Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Back to parents fault. (Not a lot of being guided by the Spirit going on here is there.)

You keep repeating this mantra. Do you think mere repetition will make your case?

What would it take for you to accept that the Brethren were indeed guided by the Spirit? Would they have to say that gays are "Victims"[TM](c) who need to be continually coddled and indulged, and repeatedly reassured about how "special" they are?

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Once again we see that great apologetic defense:  ad hominem attack.

You guys are so predicable. 

While there's absolutely nothing "ad hominem" about pre-emptively chanting "backfire effect," is there?

Do you not see it when your side does it?

[kiwi57]

10 hours 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.

Not that you approve of what they're up to, of course; you just give them free publicity because what they turn up is interesting. Or something.

 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

What would it take for you to accept that the Brethren were indeed guided by the Spirit? 

Is there someone here who believes that this document was written under the guidance of the Spirit?  If so, can you help me understand what makes you conclude that?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

This speaks to the confusion between "Position" and how the Position is maintained in practice under various circumstances. The Position is very simple (See I.A, "The Position of the Church of Homosexuality"). The manual is not the position, but information to help Church leaders understand and act on the Position. The confusion can be out of naivete or intentional,  but in either case I haven't seen a cogent argument on exactly how the actual Position has changed.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Church’s support of Colorado’s Amendment 2 (in 1992) that was later overturned by SCOTUS in Romer v Evans. 

Again, to stay focused on the Position as delineated in the 1981 manual, the Church viewed the notion to designate homosexuality as a protected class on the basis of an incurable condition as a false rationalization.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR means “call for references”. Restating an earlier assertion is not providing a reference. Where’s your documentation?

In the name of transparency I plead that this CFR be answered! @rockpond

Edited December 15, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is there someone here who believes that this document was written under the guidance of the Spirit?  If so, can you help me understand what makes you conclude that?

Of course it was. I conclude that because the Position set forth in "I.A." felt right when I read it in 1981 and feels right looking back to the needs of Church leaders in 1981, today.

I see a lot of critique over the old scientific consensus reflected in the document, but I'm not sure how possible, relevant or helpful future science would have been in 1981. And for the purposes of the OP, these are not the Church Position on the subject, only the tools available at the time for managing the Position. The Church reflects today's scientific consensus in current materials.

Do you think the Church's position has changed?

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the name of transparency I plead that this CFR be answered! @rockpond

The church submitted an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.  I’m not sure how to track down that amicus brief anymore. 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The church submitted an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.  I’m not sure how to track down that amicus brief anymore. 

The Mad Leaker can get it for you, LOL.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course it was. I conclude that because the Position set forth in "I.A." felt right when I read it in 1981 and feels right looking back to the needs of Church leaders in 1981, today.

I see a lot of critique over the old scientific consensus reflected in the document, but I'm not sure how possible, relevant or helpful future science would have been in 1981. And for the purposes of the OP, these are not the Church Position on the subject, only the tools available at the time for managing the Position. The Church reflects today's scientific consensus in current materials.

Do you think the Church's position has changed?

What is I.A.?

So is it the Brethren’s calling to just advise church leaders based on the current scientific evidence?  I feel like any secular organization could do that. 

And, yes, I think that the church’s position with respect to homosexuality has changed.  As I’ve indicated, I don’t know how one can compare this 1981 publication by the prophet and apostles and what is said today by prophets and apostles and see them as the same. 

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This speaks to the confusion between "Position" and how the Position is maintained in practice under various circumstances. The Position is very simple (See I.A, "The Position of the Church of Homosexuality"). The manual is not the position, but information to help Church leaders understand and act on the Position. The confusion can be out of naivete or intentional,  but in either case I haven't seen a cogent argument on exactly how the actual Position has changed.

The 1981 manual includes both the position and how to act on it.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You keep repeating this mantra. Do you think mere repetition will make your case?

What would it take for you to accept that the Brethren were indeed guided by the Spirit? Would they have to say that gays are "Victims"[TM](c) who need to be continually coddled and indulged, and repeatedly reassured about how "special" they are?

It is not me that kept repeating that it is the parents fault that a person ends up gay, it is the pamphlet that kept repeating that idea.  Don't blame the messenger for the message the church put out.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

I didn't see the part though in the pamphlet that said this came out of a revelation. It seems to be a summary of research up to that time period and what to do about it.We all know though the church views has changed on how to minister to people who are gay, it wouldn't if the 1981 pamphlet was God's final word on the matter

Isn't that the claim of the church?  That it is run by the inspiration of God?  Church leaders are inspired by God?  That was exactly what was told to me when the church told me if I would only marry a woman, then I would no longer be gay.  They promised me this in the name of God.

I am fine with the idea that church policy is based on OTHER men's ideas.  But that is not how the church presents it's policies towards gays.  We are suppose to trust the church because its leaders are guided by God.  If the church is now abandoning that claim then they should come out and tell us.  You can't have it both ways.  

When it comes to church policies towards gays, I have long ago realized that what was coming from church leaders were just the opinion of men and not direction from God.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

When it comes to church policies towards gays, I have long ago realized that what was coming from church leaders were just the opinion of men and not direction from God.

Seems like the church just gropes its way along, just the same as every other human institution. This pamphlet shouldn't surprise anyone, as it reflects the common teachings of the day. Thank heavens things have changed at least a little.

By the way, it seems my cousin is on a bit of a roll. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Is there someone here who believes that this document was written under the guidance of the Spirit?  If so, can you help me understand what makes you conclude that?

I'll take a stab at this.  I mean I find the document disgusting all around, but I do think it was created by what leaders call the influence of the spirit.  

When has the Church ever said that the Spirit did not direct in anything they've put out?  I think it wise to realize that when the Church changes it's position on anything, it is going against that which was previously claimed to be by God.  Whenever the Church does anything it seeks first through prayer, God's counsel and guidance.  That is, I think, without question what happens.  Now, it's a matter of what they think is the spirit and what is the spirit.  Unfortunately, it seems to me, the direction of the spirit is not foolproof at all.  And we'll see, someday when the Church no longer can hold onto it's old traditional stances it'll change.  It's done so before and it'll do it again.  They'll have to say things like, well we were working with insufficient knowledge when we made all of our authoritative and God claimed statements on the matter.  

I can certainly see how local level leaders getting this are under the impression that it is all directed by God.  

 

 

 

[Daniel2]

16 hours 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. 

Thanks for this frank and candid admission.  Turns out Hope for Things was right when she said, "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."  (Kiwi's and Scott's posts also drive the point home).

It will be interesting to see if/how the church responds now that this info is in the media spotlight.  I imagine they'll likely just continue staying silent on the pamphlet and it's views if they truly do continue to believe those things today, or they may address via the Mormon Newsroom it in an attempt to dispel any misconceptions if they perceive there's been a change in any of those older statements/views.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

16 hours 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. 

You may be right, but that to me is probably the most discouraging thing about this.  This is suggesting they are being deceptive.  

Also, when you say you think "that many/most GAs would still admit to agreeing with much of that stuff, if they felt comfortable being frank." Do you have anything in mind that you think they wouldn't agree with?  Why say "much of that stuff" rather than all of it?  

[Duncan]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Isn't that the claim of the church?  That it is run by the inspiration of God?  Church leaders are inspired by God?  That was exactly what was told to me when the church told me if I would only marry a woman, then I would no longer be gay.  They promised me this in the name of God.

I am fine with the idea that church policy is based on OTHER men's ideas.  But that is not how the church presents it's policies towards gays.  We are suppose to trust the church because its leaders are guided by God.  If the church is now abandoning that claim then they should come out and tell us.  You can't have it both ways.  

When it comes to church policies towards gays, I have long ago realized that what was coming from church leaders were just the opinion of men and not direction from God.

that's all fine but this pamphlet appears to be a summary of studies as I'm sure that no bishop would have access to academic journals to see the how and whys of homosexuality and they stated their then policy towards our brethren and sisters.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'll take a stab at this.  I mean I find the document disgusting all around, but I do think it was created by what leaders call the influence of the spirit.  

When has the Church ever said that the Spirit did not direct in anything they've put out?  I think it wise to realize that when the Church changes it's position on anything, it is going against that which was previously claimed to be by God.  Whenever the Church does anything it seeks first through prayer, God's counsel and guidance.  That is, I think, without question what happens.  Now, it's a matter of what they think is the spirit and what is the spirit.  Unfortunately, it seems to me, the direction of the spirit is not foolproof at all.  And we'll see, someday when the Church no longer can hold onto it's old traditional stances it'll change.  It's done so before and it'll do it again.  They'll have to say things like, well we were working with insufficient knowledge when we made all of our authoritative and God claimed statements on the matter.  

I can certainly see how local level leaders getting this are under the impression that it is all directed by God.  

 

 

 

there was a quotation from the 2012 worldwide leadership broadcast from Pres. Uchtdorf that said something to the effect that if we stop asking questions we stop getting revelation, so if we build on prior knowledge without asking God then we could get into trouble

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

there was a quotation from the 2012 worldwide leadership broadcast from Pres. Uchtdorf that said something to the effect that if we stop asking questions we stop getting revelation, so if we build on prior knowledge without asking God then we could get into trouble

And if we build on prior knowledge with asking God we could get in trouble--see priesthood ban, it's various explanations, and polygamy for obvious examples.  

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Rather than bemoan what you believe to be a mischaracterization (something that happens to me as a gay man all the time on a variety of fronts, even though in this case you and others who believe the position hasn't changed being mislabeled, in your view, as victims of the 'backfire effect') and apparently attempt to poison the well in-reverse, why not just confront and deal with the issue itself, regardless of the mischaracterizations of others and prove them wrong by demonstrating how the position hasn't really changed...?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Rather than bemoan what you believe to be a mischaracterization ('backfire effect') and apparently attempt to poison the well in-reverse, why not just confront and deal with the issue itself, regardless of the mischaracterizations of others and prove them wrong by demonstrating how the position hasn't really changed...?

Trying to take away a few MOs around here? 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And if we build on prior knowledge with asking God we could get in trouble--see priesthood ban, it's various explanations, and polygamy for obvious examples.  

we could but I don't know if homosexuality is comparable to the priesthood ban, murky origins maybe

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What is I.A.?

So is it the Brethren’s calling to just advise church leaders based on the current scientific evidence?  I feel like any secular organization could do that. 

And, yes, I think that the church’s position with respect to homosexuality has changed.  As I’ve indicated, I don’t know how one can compare this 1981 publication by the prophet and apostles and what is said today by prophets and apostles and see them as the same. 

“I.A.” is on page one of your linked 1981 document, the section that constitutes the "The Position of the Church of Homosexuality." I would have hoped you had read it!

It is part of the Brethren’s calling to create manuals like this one and webistes like mormonand gay.lds.org. Your OP is about the position of the Church on the subject as addressed in the 1981 manual you linked, and that is what I have been posting about. The manual of course includes information to help Church leaders in that period understand and act on the position of the Church. That information includes scientific and secular tools of the day as applicable and supportive of her position. It is wonderful that you feel any secular organization can do all that, but your OP isn’t about that.

As I’ve indicated, I don’t know how one can conflate this publication with the position as stated in the manual, Page 1, I.A., “The Position of the Church of Homosexuality." Which position item in this paragraph have you observed has changed?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The 1981 manual includes both the position and how to act on it.

And you seem to be conflating them. The position is one thing, and the information to help Church leaders understand and act on it is another. Which actual position item do you think has changed?