Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

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?

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.

You’ve asked me to respond to the following two questions:

 What is the conclusion you are driving for which specific change? Which change is most important to you?

I can’t make sense of what you are asking in the first question.  Perhaps you could restate it. 

As for which change is most important to me?  I don’t have any specific desire for a change that is more important.  What is most important for me is signs of the revealed will of God on this matter.  There isn’t any of that in this document, at least that I’ve been able to find. 

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This response is not referencing the post I am concerned about. In case it wasn’t clear from today's posts and links, what I would like to see is your straightforward answer from this post: Posted 3 hours ago (referencing Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM  ). And in case you missed it, I would like as well as a response to this post: Posted yesterday at 01:16 PM (edited)

At any rate, the booklet was not prepared for the purpose of addressing the Church’s position on LGBT housing and job discrimination. I would think that proponents of designating homosexuality as a minority status describing homosexuality as “incurable” would be rather disconcerting to modern sensibilities.

I am looking for meaningful changes from the booklet content. Bringing up the Church’s current position on LGBT housing and job discrimination has nothing to do with any of the booklet content.

The question on the first page of the thread is not referencing the post I am concerned about. In case it wasn’t clear from today's posts and links, I would like to see your straightforward answer from this post: Posted 3 hours ago (referencing Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM  ). And in case you missed it, I would like as well as a response to this post: Posted yesterday at 01:16 PM (edited)

Can you see how someone might construe this as "dodging" on your part?

I’ve tried to find and answer the questions you are referencing above but the links do not take me to the specific posts and the times are different when we are in different times zones.  Also, you aren’t identifying authors.  All of that makes it tough to fine the exact questions you feel I’ve missed.  I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to find the questions.  Perhaps if there is something you are wondering about my views, you could ask again. 

[cinepro]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with much of what you wrote here but I take issue with your statement that “Mormons do not deny gays marriage.”

While technically true, they did try to deny marriage to gays, were successful temporarily, but ultimately failed.  Unfortunately, we still hear statements from certain Brethren indicating that they feel marriage should be denied to gay couples. 

Yeah, it would be more correct to say "Mormons do not deny gays marriage because after spending gobs of money and countless volunteer hours trying to do so, the Supreme Court won't let us..." 

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That small part of the church’s position has not changed. 

Actually Rockpond, I humbly submit that what you dismissively label "that small part" is the Church's position. And always has been.

The other stuff is not a "position," nor part thereof. If anything, you can call it "implementation."

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

No. Just an observation.

No, it's not "Just an observation." It was, in fact, an attack upon the inspiration of the Lord's anointed servants.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 Which, rather than actually address, you seem to just want to label as apostate.  But I’ve seen that quite often from you. 

I know, I know. I like to know where people are genuinely coming from, and I really don't like being treated like an idiot. I'm funny like that.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Only if it’s false. 

Which, as a matter of canonical doctrine, it rather inevitably must be.

Look, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll start a new one to discuss this point. I realise that you consider it far beneath you to actually bother to engage my arguments - especially when you can't - but you might want to look in on it anyway.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think that is? For me seeing others thinking they have to defend against some point, regardless of how obvious the point is, promoted doubt in my mind because it made me think that there was something to fear over the obvious point that seemingly had to be denied at all costs.  Why not just admit the obvious and move on? McConkie said to forget the past regarding the priesthood ban as the brethren received further light and knowledge. Perhaps the same thing happened here?

32% of Americans still support the president. Some percentage of those people are trolls who want to see the world burn, but most of them are just regular people whose inborn sense of tribal loyalty is simply too strong. They'll stick with the home team no matter what. I think that dynamic is at play everywhere you go.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

A canard., if you'll permit this libertarian's views.   Mormons do not deny gays medical treatment, marriage, cigarettes, housing, motor vehicles or the right to vote.  Unless on an individual basis just they are like any other bigoted Evangelical, Catholic or Jew.

Mormons have  a theological position that homosexual behavior is a sin.  That's like a Shriner saying that if you want to be a Shriner you have to provide a certain amount of hours a year in good deeds.  Or Jehovah's Witnesses expelling somebody for advocating good citizenship.   

People have the full right to join organizations that have peculiar theological beliefs.  So long as the organization does not deny essential public services, it can do what it wants in that regard.

You too have the right to deride Jews for making women sit on one side of the congregation.  You have the right to make public posts against it.  You even have the fight to say it is discrimination against women and makes them second class congregants.  But to what end, really?   Nobody erects statues to critics.  

I can also say that if I were gay I wouldn't like the Mormons either, but it isn't so easy.  Too many gays remain in the church and commit their souls to Jesus Christ and give up their ways.  I know of a bishop and two general authorities in that regard.  I also know that long-time faithful members of the church may slip and fall.  I also know of circumstances of the opposite, those who return to the church in their old age.  I even have a client, a member of the church, who is a married gay in California and holds tenuously onto his membership in the church for personal reasons.   The Church is for me, it is for them.

Of course.  I don't think anyone disagrees with the right of the Mormon church to keep out anyone they want.  And I would defend the right of the Mormon church to do just that.  But that doesn't mean that most people living in California support the way the Mormon church treats gays.  I think you would agree with that as well

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Anijen said:

The comment was neither "ugly" nor uplifting. It was real.

Facts do not care about our feelings. We have all had terrible tragedies in our lives (everyone of us). Every single one of us in times do suffer and we go through devastating trials. Actually, what is ugly, is trying to use such trials in effort to gain acceptance to a lifestyle that is considered sinful. 

It is not my goal to soften words of repentance. However, I recognize how insensitive I came across. I am a very caring person and do not like to hurt people's feelings. I am sorry for offense.

So you know for a fact that Jeanie doesn't have many friends?

It was an ugly comment.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually Rockpond, I humbly submit that what you dismissively label "that small part" is the Church's position. And always has been.

The other stuff is not a "position," nor part thereof. If anything, you can call it "implementation."

I disagree with the limited view of “position” you’ve chosen to apply here.  

Announcing that homosexuality can be cured is a position. 

Proclaiming the causes of homosexuality is a position. 

Etc. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No, it's not "Just an observation." It was, in fact, an attack upon the inspiration of the Lord's anointed servants.

I know, I know. I like to know where people are genuinely coming from, and I really don't like being treated like an idiot. I'm funny like that.

If we insisted on the Lord’s annointed being infallible, than it could be an attack.  But since we don’t, noting that something was done wrong isn’t an attack. 

Just like you don’t like being treated like and idiot.  I don’t like being treated like an apostate or non-believer.  I don’t think you are an idiot and hope you’ve never felt that I have treated you that way.  

Edited December 17, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Which, as a matter of canonical doctrine, it rather inevitably must be.

Look, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll start a new one to discuss this point. I realise that you consider it far beneath you to actually bother to engage my arguments - especially when you can't - but you might want to look in on it anyway.

I’m confident that anyone reading this thread will agree that I have engaged your arguments.  Most will inevitably only agree with one of us but it would be tough to argue that I hadn’t engaged. 

That thread topic sounds interesting.  I looked for it but didn’t see anything yet. 

[california boy]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Good thing the Church didn't do that, then.

Well we know that statement is a complete bald face lie.  Too many men were promised that if they would just marry they would no longer be gay.  It became such a problem with divorce and broken families that the church had to stop the practice and make a statement in General Conference.  President Kimball did that by stating that "Marriage is not therapy".  The practice ended. Thank Goodness.  

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

the Lord's anointed servants

Are general authorities anointed in some manner that regular members are not? I'm just curious about this phrase. Is it literal or metaphorical?

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are general authorities anointed in some manner that regular members are not? I'm just curious about this phrase. Is it literal or metaphorical?

Yes.

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes.

I'm sorry, that answer isn't clear enough for me. The article you linked specifically says the LDS church is currently silent on this issue. It also doesn't say who gets the second anointing. Does "the Lord's anointed" only refer to those who have had it? If so, how do you know which ones those are?

In Catholicism, we are all anointed during confirmation, so I can refer to myself as the "Lord's anointed" and ya'll better not criticize me  

[california boy]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Yeah, it would be more correct to say "Mormons do not deny gays marriage because after spending gobs of money and countless volunteer hours trying to do so, the Supreme Court won't let us..." 

 

If I could give you 10 rep points I would.  I am always astounded how easily Mormons try to rewrite history.  It is the same kind of rewriting of history that Kiwi is trying to do when he says that the church leaders did not promise gay men that if they married a woman they would become straight.  Now him and others pretend that never happened.  Where do Mormons get this sense that they can change history from?  Do they really think that the rest of the public will magically forget what the church did to deny gays the right to marry?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Yes.

Interesting, Cinepro, I had not thought of that phrase as referring to the Second Annointing.  But that makes it tough because none of us know who the Lord’s annointed are.

I’ll have to continue to do my best to just not speak evil of anyone. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

If I could give you 10 rep points I would.  I am always astounded how easily Mormons try to rewrite history.  It is the same kind of rewriting of history that Kiwi is trying to do when he says that the church leaders did not promise gay men that if they married a woman they would become straight.  Now him and others pretend that never happened.  Where do Mormons get this sense that they can change history from?  Do they really think that the rest of the public will magically forget what the church did to deny gays the right to marry?

It’s a consistent theme that comes up here when discussing anything but present day Mormonism.  The narrative is crafted and retold to make sure that it is consistent with how we want to be understood in the current moment.  In some ways, that’s a very understandable and relatable thing to do.  But it can also be frustrating when words, actions, and teachings of the past are denied.  It seems to me that we, as a church, ought to confess past errors so that we can learn, repent, and progress.  

[Exiled]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s a consistent theme that comes up here when discussing anything but present day Mormonism.  The narrative is crafted and retold to make sure that it is consistent with how we want to be understood in the current moment.  In some ways, that’s a very understandable and relatable thing to do.  But it can also be frustrating when words, actions, and teachings of the past are denied.  It seems to me that we, as a church, ought to confess past errors so that we can learn, repent, and progress.  

Here again, what is the danger of admitting mistakes? The leaders are fallible and therefore make mistakes. I guess the question becomes are these mistakes evidence of the leaders leading the church astray yet not being removed as the saying predicts? Is this why it is hard for some to admit the results of fallibility?

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s a consistent theme that comes up here when discussing anything but present day Mormonism.  The narrative is crafted and retold to make sure that it is consistent with how we want to be understood in the current moment.  In some ways, that’s a very understandable and relatable thing to do.  But it can also be frustrating when words, actions, and teachings of the past are denied.  It seems to me that we, as a church, ought to confess past errors so that we can learn, repent, and progress.  

What happened to the concept of accountability?

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Well we know that statement is a complete bald face lie.

Note that if I had said anything similar to that, I'd be out of here so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground.

I guess that's what comes of not being part of the New Privileged Class, huh?

In any case, my statement is not "a complete bald face lie." It's the truth.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 Too many men were promised that if they would just marry they would no longer be gay.

So I keep hearing, but it's never been documented anywhere. In fact, this is the second time this claim has been made in connection with a long out-of-print pamphlet, and in both cases, the alleged "promise" wasn't found in the document in question.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 It became such a problem with divorce and broken families that the church had to stop the practice and make a statement in General Conference.  President Kimball did that by stating that "Marriage is not therapy".  The practice ended. Thank Goodness.  

So the one and only instance you can find of this practice being mentioned anywhere in General Conference was to denounce it.

To anyone who isn't fanatically prejudiced against the Church, that supports my position, not yours.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Note that if I had said anything similar to that, I'd be out of here so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground.

I guess that's what comes of not being part of the New Privileged Class, huh?

In any case, my statement is not "a complete bald face lie." It's the truth.

So I keep hearing, but it's never been documented anywhere. In fact, this is the second time this claim has been made in connection with a long out-of-print pamphlet, and in both cases, the alleged "promise" wasn't found in the document in question.

So the one and only instance you can find of this practice being mentioned anywhere in General Conference was to denounce it.

To anyone who isn't fanatically prejudiced against the Church, that supports my position, not yours.

Not everything can be distilled into a sound bite or quote that can be found in an online archive.  This is why I’ve encouraged people to read the entirety of the messages from our prophets and apostles regarding the issue at hand.  We also are members of a church where much is spoken, taught, and directed in meetings  that are not transcribed and shared.  One can read this 1981 document along with the documents it cites and then combine those with first-hand accounts of lived experiences,  and make some reasonable inferences.

Can it be proven that Church leaders promised gay men that they would be straight if they married a woman?  Of course not. 

Are there enough witnesses and evidence that it was happening to be able to make a reasonable inference?  Yes  

Can we admit the the Brethren erred in promulgating many of the principles in this 1981 document as their counsel to local leaders?  Or, is it more important to put them on a pedestal where they cannot make mistakes?  (These two questions are meant to be rhetorical, I’m not asking for an answer.)

 

[Jeanne]

The very fact is...That CB was told by his very own bishop that marriage would be the answer.  As children in the church, we are told to go to the Bishop.  Surely trust in the church is centered around what we do that will help us...and that is to go to the Bishop.  Don;'t ask CB for something factual...ask his bishop.

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with much of what you wrote here but I take issue with your statement that “Mormons do not deny gays marriage.”

While technically true, they did try to deny marriage to gays, were successful temporarily, but ultimately failed.  Unfortunately, we still hear statements from certain Brethren indicating that they feel marriage should be denied to gay couples. 

I can't speak for Bob, so I don't know what he had in mind when he wrote that.

But starting from the Church's position that marriage is between a man and a woman,  it necessarily follows that same sex marriage is not marriage. It is therefore true that Mormons do not deny gays marriage, in that we do not forbid anyone to marry, i.e. to enter into an authentic, valid, opposite-sex marriage, which is of course the only kind of relationship that is in view when the Church speaks of marriage.