Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[Duncan]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does it matter? Current research suggests an epigenetic influence, but the bottom line is that it's not learned behavior or simply a lifestyle choice. 

it matters! especially if you're studying it! but the "gay" gene hasn't been found yet and so I agree there must be a influence of some kind they are born with but what and how does it manifest itself, can you remove it? all questions the genetic scientists would be looking for i'm sure

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the counsel has changed but not the position?

Apparently, a major resource that they used in this document was the faulty research of the day.  I wonder why one of the resources at their disposal wasn't revelation from God to let them know that the research they were basing their counsel on was incorrect.

I'm not commenting on changes right now; I'm having too much fun with the faulty rationale for the position having changed....  I'm really trying to make sure the differences between position and counsel get recognized.

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."

I think wondering why the Lord advises His children to use the "best books" available to them, knowing they will change over time, is worth taking to the next level of cognitive functioning, which requires managing personal bias and any predisposition to politicize. Personally, I can think of many reasons: 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.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

what do you think the causes of homosexuality and the different sexual manifestations like bi, trans etc. are?

I think they are a result of natural biological processes.  But it's not really my field of study so I can't explain them very well.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Does it matter? Current research suggests an epigenetic influence, but the bottom line is that it's not learned behavior or simply a lifestyle choice. 

Exactly.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Ever? What about in prison?

Is what happens in prison just behavior or is their orientation changing?  For example, is there data showing that a straight man (in both orientation and behavior) can get imprisoned for a period of time and then because of what happens in the prison, he comes out and is then gay (again, in both orientation and behavior)?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

it matters! especially if you're studying it! but the "gay" gene hasn't been found yet and so I agree there must be a influence of some kind they are born with but what and how does it manifest itself, can you remove it? all questions the genetic scientists would be looking for i'm sure

It doesn't have to genetic to be something that is immutable from birth.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think wondering why the Lord advises His children to use the "best books" available to them, knowing they will change over time, is worth taking to the next level of cognitive functioning, which requires managing personal bias and any predisposition to politicize. Personally, I can think of many reasons: 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.

I agree with this.  And what you've written also supports that Church positions, teachings, doctrines, policies, counsel... whatever name you want to put on it... have changed and will continue to change over time.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is what happens in prison just behavior or is their orientation changing?  For example, is there data showing that a straight man (in both orientation and behavior) can get imprisoned for a period of time and then because of what happens in the prison, he comes out and is then gay (again, in both orientation and behavior)?

That's my point. I think it's behavioral, and not a change in orientation. I believe that many homosexuals do not have an inborn, immutable, irresistible imperative to it. 

There are many men who do not willingly engage in homosexual acts in prison. It is a choice in those situations. Yet, those criticizing the Church on this get really worked up at the suggestion that it can also be a choice in other settings. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

They no longer teach that someone can be cured of being gay.  The leaders also no longer recommend to someone who is gay that they should date the opposite sex or marry the opposite sex as a cure.

That is not a position change. That is a change in the response to the position. The 1981 position is clearly labeled "Position" and spelled out in a single paragraph on Page 1. The rest of the document "contains information to help Church leaders understand and treat the problem of homosexuality" which is presented as behavior and activities. Some of this information reflects the professional understanding of human sexuality as understood back then, which has of course progressed over the years. 

The Lord has always encouraged us to use 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.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with this.  And what you've written also supports that Church positions, teachings, doctrines, policies, counsel... whatever name you want to put on it... have changed and will continue to change over time.

Sorry, what I've written -- all of m posts as well as this snippet -- does not support that the Church's position has changed. Positions, teachings, doctrines, policies, counsel, etc., as I've shown, are not all the same thing, which is why we put different names on them, especially in clarifying the finer points for the sake of insightful discussion, and which is essential in this case in understanding whether the 1981 position has changed. To  portray other things in the booklet as the Church's position (which is succinctly spelled out in a single paragraph in an a prominent, designated section) when they are not, and to portray changes in them as a change in her position is a rhetorical device that sabotages meaningful discussion.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's my point. I think it's behavioral, and not a change in orientation. I believe that many homosexuals do not have an inborn, immutable, irresistible imperative to it. 

There are many men who do not willingly engage in homosexual acts in prison. It is a choice in those situations. Yet, those criticizing the Church on this get really worked up at the suggestion that it can also be a choice in other settings. 

Perhaps there is some confusion in the language.

I don't think that orientation is ever a choice and I believe there is very little we can do to successfully alter it.

And, I think that behavior is always a choice.

The prison example (assuming all the stories that are told are true/accurate) demonstrates that a straight person can participate in sexual acts with someone of their same gender without becoming homosexual which would indicate that behavior does not affect orientation.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Sorry, what I've written -- all of m posts as well as this snippet -- does not support that the Church's position has changed. Positions, teachings, doctrines, policies, counsel, etc., as I've shown, are not all the same thing, which is why we put different names on them, especially in clarifying the finer points for the sake of insightful discussion, and which is essential in this case in understanding whether the 1981 position has changed. To  portray other things in the booklet as the Church's position (which is succinctly spelled out in a single paragraph in an a prominent, designated section) when they are not, and to portray changes in them as a change in her position is a rhetorical device that sabotages meaningful discussion.

I think I demonstrated that the "position" (as you've chosen to define it) has changed.  But I understand that you disagree.

But are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?  That's what I'm gathering from all that you've written here.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?  That's what I'm gathering from all that you've written here.

I think it's clear that the emphasis in talking about it has changed. But, to my knowledge, no one even back then was disciplined for being attracted to the same gender without acting on it (for example). I don't see how any policies have changed, as a practical matter. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's clear that the emphasis in talking about it has changed. But, to my knowledge, no one even back then was disciplined for being attracted to the same gender without acting on it (for example). I don't see how any policies have changed, as a practical matter. 

Tom Christofferson seemed to have a different impression about people being disciplined just for orientation rather than behavior but I know that is anecdotal.  John Dehlin is, coincidentally, doing an interview with Christofferson soon so that might be interesting.

But, church discipline is just one small aspect of the discussion.  Discipline doesn't make up the whole of church policy, counsel, and teachings.  I would say the greater impact of older teachings are the idea that homosexual orientation is a result of family circumstances, peer pressure, masturbation, etc and that it can be cured.  Counsel to date and marry without regard to orientation.  These, for me, were dangerous aspects of what the Brethren were teaching and publishing.  Thankfully, we've moved away from most but it took a long time, a lot of lives were caught in the balance, and there was a lot of suffering in the process.  I've witnessed much of it in various callings and with loved ones.

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't have to genetic to be something that is immutable from birth.

how is something not genetic but immutable ?

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think I demonstrated that the "position" (as you've chosen to define it) has changed.  But I understand that you disagree.

But are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?  That's what I'm gathering from all that you've written here.

If the Church defined it in another way i would have gone with it. But the "position" is literally defined by the Church on Page 1, I.A so I'm simply going with that. Your use enmeshes it with other concepts in such a way that you haven't demonstrated that it changed. Your use of polemics and rhetoric haven't helped your case, either. The Lord's and his servants' counsel to seek words of wisdom and learning out of the best books, by study and by faith has not changed. Because you construe other information in the booklet to be the position, I won't to enable your confusion any further!

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That is not a position change. That is a change in the response to the position.

You're being ridiculous here.  Whatever word you want to choose (or get hung up on which seems to be what you're doing)....teaching...instruction....council....or position....the leaders have changed what they say and recommend on this topic.  

Or do you believe they still hold these positions?

- That masturbation leads to homosexuality:

  Quote

"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

- Or that failure in the home is a cause:

"Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence. These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home— the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning." 

-Ezra Taft Benson, Presiding Apostle November 1982, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships", Ensign, p. 59.

"It should go without saying that many of these problems would be alleviated if parents would spend more time teaching and rearing their children. Related to the story that I gave at the beginning of my talk is evidence of a clinical researcher who, after studying 850 individual cases, stated: "Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship."

J. Richard Clarke, 2nd Counselor in Presiding Bishopric, "Ministering to Needs through LDS Social Services", Ensign, May 1977, p. 85.

 

- Or that homosexuality is caused by selfishness (calling the result a "perversion"....do they still hold that position?):

Quote

 

"The cause of this disorder has remained hidden for so long because we have been looking for it in the wrong place. When the cause is discovered, it may be nothing so mysterious after all. It may be hidden because it is so obvious. Have you explored the possibility that the cause when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness - selfishness in a very subtle form? Now - and understand this - 1 do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with. I am sure it is quite the opposite. Selfishness can attach itself to an individual without his being aware that he is afflicted with it. It can become imbedded so deeply and disguised so artfully as to be almost indistinguishable. It is hard to believe that any individual would, by a clear, conscious decision or by a pattern of them, choose a course of deviation. It is much more subtle than that. If one could even experiment with the possibility that selfishness of a very subtle nature may be the cause of this disorder, that quickly clarifies many things. It opens the possibility of putting some very sick things in order... When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition. It is a painful admission indeed that selfishness may be at the root of it, but we do not have much evidence that one can cure perversion by trying to cure perversion. If unselfishness can effect a cure, we ought to be desperate enough by now at least to experiment with the possibility. I repeat, we have had very little success in trying to remedy perversion by treating perversion. It is very possible to cure it by treating selfishness... you can understand unselfishness and selfishness. You can learn to cure perversion".

Elder Boyd K. Packer, To the One, delivered at 12-stake regional conference March 5, 1978

 

 

- Does the church still hold the position that gays can be "cured" and should be "encouraged to date" the opposite sex? 

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

 

 

If you want to have an honest discussion here, you need to acknowledge that there have been changes.  I don't know why that's so difficult for you to do as these are very positive changes for the leaders to have made.

Edited December 15, 2017 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

how is something not genetic but immutable ?

It's not my field of study.  But if you listen to some of the interviews and addresses that Dr. Bill Bradshaw (former BYU biology professor) has done on the matter he says that the research mostly points to biological processes that happen in utero that determine sexual orientation.  So, it seems to be something that happens to you that is not determined by your genes but impacts the development of both your body and mind.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If the Church defined it in another way i would have gone with it. But the "position" is literally defined by the Church on Page 1, I.A so I'm simply going with that. Your use enmeshes it with other concepts in such a way that you haven't demonstrated that it changed. Your use of polemics and rhetoric haven't helped your case, either. The Lord's and his servants' counsel to seek words of wisdom and learning out of the best books, by study and by faith has not changed. Because you construe other information in the booklet to be the position, I won't to enable your confusion any further!

I'm not confused.

I'll ask again:  Are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours 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. 

Without being able to view that document it is difficult-to-impossible to evaluate the Church's position in the case, whatever it might have been. I'm afraid, based on your undocumented assertion, I can't accept your condemnation of the Church for its obscure-at-best involvement in this case.

I say "obscure" because I tried to help you out by doing a Google search on "Romer v Evans" and "Mormon" or "LDS Church." So far, I have been unsuccessful.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

back in the day it was believed that gay people were insane, the US Military criminalized it in 1920, there was that "Lavender Scare" gay people are a threat to national security!  It wasn't just a Church view

But a church who claims that God is still communicating with it's leaders? 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without being able to view that document it is difficult-to-impossible to evaluate the Church's position in the case, whatever it might have been. I'm afraid, based on your undocumented assertion, I can't accept your condemnation of the Church for its obscure-at-best involvement in this case.

I say "obscure" because I tried to help you out by doing a Google search on "Romer v Evans" and "Mormon" or "LDS Church." So far, I have been unsuccessful.

I wouldn't have anticipated you being convinced even if I had been able to produce the amicus brief.  I'm confident you would have found a way to excuse it as not representing the church or find another meaning to it.  So, no worries.

Everyone else is welcome to believe or dismiss my recollection of what was happening at the time in my home state.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

At the end of the day the inspired people are the ones who can look beyond the prejudices of their day and can envision a better way forward. MLK was one such inspired person. That's the meaning of revelation/inspiration, IMO.

[Jeanne]

7 hours 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.  

 

 

 

Sad...but what else can they do?  In reading all of this and with some of this hitting the news, one has to wonder if this info will keep young men and women out of the bishop's office all together.  A confession of any masturbation..asked or not...will seem like it reflects that they may have tendencies. Info like this is damaging no matter when it came..or even changes made..it is there in black and white.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You're being ridiculous here. 

***

If you want to have an honest discussion here, you need to acknowledge that there have been changes.  I don't know why that's so difficult for you to do as these are very positive changes for the leaders to have made.

Thank you.  The OP is not about changes but changes specifically to the position. It is convenient to stray from that premise, but if you want to have an honest discussion, acknowledge that positions, teachings, doctrines, policies, counsel, etc., as I've shown, are not all the same thing, which is why we put different names on them, especially in clarifying the finer points for the sake of insightful discussion, and which is essential in this case in understanding whether the 1981 position has changed. To  portray other things in the booklet as the Church's position (which is succinctly spelled out in a single paragraph in an a prominent, designated section) when they are not, and to portray changes in them as a change in her position is a rhetorical device that sabotages meaningful discussion.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not confused.

I'll ask again:  Are you willing then to say that the policies and counsel have changed since this 1981 publication?

Maybe you're not confused; that is not my call. But now that you bring it up, maybe you think you're not confused, or maybe you suspect that you come across as confused, or maybe you are intentionally / strategically / tactically confusing.  I do not know nor care. All I said is that you are enmeshing ideas, not that you are confused. Looking back, all I said about confusion, and not necessarily yours, is found here in relation to a misunderstanding: Posted 22 hours ago 

I am still looking for how the position has changed, not the policies and counsel. Contrary to your assertions, you have not accomplished that, as evidenced by not responding to my answers to those same comments and questions. Posted 5 hours ago (edited)

If you want to have an honest discussion, stick to the parameters of your OP and to the content of the booklet at face value.

Edited December 15, 2017 by CV75