Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.  

but we don't know what is true, even today. Are we closer to finding out an answer? how do we know? Maybe God wants us to do our homework to figure it out then ask him if it's right

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

but we don't know what is true, even today. Are we closer to finding out an answer? how do we know? Maybe God wants us to do our homework to figure it out then ask him if it's right

Well, I think we can be quite certain the teachings like these from 1981 are not the truth.  I think we’re getting closer.  But many here argue those teachings from 1981 came from God.  That makes no sense (at least to me) if they didn’t contain truths.  

If God wanted us to figure it out on our own, then teachings today could be from man just as back then and be just as wrong, correct?

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

Well did this pamphlet get published by the church?  And don't the brethren approve such pamphlets, especially those given to Stake Presidents so that they know the will of church leadership?  Does that leadership seek some confirmation from God that what they are doing is His will?  Or is the claim now, that they just listen to secular voices and don't bother to know the will of God on the guidance and policies sent to Stake Presidents.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I think we can be quite certain the teachings like these from 1981 are not the truth.  I think we’re getting closer.  But many here argue those teachings from 1981 came from God.  That makes no sense (at least to me) if they didn’t contain truths.  

If God wanted us to figure it out on our own, then teachings today could be from man just as back then and be just as wrong, correct?

it could but who knows, in 200 years who even knows what mankind will think

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but we don't know what is true, even today. Are we closer to finding out an answer? how do we know? Maybe God wants us to do our homework to figure it out then ask him if it's right

BINGO!!!!!,  And these claims that the Oct policy excluding gay children from baptism and gay couples are apostates came from "revelation" from God is wishful thinking.  Whether a gay person is made straight after they die, didn't come from God.  Whether gay marriage is an evil didn't come from God.  

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I think we can be quite certain the teachings like these from 1981 are not the truth.  I think we’re getting closer.  But many here argue those teachings from 1981 came from God.  That makes no sense (at least to me) if they didn’t contain truths.  

If God wanted us to figure it out on our own, then teachings today could be from man just as back then and be just as wrong, correct?

You are EXACTLY right.  Revelation clearly was not directing the brethren in 1981, even when that was the claim in 1981.  Revelation is not directing the brethren in 2017 even when that is the claim.

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well did this pamphlet get published by the church?  And don't the brethren approve such pamphlets, especially those given to Stake Presidents so that they know the will of church leadership?  Does that leadership seek some confirmation from God that what they are doing is His will?  Or is the claim now, that they just listen to secular voices and don't bother to know the will of God on the guidance and policies sent to Stake Presidents.

I have no clue the history of this pamphlet, I have never been involved in the production of this sort of thing so I can't speak to what goes into it. Maybe they got his will as to how to treat his children but what the causes are, who knows? Secular voices disagree on these issues, For example read what the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association has to say about the cause of LGBTQ, it's different

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

"There is no consensus"

http://www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Publications/FactSheets/PsychologyWorksFactSheet_GenderDysphoria_Adults_Adolescents.pdf

"The exact cause is unknown"

So both say we don't know what causes this, the Americans can't agree and the Canadians threw their hands in the air and said no clue

Edited December 16, 2017 by Duncan

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I think we can be quite certain the teachings like these from 1981 are not the truth.  I think we’re getting closer.  But many here argue those teachings from 1981 came from God.  That makes no sense (at least to me) if they didn’t contain truths.  

If God wanted us to figure it out on our own, then teachings today could be from man just as back then and be just as wrong, correct?

It happened with the Priesthood ban, it will likely happen again.  Seeking confirmation from the Spirit and living/loving the best way we know how is all we can do, all that we are asked to do by God.

Chances are we are not going to all agree on whom is getting inspired or what confirmation from the Spirit means though since none of us have managed to completely overcome the natural man inside us.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Calm

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

BINGO!!!!!,  And these claims that the Oct policy excluding gay children from baptism and gay couples are apostates came from "revelation" from God is wishful thinking.  Whether a gay person is made straight after they die, didn't come from God.  Whether gay marriage is an evil didn't come from God.  

do I win something? like an eraser or nail clippers?

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have no clue the history of this pamphlet, I have never been involved in the production of this sort of thing so I can't speak to what goes into it. Maybe they got his will as to how to treat his children but what the causes are, who knows? Secular voices disagree on these issues, For example read what the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association has to say about the cause of LGBTQ, it's different

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

"There is no consensus"

http://www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Publications/FactSheets/PsychologyWorksFactSheet_GenderDysphoria_Adults_Adolescents.pdf

"The exact cause is unknown"

So both say we don't know what causes this, the Americans can't agree and the Canadians threw their hands in the air and said no clue

Yes but the church claims that they know the will of God on these issues.  What others believe should have no importance.  I am fine with church leaders if they were to ever claim that they DON"T know the will of God and are trying their best to rely on other experts on this issue.  But that is not what happened back in 1981 when the church was telling gay men that God has promised that if they marry a woman they would be cured.  It is also not what is happening today in 2017. Church leaders once again claim revelation from God to know how to deal with homosexuals in the church.  Nothing has changed.  Same claims.  Same lack of evidence that what church leaders are telling today comes from God.

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do I win something? like an eraser or nail clippers?

Indeed you do win something.  You win the knowledge that not everything church leaders claim is revelation actually does come from God.  It is a big lesson that I had to deal with when I once believed that church leaders spoke for God.  At least you didn't have to marry someone you were not attracted to in order to find that out.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Indeed you do win something.  You win the knowledge that not everything church leaders claim is revelation actually does come from God.  It is a big lesson that I had to deal with when I once believed that church leaders spoke for God.  At least you didn't have to marry someone you were not attracted to in order to find that out.

worst.bingo.hall.ever.

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes but the church claims that they know the will of God on these issues.  What others believe should have no importance.  I am fine with church leaders if they were to ever claim that they DON"T know the will of God and are trying their best to rely on other experts on this issue.  But that is not what happened back in 1981 when the church was telling gay men that God has promised that if they marry a woman they would be cured.  It is also not what is happening today in 2017. Church leaders once again claim revelation from God to know how to deal with homosexuals in the church.  Nothing has changed.  Same claims.  Same lack of evidence that what church leaders are telling today comes from God.

If nothing has changed since since 1981 do you see this kind of pamphlet being printed today? How do you understand revelation to work in the Church? God just doesn't give us information without doing our homework, Oliver Cowdery found that out

Edited December 16, 2017 by Duncan

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If nothing has changed since since 1981 do you see this kind of pamphlet being printed today? How do you understand revelation to work in the Church? God just doesn't give us information without doing our homework, Oliver Cowdery found that out

I don’t think anyone will disagree with you that God wants us to do our homework. 

But does “doing our homework” include the publication of a document that is full of falsehoods and yet has the stamp of approval of our prophet and apostles? (See the second page of the document.)

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If nothing has changed since since 1981 do you see this kind of pamphlet being printed today? How do you understand revelation to work in the Church? God just doesn't give us information without doing our homework, Oliver Cowdery found that out

Yes I see this kind of pamphlet printed today.  The direction may be different, but claims that "we know the will of God" will still be present.

I used to believe that church leaders would come up with a policy or doctrine by gathering information from sources that they thought were credible.  Then they would look at that documentation and draft up their own impression of what they felt was right.  Then they would bring it before the Lord and wait for a confirmation that it was in line with the will of God.  Only after that confirmation took place would they release the policy/doctrine.  That is clearly not the case.  This pamphlet makes that quite clear.  Church leaders got virtually nothing right on what causes someone to be gay nor, and maybe more important, how to help someone who is gay.

Now I believe that church leaders gather information from what they think is credible sources, come up with a policy and then all vote to accept it.  If everyone agrees, then they make the CLAIM that decision came from God.  God is not confirming or revealing anything.  No revelation is received.  Just an agreement amongst a group of men with similar backgrounds, similar experiences similar race, similar age, and even inter-related families.  (Almost all of the 12 are related to each other in some way.)  They are making decisions just like any board of directors in any other company or organization.  

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

worst.bingo.hall.ever.

No worst bingo hall ever is the one that tells you something is true when it isn't.  And you trust them.  The cost can be 30 years of your life doing something you should have never done.  

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

My thoughts are these:

1. The doctrinal points contained in that pamphlet - namely, that homosexuality (meaning, of course homosexual acts, whatever the deceivers may try to claim) are seriously sinful, but that they can be forgiven, and forgiveness, for homosexuals just like everyone else (much to their shock and outrage) is contingent upon repentance - are true, were true, remain true and always will be true.
2. To the extent that any part of that pamphlet is outmoded, it appears to arise from accepting scientific notions that have since been superseded.
3. The caveat to the last point is that this is an area of science that is notoriously subject to fads, trends and political pressure. The current thinking may be more "scientific," or it may simply be more fashionable.

Does that answer your question?

Edited December 16, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You are EXACTLY right.  Revelation clearly was not directing the brethren in 1981, even when that was the claim in 1981.  Revelation is not directing the brethren in 2017 even when that is the claim.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It kind of goes without saying that believing Latter-day Saints will disagree.

And not only does your second assertion not follow from the first, neither of them follows from the evidence in view. I realise that that is what you would like to adduce from it - just as much as it is the thread originator's wish that everyone adduce that from it - but it is wrong.

Sorry.

Edited December 16, 2017 by kiwi57
Remove big image

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It kind of goes without saying that believing Latter-day Saints will disagree.

And not only does your second assertion not follow from the first, neither of them follows from the evidence in view. I realise that that is what you would like to adduce from it - just as much as it is the thread originator's wish that everyone adduce that from it - but it is wrong.

Sorry.

Sorry, your claim about believing Latter-day Saints is wrong.  I am a believing Latter-day Saint and I agree with the point that California Boy made. 

And, since I am the thread originator I can also say that I had no such wish.  I would ask you to please have the integrity to cease making false and unsubstantiated claims about me. 

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

My thoughts are these:

1. The doctrinal points contained in that pamphlet - namely, that homosexuality (meaning, of course homosexual acts, whatever the deceivers may try to claim) are seriously sinful, but that they can be forgiven, and forgiveness, for homosexuals just like everyone else (much to their shock and outrage) is contingent upon repentance - are true, were true, remain true and always will be true.
2. To the extent that any part of that pamphlet is outmoded, it appears to arise from accepting scientific notions that have since been superseded.
3. The caveat to the last point is that this is an area of science that is notoriously subject to fads, trends and political pressure. The current thinking may be more "scientific," or it may simply be more fashionable.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for your honesty, kiwi.

As far as what doctrine is, I think that’s a pretty grey area and hard to pin down a lot of the time.  I hope we can at least agree that teachings and beliefs have changed on this since the pamphlet was put out by the leaders.

Also, I agree that the leaders depended on scientific notions at that time (or fads, trends, etc., as you state above).  Which for me only supports that the teachings weren’t revelation or through the spirit of God or these writings and teachings would have contained the truth.

Edited December 16, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

My thoughts are these:

1. ...
2. To the extent that any part of that pamphlet is outmoded, it appears to arise from accepting scientific notions that have since been superseded.
3. The caveat to the last point is that this is an area of science that is notoriously subject to fads, trends and political pressure. The current thinking may be more "scientific," or it may simply be more fashionable.

Does that answer your question?

And there you have it California Boy, the counsel in this pamphlet upon which you based several decades of your life (believing that you were following revealed truth) was simply “outmoded” because our prophets and apostles accepted fad science that has since been superseded. 

No big deal, right?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And there you have it California Boy, the counsel in this pamphlet upon which you based several decades of your life (believing that you were following revealed truth) was simply “outmoded” because our prophets and apostles accepted fad science that has since been superseded. 

No big deal, right?

So...remind me again why I should listen to a prophet about these kinds of things.

Apologists have the difficult line to walk in which they must profess that the prophets speak the will of God, yet also that the prophets are products of their times, cultures, and limited understandings, and therefore will be wrong on important issues. Which is it?

[Duncan]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think anyone will disagree with you that God wants us to do our homework. 

But does “doing our homework” include the publication of a document that is full of falsehoods and yet has the stamp of approval of our prophet and apostles? (See the second page of the document.)

it's from 1981, I don't see how God can't reveal more later

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, your claim about believing Latter-day Saints is wrong.  I am a believing Latter-day Saint and I agree with the point that California Boy made. 

And, since I am the thread originator I can also say that I had no such wish.  I would ask you to please have the integrity to cease making false and unsubstantiated claims about me. 

This is what is so deceptive of church policy.  Think of the thousands of lives their false promise they made in the name of God has caused.  Not only was I victimized by putting my trust in church leaders, but also the countless women who had to go through. a marriage that was based on that false promise.  Much to my sorrow, to this day my ex-wife lives alone because of the assertion that the advice given by church leaders was claimed to have come by revelation.  It turns out that the false claim of revelation came from the group of scientist that could not have been further wrong in their beliefs.  And let's be clear about this.  While there were some sciences that thought a person became gay because of how parents raised them and they caught it by masterbating, not ALL scientist thought this even in 1981.  Church leaders just chose scientists that they guessed were the ones closest to what they WANTED to believe.  And then they claimed their decision was based on revelation.  So sad.  I am the face of the tragedy of that trust.  Daniel is the face of the tragedy of that trust.  But make no mistake, thousands unnamed are also victims.  Does anyone think that the church will ever apologize for the harm they have caused their most faithful members that were willing to entrust their entire lives with that claim of revelation?

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's from 1981, I don't see how God can't reveal more later

Duncan, do you fully realize how that little ooops devastated so many peoples lives?  If they didn't have revealed knowledge from God, they should have never claimed such a revelation.  And how can anyone trust that the decisions being made today are not made in the exact same way.