Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[rockpond]

MormonLeaks has posted a scan of a 1981 pamphlet published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for priesthood leaders regarding homosexuality.

Click here to review the copy.

I'm curious if anyone can read this and still feel that the Church has not changed or evolved its position regarding homosexuality since this time.  You'll note that it references many of the addresses/documents we've discussed here before:  To The One, Letter to a Friend, To Young Men Only, Miracle of Forgiveness (all now out of print).

Also, I'm wondering if anyone knows when this pamphlet was removed from circulation?

[rongo]

I don't think the Church has so much changed  or evolved its position regarding homosexuality as it has remained quiet in the face of public opinion and criticism. I think that many/most GAs would still admit to agreeing with much of that stuff, if they felt comfortable being frank. 

I don't think much can be read into removing of pamphlets from circulation. The Church got rid of almost 100% of its pamphlets, compared to how many it published decades ago (i.e., back in 1981). We only have very few basic ones compared to the variety we used to have. 

[ttribe]

Is this the one that suggests the road to homosexuality is paved with masturbation?  That would seem a bit dated if it is still an official position.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks has posted a scan of a 1981 pamphlet published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for priesthood leaders regarding homosexuality.

Click here to review the copy.

I'm curious if anyone can read this and still feel that the Church has not changed or evolved its position regarding homosexuality since this time.  You'll note that it references many of the addresses/documents we've discussed here before:  To The One, Letter to a Friend, To Young Men Only, Miracle of Forgiveness (all now out of print).

Also, I'm wondering if anyone knows when this pamphlet was removed from circulation?

Thanks to the backfire effect and other psychological biases, I predict that there will be some who are even more convinced after looking at this evidence that the church has not changed its position or evolved.  The more evidence produced the more convinced they will be that their position is correct.  

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks has posted a scan of a 1981 pamphlet published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for priesthood leaders regarding homosexuality.

Click here to review the copy.

I'm curious if anyone can read this and still feel that the Church has not changed or evolved its position regarding homosexuality since this time.  You'll note that it references many of the addresses/documents we've discussed here before:  To The One, Letter to a Friend, To Young Men Only, Miracle of Forgiveness (all now out of print).

Also, I'm wondering if anyone knows when this pamphlet was removed from circulation?

What do you see as her position on homosexuality in 1981?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church has so much changed  or evolved its position regarding homosexuality as it has remained quiet in the face of public opinion and criticism. I think that many/most GAs would still admit to agreeing with much of that stuff, if they felt comfortable being frank. 

I don't think much can be read into removing of pamphlets from circulation. The Church got rid of almost 100% of its pamphlets, compared to how many it published decades ago (i.e., back in 1981). We only have very few basic ones compared to the variety we used to have. 

I wouldn't read much into it.  I'm more curious when it stopped being put into the hands of priesthood leaders.  Although, even that is a "soft" date... I remember clearing out old "To The One" pamphlets from our clerks office back around 2005.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you see as her position on homosexuality in 1981?

You'll have to read the pamphlet.  I can't do it justice in a few quotes.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks has posted a scan of a 1981 pamphlet published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for priesthood leaders regarding homosexuality.

Click here to review the copy.

I'm curious if anyone can read this and still feel that the Church has not changed or evolved its position regarding homosexuality since this time.  You'll note that it references many of the addresses/documents we've discussed here before:  To The One, Letter to a Friend, To Young Men Only, Miracle of Forgiveness (all now out of print).

Also, I'm wondering if anyone knows when this pamphlet was removed from circulation?

Thanks for posting this, I had forgotten this document had leaked and I hadn't reviewed it yet.  Wow!  This pamphlet was really hard for me to read, as it was so homophobic, bigoted and uniformed.  I honestly don't think one sentence in that whole document is accurate.  

This just makes me mad.  That church leadership perpetuated these kinds of horrible myths in such explicit terms to the leaders of the church.  I know leaders are products of their culture and environment, so maybe I shouldn't be too hard on them.  But the fact that they were this wrong about everything in this pamphlet and as I imagine how many lives have suffered as a result of this it just makes me sick.  God was not involved in any of this. 

The church today really needs to repent and apologize and try to make restitution.  I'm not sure that repentance can even make up for the evil that has been perpetuated, but at least it would be an attempt at helping to reconcile for such horrible teachings and practices.  So sad...

[kiwi57]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks to the backfire effect and other psychological biases, I predict that there will be some who are even more convinced after looking at this evidence that the church has not changed its position or evolved.  The more evidence produced the more convinced they will be that their position is correct.  

Apparently it's very important, when arguing a weak position, to get in early to poison the well against anyone who might disagree with you.

[CA Steve]

Well at least we don't have a lot of lay leadership who believe this who are interviewing young people about their sexual habits.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll have to read the pamphlet.  I can't do it justice in a few quotes.

I have to read the pamphlet for you to describe what you see as the Church's position in 1981? I would like some more transparency that that

I'll make it easy for you: Page 1, I.A.:

"The First Presidency has issued the following statement to priesthood leaders: As we have previously stated, homosexuality is a sin in the same degree as adultery and fornication. Powerful forces are seeking to establish this sinful practice as an acceptable way of life. Homosexuality in men and women runs counter to divine objectives and the intended destiny of mankind. The Lord has declared, "For behold, this is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1 :39). Some claim homosexuality is incurable, therefore they seek to be considered a legitimate minority group protected by law. We should not be deceived by these false rationalizations. We must never lose our perspective amidst the world's clamor to justify and normalize immorality. According to the Lord's revealed word, the only acceptable sexual relationship occurs within the family between a husband and a wife."

I suppose this statement is going to create the most controversy: "Some claim homosexuality is incurable, therefore they seek to be considered a legitimate minority group protected by law. We should not be deceived by these false rationalizations." The Church supports laws protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination while safeguarding religious liberty, not because the protected class is designated as such by virtue of an incurable condition, but because these are reasonable, fundamental rights afforded to all.

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by CV75

[Duncan]

All of that seems silly to us today but unless we're in Back to the Future  we need to understand it in 1981 terms. Same thing applies to when we look at what we wore in 1981, we don't wear that stuff today but back then that was the style

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have to read the pamphlet for you to describe what you see as the Church's position in 1981? I would like some more transparency that that

 

The transparency is in the document I posted.

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Church supports laws protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination while safeguarding religious liberty, not because the protected class is designated as such by virtue of an incurable condition, but because these are reasonable, fundamental rights afforded to all.

 

They do now (for others, not the church itself).  They didn't as late as the 1990's in Colorado (my home state).

[Jeanne]

In a way, I am rather speechless...in the 80's I was in my 20's and thought nothing...or really knew of the stances here in specifics..Like, Duncan, I try to realize that this is the 1980's...Aids was in full swing later on..but so much of this has nothing to do with church...the evolving came from scientific knowledge later on..at least some of it.  It is not learned behavior and I think the church has evolved in many areas of gays since this time.  It kind of hurt to read the part where I child who may experiment would be different...isolated...not socially functioning well..gees, we all know why now.  Although I feel that the church has seen some different solutions/reasoning for much of this...their change (I hope) can only create a better understanding as time goes by.  It is unfortunate for every step that is taken ahead...a policy takes them back two steps...I see a great difference.  Hope to see more.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

All of that seems silly to us today but unless we're in Back to the Future  we need to understand it in 1981 terms. Same thing applies to when we look at what we wore in 1981, we don't wear that stuff today but back then that was the style

Seems like the decade and lack of research shouldn't be dominant factors when we've got someone who can speak with God.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Seems like the decade and lack of research shouldn't be dominant factors when we've got someone who can speak with God.

maybe he was teaching them , like us, line upon line precept upon precept.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

maybe he was teaching them , like us, line upon line precept upon precept.

This, too, according to mormon perspectives...maybe science is working its line upon line with the church.  But why it works this way baffles me...when like Rockpond said...a prophet who speaks with God.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks has posted a scan of a 1981 pamphlet published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for priesthood leaders regarding homosexuality.

Click here to review the copy.

I'm curious if anyone can read this and still feel that the Church has not changed or evolved its position regarding homosexuality since this time.  You'll note that it references many of the addresses/documents we've discussed here before:  To The One, Letter to a Friend, To Young Men Only, Miracle of Forgiveness (all now out of print).

Also, I'm wondering if anyone knows when this pamphlet was removed from circulation?

Specifically how do you claim the Church substantively has "changed or evolved its position"? And please provide documentation from this as compared to current official and authoritative Church sources.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This, too, according to mormon perspectives...maybe science is working its line upon line with the church.

we don't want the science that was accepted back in the day regarding homosexuality. It's considered science fiction today. My Mum had a cousin that was gay, this was decades ago but back then, she said, people on the farm people couldn't even fathom homosexuality

Edited December 15, 2017 by Duncan

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Duncan said:

maybe he was teaching them , like us, line upon line precept upon precept.

How do you figure?  How would God teach them by letting them believe false information?

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

How do you figure?  How would God teach them by letting them believe false information?

it's been like that since forever! why didn't they have the internet in 1109? it's not just a today thing. I think it was Elder Maxwell who said the church is like an aircraft carrier, if you turn too sharply all the members would blow off so you have to turn slowly to keep as many in.

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How do you figure?  How would God teach them by letting them believe false information?

This.   I was thinking this way back in the day....I am disgusted with what I thought was a truth...there are a few friends that I made feel horrible..why would God want me to do that to them?  That all being said, I take full responsibility for what I have done. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Jeanne

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The transparency is in the document I posted.

They do now (for others, not the church itself).  They didn't as late as the 1990's in Colorado (my home state).

No, I don' think it is transparent simply by posting an old document. My expectation is that the OP set the tone for the thread by sharing his/her thoughts on the topic up front.

I don't understand your second comment. I said, "The Church supports laws protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination while safeguarding religious liberty, not because the protected class is designated as such by virtue of an incurable condition, but because these are reasonable, fundamental rights afforded to all." Are you trying to say that the bolded part, which is the 1981 Church position, was ignored by the Church in Colorado in 1990 (and if so, how, exactly), signifying a change in her position?

I think you might be confusing a misunderstanding of what a position is and/or a misunderstood position with misinterpreted/misconstrued actions, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your second comment. I suspect that the Church viewed the notion to designate homosexuality as a protected class on the basis of an incurable condition no differently in 1990 than in 1981. And who was supporting that notion in 1981 (and 1990 for that matter)?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church has so much changed  or evolved its position regarding homosexuality as it has remained quiet in the face of public opinion and criticism. I think that many/most GAs would still admit to agreeing with much of that stuff, if they felt comfortable being frank. 

I don't think much can be read into removing of pamphlets from circulation. The Church got rid of almost 100% of its pamphlets, compared to how many it published decades ago (i.e., back in 1981). We only have very few basic ones compared to the variety we used to have. 

True. There was a "reduce-and-simplify" movement that resulted in the substantial elimination of guidebooks as their content was condensed into Handbooks 1 and 2.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Apparently it's very important, when arguing a weak position, to get in early to poison the well against anyone who might disagree with you.

Yeah. Somebody won't accept your lame evidence or reasoning? Just call out, "Backfire Effect(tm)!"