Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you.  The OP is not about changes but changes specifically to the position.

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."

 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

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.

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.

[rockpond]

25 minutes 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."

 

Thank you, ALarson.  I just wrote a response to CV75 that covered it but I'd like to repeat my answer:

In the OP, I was referring to the Brethren's and Church's position on all that was covered by the 1981 publication, NOT just the I.A. section.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

he said he would give us here a little and there a little. In 1981 the world wanted to know how Indiana Jones was going to defeat the nazi's!

Edited December 16, 2017 by Duncan

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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).

I know you didn't intend to do so, but you have unwittingly supported my read on HFT's gratuitous little throw-away: that it was intended to pre-emptively poison the well.

Thank you.

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

So if they don't say anything, you assume that it's because they are keeping their heads down about the content of an old pamphlet. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with not wanting to give attention and encouragement to a criminal gang, could it?

[kiwi57]

12 hours 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?

We Latter-day Saints believe that the Spirit guided the brethren in their work just as surely in 1981 as He does today. Didn't you know that?

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

We Latter-day Saints believe that the Spirit guided the brethren in their work just as surely in 1981 as He does today. Didn't you know that?

We Latter-day Saints believe that the Spirit can guide each of us, and certainly the Brethren are included in that.  But the Spirit is not required to guide everything we do.  Do you disagree?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

We Latter-day Saints believe that the Spirit guided the brethren in their work just as surely in 1981 as He does today. Didn't you know that?

So since we no longer agree with those teachings or beliefs, does it mean the spirit was wrong?  Or were the leaders not listening or were they interpreting incorrectly?   What are your thoughts since the church leaders no longer instruct local leaders as they did back then about this?

[MiserereNobis]

The pamphlet is 26 years old.

Let's dig up a Papal Apostolic Letter from 1247 and see what changes from current Catholicism we find

As I see it, lots of the controversy I observe on this site comes from 1) Mormonism being a young, small church and 2) ideas about leader fallibility/infallibility, which is probably a result from Mormonism being a young, small church.

It would be interesting to see Mormonism 1000 years from now.

Edited December 16, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[kllindley]

13 hours 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 do. To your second question, I doubt it. You have proven unwilling to try to understand in the past; I see no reason to think that anything has changed.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I do. To your second question, I doubt it. You have proven unwilling to try to understand in the past; I see no reason to think that anything has changed.

I think I'm quite willing to understand in the past.  I think it is very understandable that they felt the way they apparently did when writing this document.  And, I think it is understandable how they've changed over the two and a half decades since.  That's all quite clear to me.

What I don't understand is why the Spirit would prompt them to publish something that we'd later realize was wrong.

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think I'm quite willing to understand in the past.  I think it is very understandable that they felt the way they apparently did when writing this document.  And, I think it is understandable how they've changed over the two and a half decades since.  That's all quite clear to me.

What I don't understand is why the Spirit would prompt them to publish something that we'd later realize was wrong.

Well, way to prove me right. You didn't even take the time to understand my brief post. And then you go on to assume everything is clear, while continuing to make sweeping unfounded assumptions as if they were fact. 

As I've read the discussion since you first posed the question, I can see that you are not interested in actually understanding what I believe other that to tell  me how ridiculous I am. 

For some reason, I really don't feel much motivation to play that game. Thanks. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, way to prove me right. You didn't even take the time to understand my brief post. And then you go on to assume everything is clear, while continuing to make sweeping unfounded assumptions as if they were fact. 

As I've read the discussion since you first posed the question, I can see that you are not interested in actually understanding what I believe other that to tell  me how ridiculous I am. 

For some reason, I really don't feel much motivation to play that game. Thanks. 

You don't have to play any game nor do you need to respond to me.  But I think you are reading me wrong.  My response to you was sincere and was an attempt to understand what you were saying.  If you'd like to clarify, I'm listening.

I read your phrase "understand in the past" several times.  I figured that you were saying that I hadn't tried to understand (how and what the Brethren may have been thinking) in the past.  So I responded accordingly.  Now I figure you were just saying that in our past interaction I haven't tried to understand.  That may be your impression but it isn't true.  I do come here to learn and expand my horizons.  I am sorry you feel otherwise.

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You don't have to play any game nor do you need to respond to me.  But I think you are reading me wrong.  My response to you was sincere and was an attempt to understand what you were saying.  If you'd like to clarify, I'm listening.

I read your phrase "understand in the past" several times.  I figured that you were saying that I hadn't tried to understand (how and what the Brethren may have been thinking) in the past.  So I responded accordingly.  Now I figure you were just saying that in our past interaction I haven't tried to understand.  That may be your impression but it isn't true.  I do come here to learn and expand my horizons.  I am sorry you feel otherwise.

So, if you've tried to understand what I believe as expressed in previous discussion here, what's the question?  You asked if I could help you understand why I believe as I do. I've articulated my position quite clearly. Did you not understand me? Or are intentionally asking manipulative questions?

Maybe as a way to demonstrate your sincerity you might be willing to attempt to summarize my views. That way we can evaluate the extent of common ground for a discussion.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

We Latter-day Saints believe that the Spirit guided the brethren in their work just as surely in 1981 as He does today. Didn't you know that?

Then is the spirit confused?  Because what was stated in this pamphlet in 1981 is direct contradiction to what is published today.  It almost seems like church policy is being driven by outside pressures.  That is okay with me because there needed to be a big course correction on this.  

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, if you've tried to understand what I believe as expressed in previous discussion here, what's the question?  You asked if I could help you understand why I believe as I do. I've articulated my position quite clearly. Did you not understand me? Or are intentionally asking manipulative questions?

Maybe as a way to demonstrate your sincerity you might be willing to attempt to summarize my views. That way we can evaluate the extent of common ground for a discussion.

I asked the following:  "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?"

You replied in the affirmative to the first question.  But declined to answer the second.  I don't see any other posts from you in this thread that address that question.  As for past discussions regarding homosexuality, I believe that you support the Brethren and feel that they are teaching God's will on the matter.  I'm not sure what else you are looking for me to summarize.  If you don't believe I'm sincere, you ought to just refrain from engaging with me -- it seems unlikely to become a fruitful discussion if you enter it from a position of distrust.

[cinepro]

Quote

Homosexual behavior is learned. Homosexual behavior is learned and can be overcome.

p. 2

Quote

 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

Quote

Category I: Early memory homosexuality. An individual in this category reports having had persistent homosexual feelings or behaviors since his earliest memories. Typically he comes from a family which has had serious social-emotional problems.

p.3

 

Wow.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

they keep talking about studies and research and yeah, at the time it was the position of the church but this isn't 1981 anymore. Homosexuality wasn't the church pamphlet on a review of Joseph Smith's teachings or what the church teaches on tithing, I agree with what you're saying but from then till now it still isn't known what the cuase of homosexuality is or why it develops, why some people are bi sexual or asexual, it's unknown. I think the wheat has gotten wheatier and the tares have gotten tarrier, in and out of the church

So are you saying that in 1981 the church made no claim to be lead by revelation?  Especially about it's policies and official position about gays?  Because that was not what I was told.  I was told directly that the church leaders had received guidance from God that if I married a woman, and wanted it bad enough, I would become straight.  So which is it?  Is the church lead by revelation or it is lead by secular learning at the time.  Or was the church not lead by revelation in 1981, but now it is?  You gotta carve out some position.  Which do you think is true?

[california boy]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am happy that you read it. To address your asterisked question/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.

Like it or not, that one paragraph is the position. Everything else is not. The counsel is only consistent with the position. It came from prophets, seers, and revelators and they use all the resources at their disposal as does anyone following their counsel in upholding the Church's position, and just as others use all the resources (and techniques) at their disposal to misrepresent and undermine the Church's position.

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.  

[california boy]

9 hours 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. 

You are confusing the choice to engage in homosexual behavior with sexual orientation.  There is an old saying that says, just because something is in the garage, doesn't mean it is a car.  IN FACT the very concept the church promoted disproves this idea.  The church taught that if a gay person was in a heterosexual relationship they would become heterosexual.  BUT that doesn't happen.  Just engaging in heterosexual behavior does not make you straight.  The same is true in prison.  Just because a convict engages in homosexual activity does not mean they are now gay.

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

they keep talking about studies and research and yeah, at the time it was the position of the church but this isn't 1981 anymore. 

But Duncan, these teachings weren’t anymore true back in 1981 than they are today.  Wouldn’t God know the truth in 1981 just as he does today and not teach untruths through the spirit to the leaders of his church?  

I don’t understand why some are arguing on here that God would have been deceived by the beliefs of man at that time.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/14/2017 at 4:00 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks to the backfire effect and other psychological biases, 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.  The more evidence produced the more convinced they will be that their position is correct.  

"The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger."  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effectb . 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

he said he would give us here a little and there a little. In 1981 the world wanted to know how Indiana Jones was going to defeat the nazi's!

Then would you acknowledge that even today, the church's position/policies are not revelation from God but just a very small fraction of what the church knows about gays and how to treat them? Rather as you stated, "he would give us here a little and there a little"

[Duncan]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

So are you saying that in 1981 the church made no claim to be lead by revelation?  Especially about it's policies and official position about gays?  Because that was not what I was told.  I was told directly that the church leaders had received guidance from God that if I married a woman, and wanted it bad enough, I would become straight.  So which is it?  Is the church lead by revelation or it is lead by secular learning at the time.  Or was the church not lead by revelation in 1981, but now it is?  You gotta carve out some position.  Which do you think is true?

i'm talking about the pamphlet, which correct me if I am wrong but doesn't say that this was revealed from heaven

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then would you acknowledge that even today, the church's position/policies are not revelation from God but just a very small fraction of what the church knows about gays and how to treat them? Rather as you stated, "he would give us here a little and there a little"

maybe he tells us here a little but for some future day he'll share more. I think he told us fairly clear how to treat all people, regardless of their situation in life