New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[Jeff Lebowski]

There are some men who entice young women to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said she had something to confess. I was very worried because she just could not get herself to tell me what she had done.

After patient encouragement she finally blurted out, "I hit my district leader."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," she said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

Why stop there? How about this version:

There are some women who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit one of the sisters in my district."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored her," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

[Indy Coug]

Why stop there? How about this version:

Maybe the real reason Joseph of Egypt got incarcerated was because he was too vigorous defending his virtue.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Apparently the church still distributes it... (in electronic form)

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared...g.pdf?lang=eng

I recall getting a copy from my mother and later laughing out loud the part about having wet dreams. Something about your body being a factory and having to release some of its product.

Great find, Ted. May I remind everyone that this discussion started with LA Ute asking rhetorically if the church had ever claimed that being gay was a choice. I used the above referenced BKP quote as an example. I Just located this quote in the original pamphlet linked by Ted. Here is the text from the very next paragraph:

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just "that way" and can only yield to those desires. This is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is convincing to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men - masculine, manly men - ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.

Q.E.D.

[DrumNFeather]

LA, you'd better get out of here, there won't be much fending off this mob for long.

[Northwestcoug]

Great find, Ted. May I remind everyone that this discussion started with LA Ute asking rhetorically if the church had ever claimed that being gay was a choice. I used the above referenced BKP quote as an example. I Just located this quote in the original pamphlet linked by Ted. Here is the text from the very next paragraph:

Q.E.D.

Packer is nothing if not constant. He hasn't changed his views in 30+ years. I guess it's faint praise that the church is sloooowly moving away from his teachings.

[LA Ute]

Great find, Ted. May I remind everyone that this discussion started with LA Ute asking rhetorically if the church had ever claimed that being gay was a choice. I used the above referenced BKP quote as an example. I Just located this quote in the original pamphlet linked by Ted. Here is the text from the very next paragraph:

Q.E.D.

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but I was responding to someone (Dwight Schr-Ute, I think) who commented on this from the new website:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Dwight said:

This was sort of subtle, but seems to be a big admission for the church. The idea that these issues are strongly biological and not just social will serve the membership well in hopefully enabling them to be more compassionate.

To be clear, I love it that the church said what it did in the portion Dwight bolded. I really was just wondering if in the past the church had taken a similarly plain, public and official position on the question of choice and gayness. In my mind, individual talks by apostles don't rise to the same level as the website with all the related fanfare.

Anyway, Dwight said the statement was a "big admission," and it might well be. I was just looking for information about whether or not that is true.

[Pheidippides]

LA, you'd better get out of here, there won't be much fending off this mob for long.

No angry mob has a claim on LAUte unless I am present, and I'm leaving him be today. Carry on with your torches and pitchforks, but do no bodily harm.

[LA Ute]

In related news:

U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage

Los Angeles Times | December 7, 2012 | 12:19 PM

The Supreme Court announced today it will rule for the first time on same-sex marriage by deciding the constitutionality of California's Prop. 8, the voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman.

[LA Ute]

No angry mob has a claim on LAUte unless I am present, and I'm leaving him be today. Carry on with your torches and pitchforks, but do no bodily harm.

I am keeping my asbestos suit on anyway.

[Indy Coug]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/07...-sex-marriage/

Oral arguments in the high court appeal will likely be held in March, with a ruling by late June.

[Sullyute]

To be clear, I love it that the church said what it did in the portion Dwight bolded. I really was just wondering if in the past the church had taken a similarly plain, public and official position on the question of choice and gayness. In my mind, individual talks by apostles don't rise to the same level as the website with all the related fanfare.

LA Ute, I just want alittle clarification on what you mean here? If on one church website they promote BKP pamphlet then on another church sponsored site promote something different how do you decide which one rises to the higher level. I am being sincere here and not trying to call you out.

[LA Ute]

LA Ute, I just want a little clarification on what you mean here? If on one church website they promote BKP pamphlet then on another church sponsored site promote something different how do you decide which one rises to the higher level. I am being sincere here and not trying to call you out.

Fair question. Here's how I see it:

1. The church puts up a new website, announces it to the world and calls everyone's attention to it. It's got all kinds of bells and whistles, embedded videos, etc., and just exudes "official-ness." It clearly has the First Presidency's approval.

2. An individual GA gives a talk, later put into a pamphlet (I heard the talk in general priesthood meeting in about 1973, I think). The pamphlet is still available online, which I concede does suggest at least benign FP approval.

I think no. 1 deserves more weight than no. 2.

Now, against my better judgment, I'll try to inject some nuance here. The statement Dwight singled out is that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions." That is not an admission that all gay people are born that way. It's simply an admission that same-sex attraction is not a choice. I think the majority view (and I am no expert, so feel free to correct me) is that the causes of gayness are a continuum -- some are born gay, for some it is experiential, some are just experimenting, etc.

[Indy Coug]

1. The church puts up a new website, announces it to the world and calls everyone's attention to it. It's got all kinds of bells and whistles, embedded videos, etc., and just exudes "official-ness." It clearly has the First Presidency's approval.

2. An individual GA gives a talk, later put into a pamphlet (I heard the talk in general priesthood meeting in about 1973, I think). The pamphlet is still available online, which I concede does suggest at least benign FP approval.

It's a sign the church is getting away from correlation. Moliere should be uncorking the champagne.

[Sullyute]

Fair question. Here's how I see it:

1. The church puts up a new website, announces it to the world and calls everyone's attention to it. It's got all kinds of bells and whistles, embedded videos, etc., and just exudes "official-ness." It clearly has the First Presidency's approval.

2. An individual GA gives a talk, later put into a pamphlet (I heard the talk in general priesthood meeting in about 1973, I think). The pamphlet is still available online, which I concede does suggest at least benign FP approval.

I think no. 1 deserves more weight than no. 2.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Pheidippides]

Packer is nothing if not constant. He hasn't changed his views in 30+ years. I guess it's faint praise that the church is sloooowly moving away from his teachings.

A thought on BKP. He is the last remaining legacy of JFiS. JFiS called him. Everybody else except LTP is a GBH/TSM apostle (given the infirmity of SWK, ETB and HWH).

So it shouldn't be all that surprising that he takes exceptionally hard-line stance that are based in the JFiS/BRM view of the Gospel. Couple that with his longetivity and his reputed stubbornness and intensity and you have what you see here: a dinosaur rampaging about trying to stamp out the small fires of heresy he sees.

There are certain very influential leaders I hold in high esteem - men who I think were products of their time, flawed like anybody else, but forward-thinking enough to leave the church better than they found it on the whole. These would include DOM, SWK and GBH. Let's throw in Wilford Woodruff and, if we're going to expand a bit outside of the President, JReub and Hugh BB.

There are other leaders that I think have done incalculable damage to the church in their time. I would classify these as BY (depending on viewpoint), JFS, JFiS, BRM, ETB and BKP.

Of the last category, I actually think one of these men was evil. Wicked. Not righteous. One other I think was a liar (although the tradition of lying for the Lord has much precedent). The others were just hardliners, people who couldn't see past their own opinions. BKP is in this very last group.

My point here is that BKP is simply continuing a legacy of rigid conservatism that is supported by little else than tradition. An ideological extension of those who called him. And we should not be surprised that many of us, a very liberal group of Mormons by most definitions, disagree with what he has to say and what he said 30 years ago.