Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[Anijen]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

CB...you showed more faith in family and with courage...than anyone I know. 

Don't know too many people?

 

Every family has tremendous struggles. Besides suffering through trials does not make a persons point more or less valid.

[poptart]

TBH, it's not unique to the LDS to not like homosexuality, it used to be hated by a lot of religions.  Even in a lot of asian cultures it's frowned upon.  As much crap as people give the mormons thats right up there with the whole mark of cain thing. 

Slight derail, Wish people would quit hating on the ban on blacks in the priesthood, thats small potatoes to how it used to be, look at the AME zion church. 
Back to homosexuality, atleast the church is doing something.  There are so many homeless lgbt youth its sad.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

CB...you showed more faith in family and with courage...than anyone I know.  God Bless You.  What a  valiant father you are!

Thanks Jeanne.  I do hope that I have been the best dad I could be.  I may be gay, but that doesn't mean I can't be a good father.  Obviously by the choices I have made in my life that was very important to me.  And that part I don't regret one bit.  I have really great kids and grandkids.  And they have come to love my partner very much.  My life has really gotten much brighter as time goes by.  

I just wish I could put my arms around every one of these gay Mormon kids and share with them some of the hard lessons I had to learn.  And probably the first lesson I would teach them is this very subject of this thread.  Just because church leaders make the claim to know the will of God doesn't mean they do.  Being gay is not the curse I once thought it was.  In fact, I have learned so many important lessons in life because God blessed me and let me live my life as a gay man.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Do you think that this document could be published today to church members and leaders, as it is currently written, and be consistent with current teachings and counsel from the Brethren?

Setting aside supporting material from secular sources that may or may not be outdated, I believe the official, authoritative  position of the Church remains unaltered. 

[Duncan]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

And what makes you think that the church is even right that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage is wrong?  Whether it will change or not remains to be seen.  What is clear now is that position did not come from revelation.

Church leaders definitely represented this pamphlet as revelation.  Because that is exactly how it was presented to me.  When a pamphlet starts out stating that this is the position of the church, it used to be assumed that they actually prayed about what they were telling leadership to do.  Now the assumption clearly should be that no revelation has occurred.  Church leaders are just deciding in their committee votes doctrine and policy of the church.  

I don't "know'' but I think their position in terms of acting on homosexuality hasn't changed whereas the softening on it and homosexuals and certaintly advice has changed, like M* leads to being gay or "pray the gay away" you can't do that anymore than you can turn bananas into balloons.See, that's where we learn what is revelation and what isn't and when the leaders should say this is or isn't

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't "know'' but I think their position in terms of acting on homosexuality hasn't changed whereas the softening on it and homosexuals and certaintly advice has changed, like M* leads to being gay or "pray the gay away" you can't do that anymore than you can turn bananas into balloons.See, that's where we learn what is revelation and what isn't and when the leaders should say this is or isn't

I would agree with you that the position on homosexuals in the church has not changed.  In fact the church is quite clear that gay couples and their children can not be members of the church to this day.  Did that idea come from revelation?  I highly doubt it.  It came the same way all this other ideas have come.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

Never mind.  I now remember what it's like to attempt to engage in an honest, respectful conversation on here with you.

Since rockpond wrote the OP,  how about you let him define or describe what he meant when he chose to use the word "position"?

rockpond?

Here's the statement from the OP:

"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."

 

But yes, I certainly think @rockpond has that prerogative. As you can see, imprecision in assuming we share an alternate the meaning of a term such as “Church’s position,” which term is explicitly defined in the document provided by the OP for the explicit purpose of discussing the Church’s position” can muddle things.

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

As the author of the OP, I get to speak to my intent and the definition/scope of how I used the word "position".  I was not speaking exclusively of the I.A. section with the heading "Position".  So I have not strayed from the premise.  When I spoke of position I was speaking of the position on ALL that the document covered:  the teachings, doctrines, policies, and counsel to priesthood leaders.  Feel free to distinguish between them in your response but you don't get to declare my premise for me.

Here's my question that you keep dodging... Are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?

I assume your lack of response to it (the first two times I asked) is due to the fact that you know the answer is "yes, the policies and counsel have changed since the 1981 publication" but you don't want to admit it.

Thank you for clarifying!

But you assume waaaaaay too much! I am not dodging the question, only balking at your using the term differently, changing it from its original use in document you provided and wished to discuss. I also didn’t want to make it easy to enable the expectation that everyone share that same assumption without thinking through it critically. Look how hard it was for you to answer some of my questions, and have left at least one yet unanswered: Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM

Obviously some things written in the text of the 1981 document have changed and some have not, but that is a rather meaningless statement without drilling down to specifics and their significance and meaning. That is why it is better to call a position a position, assuming this is the most relevant object of discussion. What is the conclusion you are driving for which specific change? Which change is most important to you?

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes they use all the resources and then make a decision.  BUT the claim is that when they make a decision it is based on revelation remember?  So does the church  leadership make decisions based on secular knowledge or revelation?  That seems like a very important question that should be asked.  

In this case, they decided to use the secular resources to formulate some of the information in the booklet. That is how booklets like this one are made.

The Brethren prepare positions, offer spiritual counsel, and apply the best science/academic/secular information available in support of spiritual counseling. We all know it is wise to adopt the "best books" of the day to support the "work and glory" -- "Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms--" I'd say human sexuality is "in the earth"; a "perplexity" which has been, is, and will continue; and as we see, a matter addressed by "countries" and "kingdoms."

We can mock the "best books" of yesteryear, and mock the Church for using them as the Lord advised, knowing they will change over time. I think there are many reasons for His doing this: grace is real; expedience, priorities and circumstances; new wine and old skins (culturally, socially and scientifically speaking); line upon line / precept upon precept; avoid helicopter salvation; and, the various other purposes for mortality that require us to do the best we can with what we've got in returning to Him.

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Setting aside supporting material from secular sources that may or may not be outdated, I believe the official, authoritative  position of the Church remains unaltered. 

The problem is that the pamphlet isn't just theory and outdated secular sources.  It outlines the way Church leaders should counsel homosexuals, which is in effect directing how the Church treats homosexuals.

The key point is whether SSA should be considered "curable" and thus people with such tendencies should be counseled to try and change who they're attracted to (with the goal of marrying someone of the opposite gender).  The pamphlet is very clear that this is the focus of how leaders should counsel people who struggle with those attractions, and that this attitude isn't based on "outdated secular sources" but the doctrine of the Church:

Quote

Homosexual behavior is learned and can be overcome . To believe that immoral behavior is inborn or hereditary is to deny that men have agency to choose between sin and righteousness. The Lord has given man the freedom to make moral choices, and this agency is the cornerstone of his plan for exaltation. He has revealed that the ultimate goal for man is eternal life. It is inconceivable that - as some involved in homosexual behavior claim- he would permit some of his children to be born with desires and inclinations which would require behavior contrary to the eternal plan.

p.2 (Emphasis added)

That is clearly teaching that homosexuality isn't something that people are born with, and that it can be changed or overcome, not because of "secular sources" but because of the doctrine of agency which is the "cornerstone of his plan for exaltation."

Let's compare that paragraph above with this counsel from the current Church website for Mormons experiencing SSA:

Quote

In any case, a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.

The intensity of your attractions may not be in your control; however, you can choose how to respond. Asking the Lord what you can learn from this experience can focus your faith on an outcome you can control. Turning your life over to God is an important act of faith that brings great blessings now and even greater blessings in the world to come.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng

The "doctrine" might not change, but how the Church teaches and understands the "doctrine" has most certainly changed.  Whether it will continue to do so, no one knows.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would agree with you that the position on homosexuals in the church has not changed.  In fact the church is quite clear that gay couples and their children can not be members of the church to this day.  Did that idea come from revelation?  I highly doubt it.  It came the same way all this other ideas have come.

you know better than I that homosexuality has a long way to go to be accepted in society, I don't know when or how that will all take place but even today gay marriage is still controversial.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is why I earlier challenged rockpond to identify with specifics precisely how the official, authoritative position of the Church has "evolved" or changed between then and now. I've not followed this thread closely, but I've not seen yet that he has answered that challenge.

Yes, I'm still not seeing it either. I think he @rockpondtried to here Posted yesterday at 12:15 PM, but only most ineffectually, and I haven't seen his response to my reply Posted yesterday at 01:16 PM (edited) , though I've asked him to.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

As you know, not everything is documented and available online. 

I’m sure some may feel that my claim lacks credibility.  But I think you are educated enough on this issue to see the likelihood of the church issuing an amicus brief supporting the amendment given the content of this document and the confidential memo from Oaks in the same timeframe. 

"Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General of Colorado, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John Daniel Dailey and Paul Farley, Deputy Attorneys General, and Rex E. Lee and Carter G. Phillips, Special Assistant Attorneys General."

https://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000570

I am wondering if rockpond is confused because of Lee's involvement as a Special Assistant AG.

Nothing in the earlier cases' listing of briefs either:

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1994/94sa48-0.html

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1993/93sa17-0.html

Edited December 16, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The key point is whether SSA should be considered "curable"

Take a very close look at who was saying it was incurable at the time, and for what purpose. It wasn't the Church. Then take a look at how homosexuality is considered by the Church in the booklet as a behavior, activity, or practice and for what purpose "cure" is applied. For the Church's purposes, "cure" is about changing behaviors, activities and practices, and managing temptation. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

God is probably pretty ticked off by men using His name to represent His will when no such will was ever communicated to them.

I think false claims of revelation fall under the third commandment.  But just my opinion.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I think the most wonderful thing about this pamphlet being published is that it has led to conversations like these that show how far many Church members have come through the years.  Could any LDS of the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s imagine having faithful LDS so forcefully disavowing the claims and teachings in that pamphlet?

The important thing isn't whether or not the Church's teachings or doctrines have "changed."  The key point is that no one seems willing to defend the pamphlet or make the argument that it was right about the nature and habits of homosexuality.  Whether or not we acknowledge it as "change", that is huge. 

And if the price we have to pay for such progress is pretending to ourselves and others that nothing has changed and we were always like this, then I'm willing to go along with it.

Excellent point, Cinepro!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Yet, you are quick to post the allegations of such, you, um found on line.

 

Actually, as I stated earlier, this is something that happened here in my home state.

Are you suggesting that it would be better to just pretend that the Church has always had a consistent stance on civil rights?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Setting aside supporting material from secular sources that may or may not be outdated, I believe the official, authoritative  position of the Church remains unaltered. 

Good non-answer, Scott.

I'm glad that my position is strong enough that I don't have to dodge questions.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Don't know too many people?

 

Every family has tremendous struggles. Besides suffering through trials does not make a persons point more or less valid.

Ugh.what an ugly comment.  Thanks...

[rockpond]

On 12/14/2017 at 5:53 PM, CV75 said:

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)?

To the first question:  No, I was saying that the Church has not always supported laws protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination.

To the second question:  l don't know.  Clearly those who wrote and voted for the amendment felt that it should not be legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  But, I'm not sure I understand your question.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Obviously some things written in the text of the 1981 document have changed and some have not, but that is a rather meaningless statement without drilling down to specifics and their significance and meaning.

Thank you for answering.

I am sorry I missed the question on the first page of the thread.  As you can see above, I have answered it for you.

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General of Colorado, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John Daniel Dailey and Paul Farley, Deputy Attorneys General, and Rex E. Lee and Carter G. Phillips, Special Assistant Attorneys General."

https://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000570

I am wondering if rockpond is confused because of Lee's involvement as a Special Assistant AG.

Nothing in the earlier cases' listing of briefs either:

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1994/94sa48-0.html

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1993/93sa17-0.html

That brief wasn't during President Lee's time as AG or Solicitor General.  It was from when he was serving as President of BYU.

And, thank you for finding it, @Calm!

Edited December 16, 2017 by rockpond

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That brief wasn't during President Lee's time as AG or Solicitor General.  It was from when he was serving as President of BYU.

And, thank you for finding it, @Calm!

Which is probably why he is listed as "Special Assistant".  The Church is not listed as supplying a brief.  I think it would be a mistake to assume that Lee was acting as their representative rather than being called to help out the current AG.

add-on:

 "9.) In an action that required specific approval from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (and probably per their instructions), BYU president Rex E. Lee submitted an am- icus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2. See "Colorado Petitions Supreme Court to Let Amendment 2 Go Into Effect as Trial Proceeds in Denver," Lesbian/Gay Law Notes (November 1993): 80 ("former U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, who has apparently been retained by the state to argue this case in the U.S. Supreme Court""

Given this article has to speculate whether or not Lee was instructed by church leaders to submit an amicus brief, the Church is obviously not listed as the one he did it for and in fact it appears he was likely retained by the state.  I would like to see if there is documentation that approval was required or if it was just assumed as standard procedure based on church policy.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N03_13.pdf

It appears the Solicitor General can appoint Special Assistants:

"The Solicitor General supervises and determines legal strategy for appeals cases, as well as select constitutional litigation, handled by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and is counsel of record for the State of Colorado before the United States Supreme Court. He is also responsible for coordinating formal Attorney General Opinions, evaluating requests for Colorado’s participation in litigation as amicus curiae, reviewing and approving proposed regulations from client agencies, supervising the office’s deputy and assistant solicitors general, and approving special assistant attorney general appointments."

So can the governor:

"as special assistant attorney general appointed by governor" 

https://lawweb.colorado.edu/files/vitae/dubofsky .pdf

Since Lee was given the title of "special assistant attorney general" he was acting at that time as an agent of the State of Colorado, not the Church even if he got approval for his side job from the 15.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Following a year of medical treatment and therapy, Lee recovered and was named BYU's president. According to some accounts, when Lee was asked to assume the position as university president, he accepted on the condition that he would still be able to argue cases before the Supreme Court in his spare time (and did so on nine occasions).^[8] Of that time period, former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, said, "I'm willing to bet that even as a part-time lawyer, Rex probably had more arguments than any other attorney in private practice in that period."^[8]

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Rex_E._Lee

Looks like while the Church leaders gave approval, since it very well could have been a generic condition of his employment, again there is no evidence that he was there representing the Church and instead was there solely as an agent of Colorado.

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/supreme-court-justices-pay-tribute-to-the-late-rex-e-lee/

Quote

O’Connor added that President Lee accepted the presidency of BYU on one condition: “That he could still argue cases before our court–in his spare time! Well, he found enough time to do so on nine occasions while he was president of BYU.”

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/suemrtpre4&div=10&id=&page=

"Rex E. Lee, a former U.S. Solicitor General representing the state of Colorado..."

Edited December 16, 2017 by Calm

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Just curious.  What makes you think that there has been ANY revelatory information on this subject when they have gotten virtually every single other thing wrong.

The proposition of only man & woman coming together in this way seems foundational to the Christian faith and one that has been already discussed ad infinitum on this board. I'm more interested in taking the proposition as a given and then exploring the ramifications of staying true to this principal in the face of many of our brothers & sisters whose experience run contrary to this.  

[Exiled]

On 12/14/2017 at 2:48 PM, 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?

It seems so obvious that the church has changed its position over the years.  I don't know why there would be any push-back on this obvious point.  Gone are the days when leaders advise LGTB persons to marry the opposite sex or go through shock therapy and that is a good thing.

[Gray]

There is literally nothing that will not be defended by some percentage of partisans on any topic.