General Conference Predictions

[RobinFinderson]

I wonder what are the long-term effects of near-continuous thinking about gay sex. Ever since the proclamation on the family, Mormons have been thinking about gay sex about ten times more than about everyone else in the country (who isn't gay).

[TripletDaddy]

That is an unfair characterization of Oaks' position. His statement in the article linked by JL makes clear the difference between tendency and feeling and behavior. When he says those can be controlled he is referring to behavior. While he chooses his words very carefully, he concedes that for some such tendencies are inherent.

creek, I agree with your characterization. Do you feel this press release reconciles with BKP's talk on Sunday?

Oaks seems to be giving a nod to the fact that gays may very well be born that way. His point is that regardless of nature v nurture, the expectation is that behavior should be modified into conformity.

From BKP, I did not get such a vibe. His struck me as more of a "gays were NOT born that way and behavior should be modified into confirmity." I could be wrong on that interpretation. What do you think?

A few observations about the Oaks press release:

1. We are hearing more and more tacit admissions that the Church really doesn't know why gay people are gay. This is in direct contradiction to previous Church leaders that emphatically stated that gay people are not born gay.
2. There was what seemed to be an admission that prior attempts at behavior mod therapy were misguided and that previous attempts by Church leaders to encourage such was also misguided. (no mention of electroshock therapy/genital stim at BYU...I guess that might be kinda embarrassing....)
3. An admission that previous counsel to marry away your homosexuality was flawed. (I wonder why the "reporters" didn't follow up with SWK's assertion that singing hymns and praying would wash away the gay?)
4. It seems that the Church's PR unit read the non-caffeinated tea leaves in the wake of Prop 8....I haven't heard as many references to the forced arguments against gay marriage that involved all kinds of wild political speculation...tax status, democracy at risk, activist judges, public schools will become breeding grounds for the gay movement, etc...Oaks seemed to be saying simply, "we believe this is what God wants." I have always felt that such an argument was the only passable one.

[woot]

Do you have me on ignore? I really don't think that you are fairly re-stating what Oaks or even BKP say. While some may imply that the inclination is cureable, I think you also see statements making clear that the BEHAVIOR is what must be proscribed. Even if they are wired to be gay, from the start, they can overcome the inclination by avoiding the behavior. How does that not allow for the evidence?

I've addressed that already. I think it's silly and cruel, and it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the tortured "God wouldn't do that, therefore he didn't" logic. It's just stupid. Both Oaks and BKP employ it, despite it being unnecessary, as you've stated. They aren't just trying to uphold the official doctrine while looking for ways to stay in harmony with the facts. It's about ignoring the facts and just plowing forward with the old doctrine. That's not a recipe for sustainability, or for embracing the educated membership.

[Moliere]

The issue is that the church leadership is trying to argue for this exactly backwards. Homosexuals generally don't choose to be gay; whether it's nature or nurture, it is ingrained in them from a young age. From this, they could probably build an argument explaining the nature of god. BKP and the gang don't do that. They say "We believe that god wouldn't make people gay; therefore people aren't gay. They only have curable inclinations." It really is no different from believing the moon is made of cheese. It would still be possible for the church to claim that homosexual behavior is wrong without doing violence to the evidence.

There seem to be a great number of members struggling with this right now because they care about evidence. Why won't the church even pay lip-service to those people? Are they not welcome?

That's not the issue. The real issue is that we have a church that wants to cater to all types of people, gay & straight, black & white, male & female, all while having it's stick stuck in the mud on doctrine. This leads to some double speak and a lot of rationalization from the church.

On one hand you have the church saying it loves gays.

On the other hand you have the church pushing for Prop 8.

At some point the church will have to stop catering to the masses or move its stick. Typically with issues like this the church likes to kind of move the stick one little bit at a time so as to not cause a commotion from the membership and to conform to the general feeling from the masses. There have only been a couple times (probably twice) when the church actually picked up the stick and moved it a noticable amount of distance for all to see.

[Pheidippides]

That is an unfair characterization of Oaks' position. His statement in the article linked by JL makes clear the difference between tendency and feeling and behavior. When he says those can be controlled he is referring to behavior. While he chooses his words very carefully, he concedes that for some such tendencies are inherent.

Agreed. I had issues with President Packer's talk, but not so many with Elder Oaks' interview.

I am actually in the jay Santos club here - i am not gay so I don't care that much on the specifics. I think homosexual sex is a sin, as i do other behaviors. How grievous I don't know. I think the Lord is going to be a lot more merciful to people with challenges than he is to me. I think that we should be nice to gay people and that collectively we've done a poor job of that historically. I absolutely don't think homosexuality should be criminalized.

After that, I don't know what I think. Gay marriage? See both sides, don't really care.

But the bottom line for me is that I theologically believe what I believe not because some old guy with a microphone says it (meaning no disrespect here) but because I feel something to be right and have had some sort of inner experience. God, Jesus, Atonement, Book of Mormon? Yeah, I'll go with those four. Everything else? I don't know, I know I don't know, and I'm just trying to do the best I can. So while I may have faith that BKP is called of God and is a prophet, that doesn't mean that I believe every word he says or believe that he is infallible. Maximus, like it or not, I'm part of a significant number of members - card carrying members who are or have been in leadership positions at that - who think and act similarly. And many of came from hardliner homes, so statements of so-called religious "fact" do little to sway us or stop our critical approach. This board is populated largely by people who either have or understand that approach. One day you will have to learn how to deal with us. We are already familiar with how to deal with you, as we do it every week.

[TripletDaddy]

I wonder what are the long-term effects of near-continuous thinking about gay sex. Ever since the proclamation on the family, Mormons have been thinking about gay sex about ten times more than about everyone else in the country (who isn't gay).

There is a bit of unintended comedy in a group of elderly white men from Utah spending much of their efforts focused on homosexual issues.

I think that if the gay movement really wanted to drive everyone nuts, they would pack up the Bay Area and colonize in SLC. Plant a flag and declare, "This is the Right Place!"

[jay santos]

I wonder what are the long-term effects of near-continuous thinking about gay sex. Ever since the proclamation on the family, Mormons have been thinking about gay sex about ten times more than about everyone else in the country (who isn't gay).

This strategy has worked well for porn.

[TripletDaddy]

like it or not, I'm part of a significant number of members - card carrying members who are or have been in leadership positions at that - who think and act similarly. And many of came from hardliner homes, so statements of so-called religious "fact" do little to sway us or stop our critical approach. This board is populated largely by people who either have or understand that approach. One day you will have to learn how to deal with us. We are already familiar with how to deal with you, as we do it every week.

Our name is Legion, for we are many!

[Pheidippides]

A few incredibly unChristlike portions, in my opinion:



Don't let your gay son bring his partner home for holidays because it would set a bad example for younger people? Really? Don't expect us to be seen with you and your partner in public? Who thinks that way anymore? Just the opposite seems true to me. It's a terrible example to tell your gay son he can't bring his partner to your home. It's a terrible example to not want to be seen with your gay son and his partner.

This next part is incredibly condescending and insulting to gay people, comparing them to criminals and saying they just want marriage to "feel better about themselves." Incredibly insensitive and showing that he knows very few if any gay people -- it has nothing to do with "feeling better" about themselves.



I guess we really do want to be known as the church that hates gay people. The church where parents don't let their gay kids come home for holidays. The church where parents don't want to be seen in public with their gay kids. The church that compares gay people to criminals and says they only want marriage to "feel better" about themselves. Very disappointing.

Disagree on the first point, agree on the second. My family (extended) has to deal with this very situation. It is nowhere near that simple and I definitely think it requires a case by case approach. Which is what I read E Oaks as saying, even if he used some hardline examples. I have siblings that I love that are not allowed to visit because of their behavior and my young kids. None of it is homosexual. What if there were that issue - would I let it affect the right to come visit me? Hard to say, and it depends on the nature. Not the actual behavior but the presentation thereof, if you will.

On point two, I don't buy a lot of the legalistic arguments that E Oaks makes.

[CardiacCoug]

Disagree on the first point, agree on the second. My family (extended) has to deal with this very situation. It is nowhere near that simple and I definitely think it requires a case by case approach. Which is what I read E Oaks as saying, even if he used some hardline examples. I have siblings that I love that are not allowed to visit because of their behavior and my young kids. None of it is homosexual. What if there were that issue - would I let it affect the right to come visit me? Hard to say, and it depends on the nature. Not the actual behavior but the presentation thereof, if you will.

On point two, I don't buy a lot of the legalistic arguments that E Oaks makes.

Sure, I could see not inviting relatives over if it was a safety issue -- say drugs or violence were issues. But I think saying a brother or sister isn't welcome, for example, is nothing like a child. I could really never imagine saying a child wasn't welcome in my home just because he/she had a gay partner.

That lady who hugged me in public after I took care of her lesbian partner during her heart attack a few months ago -- turns out I really should have stepped away from her and said, in the words of Elder Oaks: You can't expect me "to deal with you in a public situation that would imply my approval of your “partnership.”"

Reflects my lack of spirituality, I guess, that I didn't have that reaction.

[Clark Addison]

A few incredibly unChristlike portions, in my opinion:



Don't let your gay son bring his partner home for holidays because it would set a bad example for younger people? Really? Don't expect us to be seen with you and your partner in public? Who thinks that way anymore? Just the opposite seems true to me. It's a terrible example to tell your gay son he can't bring his partner to your home. It's a terrible example to not want to be seen with your gay son and his partner.

This next part is incredibly condescending and insulting to gay people, comparing them to criminals and saying they just want marriage to "feel better about themselves." Incredibly insensitive and showing that he knows very few if any gay people -- it has nothing to do with "feeling better" about themselves.



I guess we really do want to be known as the church that hates gay people. The church where parents don't let their gay kids come home for holidays. The church where parents don't want to be seen in public with their gay kids. The church that compares gay people to criminals and says they only want marriage to "feel better" about themselves. Very disappointing.

I agree with you on both these points.

[Pheidippides]

Sure, I could see not inviting relatives over if it was a safety issue -- say drugs or violence were issues. But I think saying a brother or sister isn't welcome, for example, is nothing like a child. I could really never imagine saying a child wasn't welcome in my home just because he/she had a gay partner.

That lady who hugged me in public after I took care of her lesbian partner during her heart attack a few months ago -- turns out I really should have stepped away from her and said, in the words of Elder Oaks: You can't expect me "to deal with you in a public situation that would imply my approval of your “partnership.”"

Reflects my lack of spirituality, I guess, that I didn't have that reaction.

Safety isn't the issue in any of these cases. My point is that, for me, I have the same problem with a sibling who is gay and then comes to my house with partner in tow and then wears their gayness as a challenge (as opposes to being normal about it, as most gay people I know are) as I do with a sibling who get knocked up by her piece of shit boyfriend and then expects me to let them come over to my house and show off their trashy lifestyle to my kids. (I have the latter - not the former - and it is the main reason I do not visit Utah or my parents with my kids very often; my parents know this and they visit me instead). It's about active presentation - key word active - of behavior I do believe to be sinful around kids that I'm trying to teach right and wrong to. Passive presentation - simply by living a certain way and being pretty chill like a normal person - is not a concern. Admittedly I am sensitive to this because if an uncle who is very much of the active type. I will spare you details but every day is like a gay pride parade with him.

Children are, as you point out, different than siblings, to me at least, and I would think I would make allowances. Maybe I'd have a chat with my kids before something like thanksgiving to make sure that the level of discomfort would be as low as possible, but that's probably it, as I know my kids would be cool about it. I'm an awesome dad, after all.

[byu71]

That's not the issue. The real issue is that we have a church that wants to cater to all types of people, gay & straight, black & white, male & female, all while having it's stick stuck in the mud on doctrine. This leads to some double speak and a lot of rationalization from the church.

On one hand you have the church saying it loves gays.

On the other hand you have the church pushing for Prop 8.

At some point the church will have to stop catering to the masses or move its stick. Typically with issues like this the church likes to kind of move the stick one little bit at a time so as to not cause a commotion from the membership and to conform to the general feeling from the masses. There have only been a couple times (probably twice) when the church actually picked up the stick and moved it a noticable amount of distance for all to see.

Unlike blacks and the priesthood. Unlike birth control. I really doubt the church ever changes is fundamental position on gay marriage. In other words I don't ever think a time will come when you see gays being allowed to be married in the Temple. There will in my opinion always be enough people in the US who consider gay relationships as morally wrong, that there won't be enough pressure to change.

I do believe the hard stance and silent OK to treat gays as inferior will change. I see a time in the future where gays will be treated by the church like blacks were prior to the revelation giving them the Priesthood.

On a side note. Does anyone know if it is still church doctrine that the Lamanites will eventually turn white.

[Levin]

Church backs up BKP comments. This was on the front page of today's DNews:

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comm...-marriage.html

Comments so far have all been enthusiastic about the hard-line approach. I would say more, but I don't want to appear supercilious.

Pouting is just as unbecoming as superciliousness.

Go ahead and share your thoughts!

[scottie]

Unlike blacks and the priesthood. Unlike birth control. I really doubt the church ever changes is fundamental position on gay marriage. In other words I don't ever think a time will come when you see gays being allowed to be married in the Temple. There will in my opinion always be enough people in the US who consider gay relationships as morally wrong, that there won't be enough pressure to change.

I do believe the hard stance and silent OK to treat gays as inferior will change. I see a time in the future where gays will be treated by the church like blacks were prior to the revelation giving them the Priesthood.

On a side note. Does anyone know if it is still church doctrine that the Lamanites will eventually turn white.

I agree. And if they -- FP/Qo12 -- know it's never going to change (which they no doubt do), they need to be more strategic I think; full-fledged support of Prop. 8 and BKP talks will not fly 50 years from now (they barely fly now).