Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Have you ever written a letter to the Church about this? i'd be interested in what someone there says. I probably wouldn't pick Pres. Monson as he seems to be declining but others, why not?

What do you think I should ask them?  Why church leaders would make such a promise to me?

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are numerous references that this publication comes from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12,  and is THEIR position on homosexuality.  Now if you believe that the first presidency doesn't issue positions on things without revelation, then you are right And I might even agree with you that no revelation is ever received.  But to make that stand, you have to take that stand that none of the positions taken by the First Presidency and 12 Apostles is given by revelation.  Something I might also agree with you on.

The pamphlet refers regularly to church beliefs in supporting actions church leaders should take and how to cure gay members from being gay.  Here is just one example from the beginning of the brochure.  

From the pamphlet

At the very beginning of this pamphlet it clearly states that this statement comes from the First Presidency. And that statement states that the idea that homosexuality is incurable is false rationalization.  This is the First Presidency's belief. They were wrong.

Do you see how the church admits that there are multiple opinions in 1981 on the cause of homosexuality?  Do you see how it is their belief that this view of homosexuality is in line with what the Lord has revealed?  They tie this pamphlet beliefs directly to what they believe God has revealed to them.

After stating that this position is in line with what the Lord has revealed, it continues on to explain that when someone becomes gay, it is the fathers fault.  It is the mothers fault that he became gay and he is gay because he masterbated.  Is that in line with what the Lord has revealed about gay members?  Did God really reveal that homosexuality is the parents fault?

Should I continue?  

 

the explanation about what the Lord has revealed is limiting itself to the idea that man is eternal and comes from divine parentage, so maybe they are extrapolating from that idea and go from there, so it's revelation but not revelation at the same time

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

What do you think I should ask them?  Why church leaders would make such a promise to me?

yeah, tell them your situation and why would your local leaders tell you what they did and why would God do this and that

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just call a spade a spade.

No racial slurs, please.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are you saying that CaliforniaBoy is lying when he claims that he was told to marry a woman?

I leave it to CaliforniaBoy to fling about hysterical accusations of lying.

I'm saying he's improving his sources, gilding the lily and weaponising his alleged sufferings in order to force an interpretation that doesn't fit the facts. If some random person told him something to that effect - or even if a few such people were saying such things at that time - is neither here nor there, and he knows it. What matters is whether or not such counsel came from the apostles and prophets in the guise of revealed truth, because that's the only way it can be exploited to undermine their moral authority.

And - make no mistake - that's the only interest he has in this question.

That's why he is trying so hard to demand that everyone acquiesce to his unsupported assertion that it was the Church's "position" at the time.

Which it was not.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

No racial slurs, please.

I leave it to CaliforniaBoy to fling about hysterical accusations of lying.

I'm saying he's improving his sources, gilding the lily and weaponising his alleged sufferings in order to force an interpretation that doesn't fit the facts. If some random person told him something to that effect - or even if a few such people were saying such things at that time - is neither here nor there, and he knows it. What matters is whether or not such counsel came from the apostles and prophets in the guise of revealed truth, because that's the only way it can be exploited to undermine their moral authority.

And - make no mistake - that's the only interest he has in this question.

That's why he is trying so hard to demand that everyone acquiesce to his unsupported assertion that it was the Church's "position" at the time.

Which it was not.

What do you make of the fact that the pamphlet told leaders to encourage the homosexual to date the opposite sex? Why date in mormondom if marriage is not part of that? Isn't marriage always the dating goal for mormon leaders, including the apostles and the first presidency?

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

did I mention that Johnny Lingo 2 was in 3D? if I understand your's and California boy contention correctly this was a revelation from the Church yet it contains glaring mistakes so how can it contain mistakes coming from God that people based life decisions on?

No.  I don’t believe either of us think it was a revelation. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Have you ever read 2 Nephi 28:22?

Many times. 

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No racial slurs, please.

I leave it to CaliforniaBoy to fling about hysterical accusations of lying.

I'm saying he's improving his sources, gilding the lily and weaponising his alleged sufferings in order to force an interpretation that doesn't fit the facts. If some random person told him something to that effect - or even if a few such people were saying such things at that time - is neither here nor there, and he knows it. What matters is whether or not such counsel came from the apostles and prophets in the guise of revealed truth, because that's the only way it can be exploited to undermine their moral authority.

And - make no mistake - that's the only interest he has in this question.

That's why he is trying so hard to demand that everyone acquiesce to his unsupported assertion that it was the Church's "position" at the time.

Which it was not.

How about you just acknowledge that church leaders did write instructions to local leaders that included telling them being gay could be cured and to encourage gay members of their congregation to date the opposite sex and marry them?  That’s the truth.  If you need the sources provided again for that, I’ll look it up.

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

As Greg Prince said regarding this issue and the church:  Before there was knowledge, there was certainty. 

If I’ve got to pick one single change that is most important to me, it’s that.  Meaning that I’m grateful Church leadership has moved away from this notion of claiming to know what causes (and what doesn’t cause) homosexuality, that it is “curable”, and that it is somehow reflective of selfishness and poor choices.  

I think this place where Church leadership now seems to be — that of “not knowing” — gets us closer to being able to ask the questions that will get us the revelation and further light that we need. 

Great question.  Thanks for taking the time to ask it again for me to understand and respond.

I don’t see how any of this relates to the old booklet. In it, there is no certainty portrayed as to cause (“Professionals do not agree…”, “supports the view…”, “probably many factors…”); “cure” is used in reference to changing immoral behavior; “incurable” is used by activists, enthusiasts an opinion-makers in reference to a political agenda; and sinful behavior, as now, is reflective of selfishness and poor choices of those who have been taught righteousness. The Church certainly knew, according to the booklet, enough to not be doing what you claim – and are certain – she was doing.

I would have thought you would have picked up on this upon the first read.

The old booklet is not a political instrument. Its “leak” appears to be used as a prop to mock then-current ministering tools, and then by some to boost a political position around which the Church is praiseworthily engineering room for compromise with respect to religious freedom. The changes in how LDS leaders minister are about as significant to the Church’s central moral position as the changes we’ve seen in pop culture over the same period.

As to the other remaining questions I had, I’m having trouble understanding why you can’t reach them by clicking the links:

Posted Friday at 01:16 PM (edited)

Part of it is copy-and-pasted here for your convenience. I was asking that you respond to my (italicized) comments:

* Note that there is no distinguishing here between what the Brethren now speak of as "Same Gender Attraction" (presumably referring to orientation) and "homosexual behavior" (taken as acting on the attraction, not clearly defined). “SSA” is just a refinement in terminology; adultery and fornication mentioned in the position statement are acts and so in this context, homosexuality is treated an act.

* The Church now appears to be one of those power forces as it supported non-discrimination legislation. This is cheap political rhetoric and an example of not appreciating the Church’s moral positions on sin and religious freedom and her recent efforts in the political arena to address both.

* Isn't this now also the what Elder Holland believes when he stated that not everyone will be free of same gender attraction in this life?  Do we ever hear the Brethren claim that homosexuality is curable? This comment is an example of either intellectual dishonesty or not understanding the Church’s rejection of the rationale that homosexuality (as an act or behavior as covered in the 1981 position statement) is “incurable” and thus the rationale for creating a “legitimate minority group.” Again, the 80’s political strategy of presenting homosexuality as “incurable” for the purpose of justifying a “legitimate minority group” was not the Church’s idea. Elder Holland is not speaking politically (and which Church publication describes death and resurrection as "cures"?), and the incurability of a moral sin, or the notion that immorality is incurable, is as false today as it was in 1981.

* Were we deceived when the Church supported non-discrimination legislation? Of course not. This polemic misrepresents by using a partial quote. The Church did not rationalize her support of non-discrimination related legislation on the notion that homosexuality is incurable.

[CV75]

On 12/17/2017 at 2:38 AM, 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..."

Thank you for exemplifying why the old booklet, which has nothing to do with petty polemics, was posted in the first place!

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Do we ever hear the Brethren claim that homosexuality is curable?

Thankfully not any more.  But they used to claim this and it's in printed form (in pamphlets and instructions that went out to all Bishops and stake leaders regarding this issue).  This is an example of one of  the positions that the leaders have changed their minds on (or at least changed their position on continuing to state it today as they did in the past).

Another position that has changed is their decision to instruct local leaders to encourage and advise gay members in their congregations to date and marry the opposite sex.  The leaders have either changed their position on this or at least changed their position on being vocal about it.  I haven't read or heard them give this advice or state this position for years.

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No racial slurs, please.

I leave it to CaliforniaBoy to fling about hysterical accusations of lying.

I'm saying he's improving his sources, gilding the lily and weaponising his alleged sufferings in order to force an interpretation that doesn't fit the facts. If some random person told him something to that effect - or even if a few such people were saying such things at that time - is neither here nor there, and he knows it. What matters is whether or not such counsel came from the apostles and prophets in the guise of revealed truth, because that's the only way it can be exploited to undermine their moral authority.

And - make no mistake - that's the only interest he has in this question.

That's why he is trying so hard to demand that everyone acquiesce to his unsupported assertion that it was the Church's "position" at the time.

Which it was not.

What's with all the mind reading?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thankfully not any more.  But they used to claim this and it's in printed form (in pamphlets and instructions that went out to all Bishops and stake leaders regarding this issue).  This is an example of one of  the positions that the leaders have changed their minds on (or at least changed their position on continuing to state it today as they did in the past).

Another position that has changed is their decision to instruct local leaders to encourage and advise gay members in their congregations to date and marry the opposite sex.  The leaders have either changed their position on this or at least changed their position on being vocal about it.  I haven't read or heard them give this advise for years.

While the Brethren won't touch this third rail officially (i.e., they are silent on the matter, so as to not "step in it"), I think some people are neglecting the fact that it is curable for *some* people, and that dating and marriage can be appropriate for *some* people. This can't be known in advance, and people need to know going in that it may not be possible for *them*, but . . .

Do people here object to trying to work with gay people who earnestly do not want to be gay and want to try to change? I know that some people think this is the height of evil, and that no one should try to change anyone's immutable biological imperative.

The fact remains that there are gay members who don't see this that way, don't feel themselves abused by the ecclesiastical system, and don't actually have a problem with the counsel from decades ago. I know some who are like this. So, I'm not in a rush to condemn this past counsel as "untruth" or "irresponsible." In our current climate, this is probably a minority view among gay people, but it is undeniably there --- and probably in greater numbers than society at large among LDS. 

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

That's why he is trying so hard to demand that everyone acquiesce to his unsupported assertion that it was the Church's "position" at the time.

Which it was not.

I'm not sure how you can state that it was not the "Church's 'position' at that time" to advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  Have you not read the instructions given to Bishops and stake leaders that were sent to them from the leaders of the church on this?  There's no question the leaders stated that being gay was curable and then encouraged gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.

Here is from one source:

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. When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 - Pamphlet published in 1970 by the LDS church for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors

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

 

I have more quotes and sources from church leaders if you'd like me to post them, kiwi.  I'm not sure how you can deny that leaders were very definitely instructed to give this advice to the gay members of their congregations.

California Boy is one example of the pain this type of advice caused for many members.  I know of some myself who were told to do this by their Bishops.  This not only caused the gay member a great deal of pain in most cases, but also to the member of the opposite sex who they married and so were many of the children involved hurt.  Your callous and uncaring posts and attitudes regarding this are pretty revealing and not flattering for you to continue posting, IMO.  Maybe just admit that this was done and have some compassion for those who were hurt? 

Edited December 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

While the Brethren won't touch this third rail officially (i.e., they are silent on the matter, so as to not "step in it"), I think some people are neglecting the fact that it is curable for *some* people, and that dating and marriage can be appropriate for *some* people. This can't be known in advance, and people need to know going in that it may not be possible for *them*, but . . .

Oh, I do believe that some gay members can be happy and make a marriage to a member of the opposite sex work.  There is a member of my ward who has done this.  Ironically, his wife is also gay but hadn't recognized that at the time of their marriage.  They are very happy together though, love each other deeply and their grown kids accept who they both are and are close to them.  There is no physical intimacy between them and they are ok with being best friends and companions on that basis.  I love them both and admire them.  But they are both very open being gay.

Of course there are other marriages where only one of the spouses is gay and some have been able to be happy in those marriages too.  I think that's great if it works for them.  But it hasn't cured the gay spouse.  They are still gay.

But what was wrong in the past, was to state that being gay is curable and then to recommend dating the opposite sex and marrying the opposite sex.  The potential for failure and for causing such tremendous pain to many is too great for this type of advice to be given.  That's what the church leaders were doing and I'm grateful they've changed their beliefs or position on that and no longer advise this.

Edited December 18, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

What do you make of the fact that the pamphlet told leaders to encourage the homosexual to date the opposite sex? Why date in mormondom if marriage is not part of that? Isn't marriage always the dating goal for mormon leaders, including the apostles and the first presidency?

It is also interesting that the church tells gay men that they should not date those of the same sex because that leads to marriage.  And that since marriage is not allowed, it is inappropriate.  Kissing, hugging and holding hands is also something that should not be engaged in.  I also have ran into other former gay members who told me that they were given the same promise.  This is not just one rogue bishop and stake president.  I don't know where this promise originated from, but this pamphlet certainly pushes bishops and stake presidents into that direction.

Calm brought up the question of how widespread this practice of telling gay men to marry.  Someone on this board provided quite a bit of evidence of the practice.  Maybe she or they remember where the references came from.  I certainly was not the only one that this promise was made to.