"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. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we 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."
This was really interesting to me, considering we spent a few class periods discussing how some people were born with the tendencies to be attracted to people of their same sex. It would be really interesting to see what other quotes from the brethren that you can find on this topic. Let me know what you think!
This might be a good time for me to pipe up and say something. I have done a lot of research on the church's past and current position on the topic, and here is some of what I have found:
ReplyDeletePresident Hinckley first indicated a change in the "born that way debate" when he was asked in 2004 by Larry King if gays are “born that way?” President Hinckley said, “I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things. I don’t pretend to be an expert on these things.” This was the first time the door was opened slightly on the debate of choice and homosexuality.
Elder Holland in his Ensign article says “the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life.” (When a Loved One Struggles With Same-Gender Attraction, Oct 2007)
Elder Wickman stated in the Oaks/Wickman statement, “Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?”
Dallin H. Oaks said “The Church doesn’t have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same gender attraction. Those are scientific questions—whether nature or nurture—those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on." (Oaks/Wickman statement)
That certainly gives room for other possible explanations besides choice.
This position put forward by Boyd K Packer in the 1970s has been clarified and changed significantly in recent years. I think it is important to rely on the more recent revelation, much of which is exactly opposite to this statement.
When Becky and I met with Elder Holland about same-sex attraction, he made it very clear that he believes SSA is not a choice. Actually, he told us that we "were the textbook case on how to deal with this issue" which suggests to me that change is not necessary.
The clarifications and shifts in church policy couldn't have been more timely. I still believe there is still a lot more to be revealed/clarified, because there are still plenty of loose ends with this issue in the church.
Elder Holland also expressed concern that some church memebers were not getting the message about these significant changes in church policy. I hope that any lingering doubts do not exist for this class, especially after our presentation to you.
We rely on the latest word from our apostles and prophets, and not on past statements that have since been corrected.
Cheers!
Chris
On a side-note, what does it mean exactly to be a "masculine, manly man"? When I read this statement years ago, I found that stereotype a little offensive. Just because I am gay does not mean I am effeminate, or uncomfortable being male. I am glad this incorrect idea has been corrected.
The church is still true. :)
Okay so I don't understand why some people think that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to be gay? Just knowing that if they are open about it they will most likely have to deal with criticism and persecution and not to mention unequal rights if they live in the US. And if they aren't open about it they have the burden of always feeling as if they have to hide their secret and can never have a romantic relationship.
ReplyDeleteProphets are not perfect. This doesn't make them any less of a prophet. They do their best with the current knowledge that they have. When blacks received the priesthood in 1978 Elder McConkie said,
"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
What Elder Packer said in 1976 about gays was what I believe he thought to be true with the limited knowledge that he had. Since then prophets have gained more light on the subject and say that they don't know the reasons for SSA. We need to go with the most current statements by prophets.
I don't think that members of the church should feel as if they have to hide it if they struggle with SSA. It is only a sin if you act upon it. So why do they feel as if they have to keep it a secret? Because many members of the church still believe that having those feelings is wrong, which is not true.
I would like to reply kindly to what Elder Packer stated in 1976. The main point made by this General Conference talk, was that we are not born homosexual. I believe that homosexuality is a product of our environment or in some cases, choice. The term 'sociology' is the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society and the effects on those humans. As adoloescents, our psyche is easily shaped. The events that have happened to us while growing up can easily affect whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteWe may be spiritually predisposed to homosexuality when we are born, but we are not born with homosexuality. There is a difference. A predisposition is an effect that influences a person, but can be changed by his of her environment. For instance, my sister has a predisposition to addictions. At one time, she was anorexic (an addiction to a 'perfect' body image). She knows her limits and weaknesses, so she knows never to get involved with alcohol or drugs, because of her prediposition to addiction. She was not born anorexic or with any addiction, but she is more likely to become addicted to something than the average person.
I also disagree with going with the 'most recent' revelations. Revelation does not go old or stale. This quote has never been revoked or corrected by the church. In any cases of new revelation such as Blacks receiving the priesthood, there was an official statement declaring that all previous doctrine on the matter was now replaced by this 'new' doctrine. There is no such statement in the subject of homosexuality. I also disagree with the latest post that prophets are not perfect. While they are not perfect as men, their inspiration and revelation is perfect. This talk was given in a General Conference. All talks must first pass by the prophet before being given. This is not merely Elder Packer's opinion, but an approval of the Church.
The quotes that Christopher gave are correct. They discuss the origin or the feelings of homosexuality. The Church does not know whether people are predisposed, choose to, or become a product of their environment, but they have taught that we are not born with with it. That is my only point.
In the same talk by Dallin H. Oaks, where he states that, 'the church does not have a position on the causes of these susceptibilities,' he also states, 'we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation."
While each individual is unique, and each circumstance, I do believe that we were not born into such conditions, especially since secondary sexual characteristics aren't developed until a decade after we are born. I don't think anyone can claim that they knew they were born with it because as a child they did certain things. We are pretty androngynous as children. I put on dresses and played with Barbies as a child (I'm a boy), but I'm heterosexual. I don't think we discover our sexuality until much later in life, long after we are born. Factors can play into the growth and psychosexual development.
By the way, the church accepts homosexuality, defined as the feelings towards that same gender, but not the behaviors of homosexuality. I understand and agree with most of what you say, beside the fact that people are born into these conditions.
I think if you scrutinize a little more closely what President Packer was saying was that it is false that there is nothing you can do about it. He is focusing more on the fact that you don't HAVE to act on it, which I totally agree with. He is absolutely correct in saying that there is no "mismatching" of bodies. While some people may be born with the temptation to be attracted to the same sex, they do not have to act upon it. This I believe we can all agree with. I do think that there are people who are born with more or less of a disposition to be gay, and that because of environmental factors many more people actually become fully homosexual. There are also some people who are possibly born fully so, and I am not going to presume to say who is born with what percentage of it, but the fact that some people are bi-sexual, homosexual, heterosexual...I think the simple fact of such variety proves that there can be variations for degrees of each.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the idea that prophets are imperfect, of course they are. The only perfect prophet was Christ. Having said that, I would be very cautious in trying to judge a prophet and claim that they are incorrect in what they are saying because that is the fastest way to apostasy. I think more often than not they are misunderstood in what they say than that they are actually incorrect. They are entitled to their own opinions, as a great deal of anti-Mormon literature likes to claim as incorrect revelation, but generally they keep this to themselves because it is exactly that. So for the most part, if they are saying it to the body of the church, you can assume it's more than their personal opinion. If it's something a prophet speculates to a friend or in a private/personal setting, then it's fine to think of it as such. But generally speaking, I think that anything said in general conference or officially printed by the church can be accepted as true, and if you disagree with that then you need to be careful.
I also very much disagree with people thinking that the church was wrong in not allowing other races to have the priesthood in the past. They were not wrong to do so, and to say otherwise is to discredit the fact that Christ is truly at the head of the church. He is the one directing and guiding it through His prophets, and if you disagree with that, that's fine. But I see a direct similarity between Christ only teaching the Jews and only giving the priesthood to the Jews, until Peter was given the revelation to teach and baptize the Gentiles as well. Was it racism? Was Christ a racist and his views of the people preventing His understanding that all people are equal? No, of course not and to say otherwise is blasphemy. I believe that the Jews and people of the time were not ready for it, and God doesn't give us commandments if we are not ready to accept it (i.e. the 10 commandments were given to prepare for the fullness of the Gospel.) Therefore, I think it's accurate to presume that with Christ's church today it's the same. I do get bothered with the constant criticism and assumption that the prophets are incorrect and misguided. Like I said before, to think so is a fast road to apostasy, so just be careful.
@ Rikky: I would like to respond kindly to your assertions.
ReplyDelete"I believe that homosexuality is a product of our environment or in some cases, choice."
There was nothing that would have made me gay in my childhood or adolescence. I grew up in a normal, happy, and religious home. There was no “shaping event” on my psyche—to say so is a little insulting to my happy, secure, and normal childhood. What parts of my environment would make me gay while my brothers are straight? I knew I was gay as early as 7 years old (and probably before). Nothing made me that way, it just was a fact.
"We may be spiritually predisposed to homosexuality when we are born, but we are not born with homosexuality."
I think your phrase “spiritually predisposed to homosexuality” is interesting. I like it. What about physically or genetically predisposed, or, dare I say it “born that way?” What's the difference? It seems more risky to say it is "spiritual" and therefore eternal, than "physical" and therefore limited to mortality. That was quite a daring assertion.
"I also disagree with going with the 'most recent' revelations."
The Sunday School manual asks, “Which prophet is the most important one? The one under whom we live.”
You bet we should go with the most recent revelations, especially when they contradict previous ones. Spencer W. Kimball said in Miracle of Forgiveness that homosexuality is caused by selfishness. Now the brethren say we don’t know what causes it. Like it or not, that is a change in position. Are we really so slothful that the church has to officially point out each change in policy or position? It is not that it is "stale," it is just that our understanding has increased from where was in 1976. Spiritual and otherwise.
"Elder Oaks...also states, 'we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control."
Without any ability to control is the key phrase here, which suggests that people could be born into them with the ability to control them, as I think is my case.
"I put on dresses and played with Barbies as a child (I'm a boy), but I'm heterosexual."
Are you suggesting that one becomes homosexual because of gender confusion? Is that one of the environmental factors at work in childhood--playing dressup? This is one of the key misunderstandings and stereotypes about SSA. Being gay does not usually have anything to do with transsexual or gender identity confusion.
"I understand and agree with most of what you say, beside the fact that people are born into these conditions."
So I still don't see what is so wrong with thinking that a person could be born with same-sex attractions. We all come to earth with a body full of imperfections and tendencies. Why not same-sex attractions? If it is not a sin, and if they aren't acted on, then why not?
The church authorities are adamant that being born with SSA does not translate to the necessity to act on them, but that is it. Even Packer says the lie is that they are just "that way" and can only yield to those desires." In that regard I agree with him. I don't have to yield, which is why I got married to Becky and chose to have a family.
The reason why I take the time to point all this out is not to because I am bored, or mean, or anything. I agree with a lot of what you say. It is just that when people think SSA is a choice, it affects me negatively, and when when people say it is because of environmental factors, it affects my parents negatively. There are enough fingers pointing at "overbearing mothers" or "distant fathers" as it is. I won't stand to have it suggested that the way I was raised, or something that happened in my childhood, made me gay. It is simply not true.
All I can say is that in my case, the only possible exlanation is genetic. I can't say the same for others.
Christopher, I couldn't have said it better myself. Ditto to everything. Thank you for being so open about your life and sharing your experiences, it means a lot :)
ReplyDeleteThis is mostly in response to the comment by Alex. I don't feel like going into detail about the comment, so I'll just try to summarize the things that bothered me about it.
ReplyDeleteAs Chris stated in his comment about how President Kimball said in the Miracle of Forgiveness that homosexuality is caused by selfishness, I believe he made a mistake when he said this, I believe it was wrong of him to say this. But do I look down on him for saying this? Of course not, we all make mistakes. Even when we do our best we make mistakes unintentionally. I don't think any less of him for saying this.
Also, I don't think it is your place to tell me that I may be on the road to apostasy. My testimony is strong enough that it isn't shaken when I realize that a prophet wasn't perfect in everything he said. I think that if you believe that a prophet being wrong discredits that Christ is not the head of the church (as you stated) that is scary. And your testimony could easily be shaken because not even the prophet is perfect.
I am interested in discussing this idea of revelation in regards to the following statement posted above:
ReplyDelete"I also disagree with the latest post that prophets are not perfect. While they are not perfect as men, their inspiration and revelation is perfect. This talk was given in a General Conference. All talks must first pass by the prophet before being given. This is not merely Elder Packer's opinion, but an approval of the Church."
I have heard before that anything said in General Conference is revelation or the same as scripture. Can anyone tell me where that comes from? Is this an folklore in the church or has a prophet said this?
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about general conference talks vs. scriptures all night and this is what I've come up with thus far.
The only cannonized works in the LDS church are the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. General conference talks, books written by prophets and apostles, sunday school manuals, etc. are NOT cannonized. However, this does not mean that were not inspired.
Along those lines, here is a scripture that addresses new revelation: D&C 68:4 "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation".
I think what we need to keep in mind then, is that yes, God has provided a way for us to receive new revelation (or scripture) BUT He leaves it up to us as individuals to figure out (i.e. pray, ponder, etc.) whether what the speaker has said is in fact inspired scripture. I also found this explanation on the BYU 100 hour board site (if you don't read it, you should), provided by the writer "Yellow" back in 2006 to a similar question:
"As I understand it, there are 'levels' of revelations. Some revelations contain information critical to our salvation, such as many received in the early days of the Church. Others contain information important to our callings or duties, such as the Proclamation to the World on the Family. Yet others simply offer promised blessings and give advice on how to live, such as many General Conference talks. All are revelation from God and all are important, but not all carry the same eternal weight." (Q# 29369; www.theboard.byu.edu)
I think Yellow's reasoning here is very sound. So yes, general conference talks may be inspired, but they are not necessarily automatically scripture and are sometimes best suited to serve as general guidelines for living. In addition, I think that when we find talks that contradict one another, we should go with what has been said most recently. Sometimes Prophets make statements that fit within their particular social / temporal context that thirty years later can be considered no longer relevant (or correct).
First I wish to address MissPiggy. I apologize if I offended you. I in no way meant to say that anyone who had posted on here was in danger of apostasy. I don't know you and know nothing about you. Having said that, I think your attempt to make a personal attack on my testimony was unwarranted and immature. As President Monson stated in this last conference, it's foolish to take offense when no offense was intended. I merely meant to caution anyone inclined to disagree with or attempt to discredit the prophet. Such has led to the downfall of many stalwarts in Church history. But don't be offended by that. I think I'm on solid ground in observing that it's precarious to pick and choose when we believe the prophet and when we don't. Do I think that some past Church leaders may have incorrectly judged homosexuality as being purely a product of choice? Sure. Read what I stated before about what I believe is the root of homosexuality. My only point is that there are many people who do fall away from the Church because of their disagreements with Church leaders, and that one needs be careful when so doing. Especially when it's the prophet, past or present, with whom we disagree.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Charley, it stems from the scripture in D&C 68:3-4 which for convenience sake I'll quote for you, "And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shell be the will of the Lord...." Also read what Elder McConkie says in Mormon Doctrine on page 682. However, in Stand Ye in Holy Places on pages 162-163, President Lee states that it is scripture if and only if inspired by the Spirit, and the only leader with the ability to contradict the standard works is the President.
The key to the above quote clearly being, "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.." It is the duty of every member of the church to pray about and determine what is inspired revelation and what is not. If it is inspired, then it is truth in the fullest and there really is no room to wiggle because the Lord does not provide half-truths. Having said that, I would again state that there is a very very fine line that many people falter on when trying to determine what is inspired and what is not. Frequently, people choose to believe that something is not inspired so that they don't have to live the principle taught.
Now I feel that I need to interject a disclaimer regarding my comments. I sincerely do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings or give offense. It's just that I have seen people very close to me fall away from the Church because they lost faith in the leaders of the Church because they weren't willing to accept inspired counsel. So, I am sorry if I seem overly passionate about the subject, and I don't mean to offend anybody. But I do stand by what I have said above.
I must clarify my previous comment. I will first start with the fact that talks given in General Conference is scripture. WHEN A PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR SPEAKS IN CONFERENCE, HE IS ACTING AS SUCH: A PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR, THUS MAKING IT REVELATION OR SCRIPTURE. The concept of scripture entails two complementary definitions - a broad definition that embraces all revelation from God as "scripture," and a narrower view that only includes the standard works as "the scriptures." Both categories are authoritative, since both are viewed as coming from God. We hold in high regards the words of the church leaders at all levels. Especially authoritative are the official pronouncements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who are sustained by church members as "prophets, seers and revelators." Statements issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with consent of the First Presidency represent the official position and policy of the Church, therefore would be considered Scripture (policy) of the Church. Let us also be clear that a prophet is a mouthpiece of God. God does not contradict himself in time. I have yet to see it. There may be situations that may require social and political leverage granted by God to ease the Church's public stance, such as blacks receiving the Priesthood, or the banning of the practice of polygamy, but no where was it stated that those previous practices and statements were ever false. No prophet is more important than another. We are encourage to listen to modern revelation from current prophets just as much as the scriptures. Like I said, a prophet is a mouthpiece of God. What comes out is God's word. These revelations and statements are perfect, because they are God's words.
ReplyDeleteNow, I believe that most that have read Elder Packer's talk feel that it no longer applies to the social standard of homosexuality today. They feel that more "recent" revelation, such as the Oaks/Wickman press conference explains more correctly the origin of homosexuality. I could not disagree more. I see no contradictions in these two talks. As a matter of fact, they support one another and further prove my evidence stated above.
Elder Oaks states, "We don't understand exactly the 'why,' or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on." Let me again explain what the term 'predisposition' means. A predisposition is a genetic effect which influences a person, BUT which can be modified by environmental conditions. As it turns out, Elder Oaks uses the word 'susceptibilities' and 'inclinations' several times throughout his statement to describe the feelings of homosexuals. An inclination or susceptibility is just as effective in its usage as 'predisposition.' We are born with inclinations, susceptibilities, or predispositions to be homosexual. We are not born homosexual. It is impossible. We come out purely innocent, without sexual knowledge or passions towards any gender. Our environment nurtures those susceptibilities or discourages them. I never stated that traumatic experiences or bad parenting causes these changes. The effects can be subtle and innocent. The idea of dominant and recessive genetics would explain why one child may be homosexual, and the others are not.
To verify Elder Packer's talk, he states, "There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, WITH NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT." Elder Packer knows that we are born with susceptibilities or predispositions to be homosexual or heterosexual. We must choose our environment to better develop ourselves. We can do something about it! It is our job, once we find out our trials, how to discourage those challenges. Some succeed. Others do not. Again, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting upon the temptation is a sin. Elder Packer is in agreement with Elder Oaks.
To Alex:
ReplyDeleteI just checked the blog and don't worry I'm not offended. I think I can see where you are coming from. It was not my intention to personally attack your testimony, it was just honestly what I thought in response to your comment. But I'm sorry if it came out that way. With a sensitive subject like this, it is probably better to talk in person, because it's easy to misunderstand a person's intent in writing. Oink oink:)
Sorry, couldn't help myself:)
I did some research on the topic of revelations and doctrine and here is what I found.
ReplyDelete"How can we distinguish authentic doctrine in the Church from authoritatively promulgated opinion?" I think this is the key question, as asked by a Mormon sociologist Armand Mauss. He suggests we think of a "scale of authenticity":
Canon doctrine – four standard works of the Church
Official doctrine – statements from the president or from the First Presidency; church lesson manuals, magazines, or other publications appearing under the explicit auspices of the First Presidency
Authoritative doctrine – all of the other talks, teachings and publications of authorities on Mormon doctrines and scriptures
Popular doctrine – common beliefs such as that temple garments offer protection from physical injury
Armand Mauss puts General Conference talks under the category of official doctrine with the following caveats:
"General Conference addresses in their oral form would not routinely be included here, or, if so, only tentatively, given the revisions that they have frequently undergone before being allowed to appear in print. There is no assumption of infallibility here, but only that the legitimate spokesmen for the Church are expressing its official position at a given point in time. "Official" positions or doctrines may be subsequently changed, repudiated, or proved wrong but are still official at the time they are promulgated."
An example of authoritative doctrine would be Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. When this book was published, David O. McKay asked two senior apostles, Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney, to go over the book and make a list of corrections. "Peterson gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections" (page 50 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism).
What I take from this is that things are not always as black and white as they may seem. I could bring up plenty of negative things that were said by past prophets, or controversial things said in General Conference, but I don’t think that is necessary. I don’t think we should obey because of blind obedience, but we need to think about the things we hear and pray about them so that we can know for ourselves. Just some thoughts. Sorry for the long comment.