Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"reveal more"?  Is there something in this 1981 doc that seems like a revelation?

I agree that God certainly can reveal something regarding homosexuality (I'm not sure that He's done that yet.)  But I don't understand your premise that the prophet and apostles apparently fell victim to faulty research and science of their day and that it is all part of God's plan that they promulgate falsehoods under their titles as prophets and apostles.

that's what I say, it doesn't sound like revelation but more of a summary of then current studies. So you would say that the Prophets and Apostles knew better then the studies of the day but didn't have the fortitude to put it out there? if it was a revelation then why has the church slowly changed over the years, if this was the end all and be all?

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder how much God cares about the distinctions between policy and doctrine?

I think it must sadden Him when this man-made dichotomy is used as a rationalization for opposing, ignoring or dismissing truth He has revealed.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yikes, Duncan.

First, being gay isn't "drama". Second, the church absolutely deserves 100% of the blame for the false statements, promises, and doctrines it has taught in the name of God, only to be shown erroneous. No individual should accept blame for being deceived. The only thing they are guilty of is trusting the church too much and placing faith in men who claim to be oracles of God.

our personal drama!

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm open to persuasive argumentation based on sound logic and reasoning.

But that's really beside the point, which is this: If  you are unwilling or incapable of documenting the alleged involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ in Romer v Evans, your citation of said alleged involvement as an argument in support of your position against the Church is devoid of credibility. 

As you know, not everything is documented and available online. 

I’m sure some may feel that my claim lacks credibility.  But I think you are educated enough on this issue to see the likelihood of the church issuing an amicus brief supporting the amendment given the content of this document and the confidential memo from Oaks in the same timeframe. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:22 AM, CV75 said:

According to the actual position statement on p.1, I.A. The Position of the Church of Homosexuality, there is no stated reason as to why homosexuality exists. The rest of the manual reflects the scientific and academic understanding of the day and is only ancillary to and in support of the Church's moral position on the matter, thus harnessing the better "powerful forces" mentioned in the beginning of the statement. The same approach is taken today: clearly state the moral position and offer the best known approaches (both religious and secular) to sustaining the moral position.

Which is why I earlier challenged rockpond to identify with specifics precisely how the official, authoritative position of the Church has "evolved" or changed between then and now. I've not followed this thread closely, but I've not seen yet that he has answered that challenge.

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But why would God "reveal" something that is wrong only so He could correct it later? Sounds like a jerky God at best, a disorganized and capricious God at worst.

No, these are the philosophies of men masquerading as revelation. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain takes on a more substantial meaning when it is considered in context of people a- claiming God's authority or b- claiming God's words when they really aren't God's words.

the Church has always said that acting out on homosexuality is sin, I don't know if that will ever change. Does it say anywhere in the pamphlet that this was a revelation? I suspect that people assumed it is or was and maybe it was never intended to be. Under the section on counselling it says to follow the spirit when talking to someone so you need to be sensitive to it's influence

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't blame the church for what it didn't do.  I blame the church for what it DID do.  And telling young gay men that if they just married a woman they would no longer be gay is something that was so wrong.  That false promised which they claimed came from revelation was so grievously wrong and caused so many people who trusted church leaders to live a life that rarely ended well.  Don't you think that the church should be held accountable for that?

And believe me, I also blame myself for putting my trust in church leaders and the claims they made. I fully admit that I was a young naive return missionary that sincerely wanted to do the will of God.  I trusted those who claim to know the will of God.   I will NEVER EVER do that again. 

We had to learn the hard way, read this

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_agency-inspiration/

 

I know two men in the Church, one was a mission comp. of mine both of whom are gay. The mission comp has been married like 3 times now, I don't know if he tells the women he's gay at the outset and then after awhile they can't live with a gay man anymore or he doesn't tell them and they find out later. The other guy has been married over 20 years, has kids still married. I don't know what kind of a good marriage they have as I have never lived in their ward

Edited December 16, 2017 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As you know, not everything is documented and available online. 

I’m sure some may feel that my claim lacks credibility.  But I think you are educated enough on this issue to see the likelihood of the church issuing an amicus brief supporting the amendment given the content of this document and the confidential memo from Oaks in the same timeframe. 

I can't speak to the likelihood of your claim. I can only say that I have made an earnest effort via Google to find something that pertains even remotely to it, and so far, I have not unearthed anything. 

I've seen  you make this claim before, but this is the first time I have challenged you to document it. Henceforth, if I see it again, I will feel obliged to point out that, when asked, you have been unable to provide such documentation.

Afterthought: There are attorneys who contribute to this board. Maybe some of them subscribe to Lexis and could help you out. 

 

Quote

... and the confidential memo from Oaks. ...

What confidential memo from Elder Oaks?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it must sadden Him when this man-made dichotomy is used as a rationalization for opposing, ignoring or dismissing truth He has revealed.

Hopefully you are not referring to what is in this pamphlet or other past teachings that have now changed on this issue.  Or do you believe this pamphlet contains revealed truths?

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it must sadden Him when this man-made dichotomy is used as a rationalization for opposing, ignoring or dismissing truth He has revealed.

Revealed truth is revealed truth regardless of what name we put on it:  policy, doctrine, canon, counsel, etc.  And the corollary to that is that putting those same titles on that which is not revealed truth (regardless of who is writing/speaking) doesn’t turn it into revealed truth. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't speak to the likelihood of your claim. I can only say that I have made an earnest effort via Google to find something that pertains even remotely to it, and so far, I have not unearthed anything. 

I've seen  you make this claim before, but this is the first time I have challenged you to document it. Henceforth, if I see it again, I will feel obliged to point out that, when asked, you have been unable to provide such documentation.

Afterthought: There are attorneys who contribute to this board. Maybe some of them subscribe to Lexis and could help you out. 

 

What confidential memo from Elder Oaks?

Aug 7, 1984 “Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals”

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is why I earlier challenged rockpond to identify with specifics precisely how the official, authoritative position of the Church has "evolved" or changed between then and now. I've not followed this thread closely, but I've not seen yet that he has answered that challenge.

 

Do you think that this document could be published today to church members and leaders, as it is currently written, and be consistent with current teachings and counsel from the Brethren?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you think that this document could be published today to church members and leaders, as it is currently written, and be consistent with current teachings and counsel from the Brethren?

Or either of these?

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

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384642/Homosexuality-Welfare-Services-Packet-1-LDS-Victor-Brown

I'm not sure why some on here do not want to acknowledge how many of the teachings on this topic have changed as well as the changes in the instructions given from church leaders to the local leaders.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

family, friends? you make your own decisions, Bishops don't make your life decisions. We take all the info we get and make our own decisions, that's been in the DC since this whole thing began

So the whole thing about following the prophet, listening to the leaders of the church, they know the will of God is clearly a very wrong teaching to teach.  Clearly the whole paradigm concerning the claims of revelation need to be revisited and a different understanding of how church leaders makes decisions needs to be taught. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it must sadden Him when this man-made dichotomy is used as a rationalization for opposing, ignoring or dismissing truth He has revealed.

Not seeing a lot of truth revealed in this document that is stating the CHURCH's position on homosexuality

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

So the whole thing about following the prophet, listening to the leaders of the church, they know the will of God is clearly a very wrong teaching to teach.  

no, you take what they say and come to your own conclusion as to how to run your life

DC 1:20

But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Honestly?  Just about everything. I specifically quoted directly some of the most egregious assertions from the pamphlet on page 2 of this thread.  But by far, the worst part of what the church did is in telling gay men that if they just married a woman, if they just prayed enough, if they just wanted it enough, then they would become heterosexual and no longer gay.  They claimed that promise by revelation.  Those faithful members that so wanted to put their trust in God and follow that promise are the ones whose lives will never be the same.

This is not just an issue from 1981.  What makes anyone believe that in 2017 church leaders claim of revelation on how to deal with gays is any more true today?   

I took a closer look at the manual and your posts from page 2. Thanks. ; ) Negotiating through the myriad steps as outlined in the manual must have been a massive frustration on those members trying to make sense of why they had feelings for the same sex. And apparently this must have affected the parents to a great extent as they struggled to understand how they may have contributed. I suspect the general leadership started from what was indeed revelation (homosexual behavior being a sin) and then expanded on what they believed (not necessarily revelatory) were the best steps toward helping these members eliminate this behavior and/or preference. Similarly, they also offered up what was probably their best effort at understanding why individuals would be attracted to those of the same sex - not revelation per se but rather what they believed naturally followed from the revelatory prohibition on homosexual behavior. 

It also makes sense that while there are prescriptions for eliminating the behavior, the leadership seems to have conflated this to mean the actual attraction could likewise be eliminated. Furthermore, those variables they claimed may contribute to same sex attraction (i.e., family & social dynamics) missed the point that many heterosexuals experienced the exact same challenges though did not shift to homosexuality and many homosexuals were brought up in balanced homes without those challenges. In other words, the variables the leadership claimed may lead to same sex attraction were ubiquitous to the entire population! Taken to a ludicrous extreme, it's like saying the sun rises every day for homosexuals therefore there must be a connection.

I think the message about how to deal with the reality of same sex attraction has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. I don't believe the leadership would say the same things were they to put out a manual in 2018. The revelatory prohibition has not changed but understanding how to interface with those who experience same sex attraction has.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

the Church has always said that acting out on homosexuality is sin, I don't know if that will ever change. Does it say anywhere in the pamphlet that this was a revelation? I suspect that people assumed it is or was and maybe it was never intended to be. Under the section on counselling it says to follow the spirit when talking to someone so you need to be sensitive to it's influence

And what makes you think that the church is even right that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage is wrong?  Whether it will change or not remains to be seen.  What is clear now is that position did not come from revelation.

Church leaders definitely represented this pamphlet as revelation.  Because that is exactly how it was presented to me.  When a pamphlet starts out stating that this is the position of the church, it used to be assumed that they actually prayed about what they were telling leadership to do.  Now the assumption clearly should be that no revelation has occurred.  Church leaders are just deciding in their committee votes doctrine and policy of the church.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it must sadden Him when this man-made dichotomy is used as a rationalization for opposing, ignoring or dismissing truth He has revealed.

God is probably pretty ticked off by men using His name to represent His will when no such will was ever communicated to them.

[cinepro]

I think the most wonderful thing about this pamphlet being published is that it has led to conversations like these that show how far many Church members have come through the years.  Could any LDS of the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s imagine having faithful LDS so forcefully disavowing the claims and teachings in that pamphlet?

The important thing isn't whether or not the Church's teachings or doctrines have "changed."  The key point is that no one seems willing to defend the pamphlet or make the argument that it was right about the nature and habits of homosexuality.  Whether or not we acknowledge it as "change", that is huge. 

And if the price we have to pay for such progress is pretending to ourselves and others that nothing has changed and we were always like this, then I'm willing to go along with it.

Edited December 16, 2017 by cinepro

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

We had to learn the hard way, read this

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_agency-inspiration/

 

I know two men in the Church, one was a mission comp. of mine both of whom are gay. The mission comp has been married like 3 times now, I don't know if he tells the women he's gay at the outset and then after awhile they can't live with a gay man anymore or he doesn't tell them and they find out later. The other guy has been married over 20 years, has kids still married. I don't know what kind of a good marriage they have as I have never lived in their ward

I am just going to give you my experience.  How long you are married does not indicate anything.  I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  I hated that I wasn't like all the other boys who were so easily attracted to the "right" gender.  So I pretended. I was the strong kid that did everything the church asked of me.  Of my age group, I am the only boy who fulfilled a mission.  I was a zone leader before I was even out a year.  I worked hard thinking that if I just did enough, God would lift this curse from me.  When I returned from my mission, church leaders gave me similar counsel that this pamphlet addressed.  Just pray hard,  Want it hard enough.  And marry someone of the opposite sex.  They promised in the name of God that if I would do this, then I would no longer be gay.  And that is what I wanted more than anything.  So I took them up on that promise.

I don't want to get into too much detail, but that first year, I could tell that our marriage would not be like everyone elses despite that promise.  But I kept at it.  We had 5 children.  I loved being a dad.  And while my wife was very kind, our relationship never got any depth.  I knew early on that I could not pretend my whole life.  It felt like I was lying to everyone.  They all thought I was something that I wasn't. And when people told me how much they loved and admired me, in my mind, I always wondered, "If you knew I was gay would you still think that?"  I knew it was better to be honest and loose friendships to to be dishonest and not be able to trust friendships.  

I stayed in the marriage until all my children except the youngest was out of the house, either going to BYU or married.  I felt like I had made a commitment to raise my children, and I didn't want to be a weekend dad.  I wanted to be their dad.  After 25 years of marriage, I finally came out.  

The story of your friend is still being written.  You can't possibly know what he is dealing with or how he feels about the advice he took from church leaders so many years ago.  If I had to do it all over again, I would never trust church leaders when they state that something came by revelation from God.  I know now, that is not something I could ever count on again.  It simply was not true.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"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 . 

I’m confused why you’re telling me this, when I’m the one who first pointed out that I thought this would occur in the thread, and low and behold it did.  I guess thanks for the link, but I’m confused why you’re sending it to me.  

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just going to give you my experience.  How long you are married does not indicate anything.  I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  I hated that I wasn't like all the other boys who were so easily attracted to the "right" gender.  So I pretended. I was the strong kid that did everything the church asked of me.  Of my age group, I am the only boy who fulfilled a mission.  I was a zone leader before I was even out a year.  I worked hard thinking that if I just did enough, God would lift this curse from me.  When I returned from my mission, church leaders gave me similar counsel that this pamphlet addressed.  Just pray hard,  Want it hard enough.  And marry someone of the opposite sex.  They promised in the name of God that if I would do this, then I would no longer be gay.  And that is what I wanted more than anything.  So I took them up on that promise.

I don't want to get into too much detail, but that first year, I could tell that our marriage would not be like everyone elses despite that promise.  But I kept at it.  We had 5 children.  I loved being a dad.  And while my wife was very kind, our relationship never got any depth.  I knew early on that I could not pretend my whole life.  It felt like I was lying to everyone.  They all thought I was something that I wasn't. And when people told me how much they loved and admired me, in my mind, I always wondered, "If you knew I was gay would you still think that?"  I knew it was better to be honest and loose friendships to to be dishonest and not be able to trust friendships.  

I stayed in the marriage until all my children except the youngest was out of the house, either going to BYU or married.  I felt like I had made a commitment to raise my children, and I didn't want to be a weekend dad.  I wanted to be their dad.  After 25 years of marriage, I finally came out.  

The story of your friend is still being written.  You can't possibly know what he is dealing with or how he feels about the advice he took from church leaders so many years ago.  If I had to do it all over again, I would never trust church leaders when they state that something came by revelation from God.  I know now, that is not something I could ever count on again.  It simply was not true.

CB...you showed more faith in family and with courage...than anyone I know.  God Bless You.  What a  valiant father you are!

Edited December 16, 2017 by Jeanne

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As you know, not everything is documented and available online. 

Yet, you are quick to post the allegations of such, you, um found on line.

 

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I took a closer look at the manual and your posts from page 2. Thanks. ; ) Negotiating through the myriad steps as outlined in the manual must have been a massive frustration on those members trying to make sense of why they had feelings for the same sex. And apparently this must have affected the parents to a great extent as they struggled to understand how they may have contributed. I suspect the general leadership started from what was indeed revelation (homosexual behavior being a sin) and then expanded on what they believed (not necessarily revelatory) were the best steps toward helping these members eliminate this behavior and/or preference. Similarly, they also offered up what was probably their best effort at understanding why individuals would be attracted to those of the same sex - not revelation per se but rather what they believed naturally followed from the revelatory prohibition on homosexual behavior. 

It also makes sense that while there are prescriptions for eliminating the behavior, the leadership seems to have conflated this to mean the actual attraction could likewise be eliminated. Furthermore, those variables they claimed may contribute to same sex attraction (i.e., family & social dynamics) missed the point that many heterosexuals experienced the exact same challenges though did not shift to homosexuality and many homosexuals were brought up in balanced homes without those challenges. In other words, the variables the leadership claimed may lead to same sex attraction were ubiquitous to the entire population! Taken to a ludicrous extreme, it's like saying the sun rises every day for homosexuals therefore there must be a connection.

I think the message about how to deal with the reality of same sex attraction has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. I don't believe the leadership would say the same things were they to put out a manual in 2018. The revelatory prohibition has not changed but understanding how to interface with those who experience same sex attraction has.

Just curious.  What makes you think that there has been ANY revelatory information on this subject when they have gotten virtually every single other thing wrong.