and used for both the attraction and the sexual relations. But we also see this as part of a change to create a distinction (in the early 80s) forged by separating these earlier statements in the way that Elder Oaks does here.

However, and this is part of the reason I used this particular document, what we see here is that in the early 1980s, there is a clear view that while being an active homosexual was a grave sin, having the feelings still remains as being sinful (just not as sinful). Further, the memo later goes on in some depth to discuss issues that spring from the assumption that same-sex attraction is primarily a learned preference, and that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice. While the Church has been consistent in its opposition to practicing homosexuality (as sinful), these other issues have clearly changed. The Church has stopped using ambiguous language. The Church has decided that same-sex attraction is largely not a choice. And the Church has also decided that same-sex attraction is not itself sinful as was earlier believed.

It is the decision that same-sex attraction isn't a choice that really drives the changes of the last few years. Because as long as it is a choice, then the same-sex attraction is an outcome of earlier bad choices (and the jump to seeing this a sin in a chain of sins is a natural leap).

I think that any reasonable person would agree that while the Church hasn't changed its stance on homosexual relations, their view of same-sex attraction has changed quite dramatically.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Disciplinary councils are not necessarily kept confidential by those being disciplined. You know that as well as I do. 

And whether or not it could be considered one-sided, you thus far have not been able to cite even one such instance. I think that says a great deal. 

Yes, it says that I can’t prove a claim that I never made and have repeatedly stated was unprovable. 

And I don’t believe for one moment that, if I took the time to find evidence for the claim that I didn’t make, that you would accept it solely on the word of the disciplined individual. 

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I can do that Scott.

Perhaps the best place to start is with President Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness. He wrote:

There is this fun thing in here about how homosexuality is a result or development of earlier sins - and is a progressive behavior that starts with masturbation. (Actually, if masturbation leads to homosexuality, we ought to expect humanity to have disappeared ages ago ....). But you can see that homosexuality is defined as both "sexual desire" (same-sex attraction) and as sexual relations between same-sex individuals. This is the ambiguity where the behavior and the attraction are clearly connected, and identified as part of the same issue. Both are defined as perversions, and as sins.

This was published in 1969? So in 1984, we a memo written by Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, on August 7, 1984, titled "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals"

So Elder Oaks confirms that we had this language that was ambiguous and used for both the attraction and the sexual relations. But we also see this as part of a change to create a distinction (in the early 80s) forged by separating these earlier statements in the way that Elder Oaks does here.

However, and this is part of the reason I used this particular document, what we see here is that in the early 1980s, there is a clear view that while being an active homosexual was a grave sin, having the feelings still remains as being sinful (just not as sinful). Further, the memo later goes on in some depth to discuss issues that spring from the assumption that same-sex attraction is primarily a learned preference, and that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice. While the Church has been consistent in its opposition to practicing homosexuality (as sinful), these other issues have clearly changed. The Church has stopped using ambiguous language. The Church has decided that same-sex attraction is largely not a choice. And the Church has also decided that same-sex attraction is not itself sinful as was earlier believed.

It is the decision that same-sex attraction isn't a choice that really drives the changes of the last few years. Because as long as it is a choice, then the same-sex attraction is an outcome of earlier bad choices (and the jump to seeing this a sin in a chain of sins is a natural leap).

I think that any reasonable person would agree that while the Church hasn't changed its stance on homosexual relations, their view of same-sex attraction has changed quite dramatically.

Thanks, Benjamin. 

I wonder if this quote is unambiguous enough for Scott and Kiwi:  “This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex," whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages.”

 

[rockpond]

The focus has been turned to the point about whether early church teachings on the subject allowed for someone to claim the attraction while avoiding the behavior and maintain full worthiness in the church.

I’m curious if people disagree with my premise that church leaders have moved away from the following teachings that were present when leaders first addressed the matter of homosexuality:

1.  That homosexuality was caused by selfishness (Packer, To The One), masturbation and other sins (Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness), and family conditions (Kimball/Peterson, church pamphlet from 1971).

2.  That homosexuality could be cured (not just avoid the behavior avoided).  (Kimball/Peterson 1971 pamphlet and Packer, To The One).

3.  That homosexuals should get married as a way to correct their attractions (Kimball/Peterson). 

[Danzo]

23 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I dont think it's settled, but going that direction.

Its been going their for quite some time, yet it never seems to arrive . . .

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thanks, Benjamin. 

I wonder if this quote is unambiguous enough for Scott and Kiwi:  “This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex," whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages.”

 

I think a subtle point is desire vs. attraction. I think Kimball is equating desire with lust, which is a sin. Even in his day, there was no sin in being tempted (D&C 20:22), only in willfully leveraging our weakness to lust and gladly receive temptation (Alma 12:13-14). Oaks reflects this understanding, and only suggests it is important to be clear when using the word homosexuality. for that reason.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Its been going their for quite some time, yet it never seems to arrive . . .

How long do you think it's been since Mendel did his genetic experiments?  Relatively speaking, science is just discovering how the brain functions and how it affects orientation.  Nevertheless, of course it's a choice because that seems to be the position of the brethren .... until their position changes.

[Meerkat]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no question that they are the Words of Christ from the Christ within you, absolutely and without question, the are "God breathed" from that Being within yourself when you "hear" those words resonating with all your being. What else could they be? They become who YOU are within.

And that is all it is possible for any if us to know anyway. All you know is what is within you!

"The Christ in us" is an interesting topic.  You may have a perspective I have missed, but unwittingly been living.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-29 talks about being anxiously engaged in good causes and do many things of our own free will to bring to pass much righteousness, for the power is in us...  In other words use our agency to act as if Christ were acting in us.

Here are some interesting comments and passages that support your thesis:

1 Ne. 7:17  Nephi’s brothers bound him with cords and planned his destruction. Note Nephi’s prayer: “O Lord, according to my faith which is in thee, wilt thou deliver me from the hands of my brethren; yea, even give me strength that I may burst these bands with which I am bound”

It wasn't "Do this for me."  It was "Strengthen the power I have to act for myself," which goes to your point.

Elder Bednar said in his April, 2012 talk titled "The Atonement and the Journey of Mortality," "I suspect that many Church members are much more familiar with the nature of the redeeming and cleansing power of the Atonement than they are with the strengthening and enabling power. It is one thing to know that Jesus Christ came to earth to die for us—that is fundamental and foundational to the doctrine of Christ. But we also need to appreciate that the Lord desires, through His Atonement and by the power of the Holy Ghost, to live in us—not only to direct us but also to empower us."

Alma 14:26 "“O Lord, give us strength according to our faith which is in Christ, even unto deliverance” 

In Alma 31, Alma is directing a mission to reclaim the apostate Zoramites, who, after building their Rameumptom, offer a prescribed and prideful prayer.  Notice the plea for strength in Alma’s personal prayer: “O Lord, wilt thou grant unto me that I may have strength, that I may suffer with patience these afflictions which shall come upon me, because of the iniquity of this people” 

Nephi and Alma's focus' seems to be asking for God's power to strengthen them to do a godly thing.  They aren't asking Heavenly Father to do it for them, rather inspire, strengthen.

The prayers I remember are not merely "God, help me out of the fix I'm in."  They've been more along the line "The economy has turned.  Real estate is down.  The banks have stopped calling.  I know if you give me an idea, I can provide for my family."  And the ideas came.  That was the inspiration I needed to act with the power that was already in me.

Considering these things do not put us on a par with the Savior by any stretch, in my opinion.  However they do point to the kind of people He wants to help us become, "Even as I am."

And from Matt. 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

13 "And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves."

And finally and clearly, the words of Christ Himself: "26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

So, MFB, I appreciate the insight.  Would appreciate anything else you care to send along so I can flesh out this concept and increase the power of Christ in me to act.  

Edited October 26, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Disregard this post.

I caught this before it was edited-   and came back to answer and it was gone.

As far as sources- they are many and varied, I would argue that my thoughts about subjectivity etc only mirror what has been going on in philosophy for the last 150 years or so starting approximately with William James

So if you really want to get into it- I will be glad to do so, but I have been posting on this forever on this board.  I am not making this up- but asking for references about this- from my perspective- is like asking for references to the earth being round.   There are several.

One great place to start is with David Paulsen- well known BYU philosopher https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

Will to Believe  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

Something I summarized: http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

You mentioned "relativism" as a bad word- I would suggest to you precisely that if we have an open canon, indeed we are relativists.  Our doctrine changes according to what is needed for the times- making us relativists.  God changes and grows and has progressed- we all hopefully will progress to become like him.  Progression means that what was true of us earlier is no longer true and therefore the truth has changed.   Yes we all know what truth means- in simple contexts like whether or not my keys are where I said they were.  But truth itself is undefinable, after 2500 years of trying to do so going back to Aristotle and Plato

Read the Rorty quote below- I can help you with that.  Yes of course there are cliffs to be fallen off of- but your experience of falling off the very real cliff will be different than my experience of falling off the same cliff at the same time.

I will not see YOUR life flash before my eyes- but MY life.   You may contemplate your coming death silently while I contemplate mine screaming my guts out.

Everything we see and know is how WE personally see and know it- though of course our outside world overlaps.   That is what the quote below says essentially.

So all I have done if anything is adapt certain secular philosophies to Mormonism but I certainly did not come up with the philosophies.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

3.  That homosexuals should get married as a way to correct their attractions (Kimball/Peterson). 

That is not what the pamphlet said.

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

"The Christ in us" is an interesting topic.  You may have a perspective I have missed, but unwittingly been living.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-29 talks about being anxiously engaged in good causes and do many things of our own free will to bring to pass much righteousness, for the power is in us...  In other words use our agency to act as if Christ were acting in us.

Here are some interesting comments and passages that support your thesis:

1 Ne. 7:17  Nephi’s brothers bound him with cords and planned his destruction. Note Nephi’s prayer: “O Lord, according to my faith which is in thee, wilt thou deliver me from the hands of my brethren; yea, even give me strength that I may burst these bands with which I am bound”

It wasn't "Do this for me."  It was "Strengthen the power I have to act for myself," which goes to your point.

Elder Bednar said in his April, 2012 talk titled "The Atonement and the Journey of Mortality," "I suspect that many Church members are much more familiar with the nature of the redeeming and cleansing power of the Atonement than they are with the strengthening and enabling power. It is one thing to know that Jesus Christ came to earth to die for us—that is fundamental and foundational to the doctrine of Christ. But we also need to appreciate that the Lord desires, through His Atonement and by the power of the Holy Ghost, to live in us—not only to direct us but also to empower us."

Alma 14:26 "“O Lord, give us strength according to our faith which is in Christ, even unto deliverance” 

In Alma 31, Alma is directing a mission to reclaim the apostate Zoramites, who, after building their Rameumptom, offer a prescribed and prideful prayer.  Notice the plea for strength in Alma’s personal prayer: “O Lord, wilt thou grant unto me that I may have strength, that I may suffer with patience these afflictions which shall come upon me, because of the iniquity of this people” 

Nephi and Alma's focus' seems to be asking for God's power to strengthen them to do a godly thing.  They aren't asking Heavenly Father to do it for them, rather inspire, strengthen.

The prayers I remember are not merely "God, help me out of the fix I'm in."  They've been more along the line "The economy has turned.  Real estate is down.  The banks have stopped calling.  I know if you give me an idea, I can provide for my family."  And the ideas came.  That was the inspiration I needed to act with the power that was already in me.

Considering these things do not put us on a par with the Savior by any stretch, in my opinion.  However they do point to the kind of people He wants to help us become, "Even as I am."

And from Matt. 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

13 "And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves."

And finally and clearly, the words of Christ Himself: "26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

So, MFB, I appreciate the insight.  Would appreciate anything else you care to send along so I can flesh out this concept and increase the power of Christ in me to act.  

Thanks.

Once you see it, it is everywhere

Quote

 

Luke 17:20-21King James Version (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

"Without observation"

 

2 Timothy 1:14

That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

 

Ephesians 2:22

In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:17

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Colossians 1:27

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Hebrews 3:6

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

John 14:23

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

1 Corinthians 3:16

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

That is not what the pamphlet said.

And your thoughts on points 1 and 2?

[Meerkat]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I caught this before it was edited-   and came back to answer and it was gone.

As far as sources- they are many and varied, I would argue that my thoughts about subjectivity etc only mirror what has been going on in philosophy for the last 150 years or so starting approximately with William James

So if you really want to get into it- I will be glad to do so, but I have been posting on this forever on this board.  I am not making this up- but asking for references about this- from my perspective- is like asking for references to the earth being round.   There are several.

One great place to start is with David Paulsen- well known BYU philosopher https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

Will to Believe  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

Something I summarized: http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

You mentioned "relativism" as a bad word- I would suggest to you precisely that if we have an open canon, indeed we are relativists.  Our doctrine changes according to what is needed for the times- making us relativists.  God changes and grows and has progressed- we all hopefully will progress to become like him.  Progression means that what was true of us earlier is no longer true and therefore the truth has changed.   Yes we all know what truth means- in simple contexts like whether or not my keys are where I said they were.  But truth itself is undefinable, after 2500 years of trying to do so going back to Aristotle and Plato

Read the Rorty quote below- I can help you with that.  Yes of course there are cliffs to be fallen off of- but your experience of falling off the very real cliff will be different than my experience of falling off the same cliff at the same time.

I will not see YOUR life flash before my eyes- but MY life.   You may contemplate your coming death silently while I contemplate mine screaming my guts out.

Everything we see and know is how WE personally see and know it- though of course our outside world overlaps.   That is what the quote below says essentially.

So all I have done if anything is adapt certain secular philosophies to Mormonism but I certainly did not come up with the philosophies.

I deleted it because after a little study I began to see your point, kind of like a ship coming out of a fog on the idea of Christ in us.  I like the thought, but don't want to diminish the price He paid to accomplish this work in us.  I will study your links here as well.  Thanks for your response.

[rockpond]

From Kimball and Peterson in Hope for Transgressors:

Quote

The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step.

Notice they refer to interests and affections.  Continuing with that same quote...

Quote

When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.

Toward the normal.  The continue...

Quote

It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl and though they will never indulge in sex until after their marriage makes it proper and meaningful, there are many of the afflicted ones who have no interest in the opposite sex and must now gradually develop it.

So they need to change their orientation.  Kimball and Peterson conclude:

Quote

...gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.  Marriage and normal life can follow.

Since the pamphlet was specifically directed at priesthood leaders, this is how they are being taught to counsel gay male members.  Specifically, date and marry a girl.  The "normal life".

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

From Kimball and Peterson in Hope for Transgressors:

Notice they refer to interests and affections.  Continuing with that same quote...

Toward the normal.  The continue...

So they need to change their orientation.  Kimball and Peterson conclude:

Since the pamphlet was specifically directed at priesthood leaders, this is how they are being taught to counsel gay male members.  Specifically, date and marry a girl.  The "normal life".

 

Yes.

Marriage and the normal life were the end goal, not a therapeutic strategy. You have radically misrepresented what they were saying.

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And your thoughts on points 1 and 2?

1. All sinful actions are inherently selfish. That's why we continue to sin; we are all selfish creatures.

2. I don't know if Same Sex Attraction Disorder can be cured, and I suspect that medical science doesn't even want to start investigating the problem; primarily for political reasons.

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You have radically misrepresented what they were saying.

I'm not sure why you are in such denial regarding past teachings of church leaders on homosexuality.

Here's another statement (In the 1973 guide for Bishops and Stake Presidents titled "Homosexuality: Welfare Services Packet 1") from the first presidency (a statement from them is in the introduction):

Quote

 

Definitions:

Homosexuality has many forms.  It may be only a mental state without behavior, or it may include complete emotional and sexual genital involvement with a member of the same sex.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384642/Homosexuality-Welfare-Services-Packet-1-LDS-Victor-Brown

 

The leaders also used to teach that homosexuality could be cured and encouraged gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  Those teachings have changed and are no longer taught.

These are all positive steps in the right direction, so once again, I'm wondering why you deny this?

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes.

Marriage and the normal life were the end goal, not a therapeutic strategy. You have radically misrepresented what they were saying.

 

Nope.  I never claimed it was a therapeutic stategy.  Quite the opposite. 

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

1. All sinful actions are inherently selfish. That's why we continue to sin; we are all selfish creatures.

2. I don't know if Same Sex Attraction Disorder can be cured, and I suspect that medical science doesn't even want to start investigating the problem; primarily for political reasons.

1. That’s not what that point was about.  What do you think of the teaching by those apostles regarding cause. 

2.  If by “same sex attraction disorder” you mean homosexuality, I have quoted two prophets, seers, and revelators telling you clearly that homosexuality can be cured.  Do you believe them?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you are in such denial regarding past teachings of church leaders on homosexuality.

Here's another statement (In the 1973 guide for Bishops and Stake Presidents titled "Homosexuality: Welfare Services Packet 1") from the first presidency (a statement from them is in the introduction):

The leaders also used to teach that homosexuality could be cured and encouraged gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  Those teachings have changed and are no longer taught.

These are all positive steps in the right direction, so once again, I'm wondering why you deny this?

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1. That’s not what that point was about.  What do you think of the teaching by those apostles regarding cause. 

2.  If by “same sex attraction disorder” you mean homosexuality, I have quoted two prophets, seers, and revelators telling you clearly that homosexuality can be cured.  Do you believe them?

It is interesting to me that as secular understanding of this issue changes, and as the secular tools priesthood leaders have at their disposal change, that the policy represents a concomitant step forward. It shows that our best efforts may change, but the “the center core and most sacred institution of the church” does not (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html ).

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting to me that as secular understanding of this issue changes, and as the secular tools priesthood leaders have at their disposal change, that the policy represents a concomitant step forward. It shows that our best efforts may change, but the “the center core and most sacred institution of the church” does not (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html ).

Well, if you are saying that our leaders’ teachings on the subject of homosexuality have followed behind secular knowledge, I agree.  But perhaps that wasn’t what you meant. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

2.  If by “same sex attraction disorder” you mean homosexuality, I have quoted two prophets, seers, and revelators telling you clearly that homosexuality can be cured.  Do you believe them?

I don't like the word "cured".  It's not a disease.
Healed might be better.  Treated would also be better.

And as for treatment - that would depend on what we consider the source of the attraction to be - genetic, biological, emotional, mental, all of the above.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't like the word "cured".  It's not a disease.
Healed might be better.  Treated would also be better.

And as for treatment - that would depend on what we consider the source of the attraction to be - genetic, biological, emotional, mental, all of the above.

Biological. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Biological. 

And we can't treat the body to affect a change?