1970s Church Pamphlet on Homosexuality

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

DO you think that through prayers, study and counsel someone with SSA could learn to control their behavior? IOW, learn to remain celibate?

This is the real issue, not all the other stuff being disputed.

Yes, celibacy is a choice, but with SSA, it is much more difficult.

A hetero can remain celibate, but at least go on dates, kiss, hold hands in public, talk about relationships openly, etc...in other words, there is somewhat of a support system in place in the Church and in society that allows hetero celibates/unmarrieds to feel hope and to be a part of the ward.

A homosexual celibate can do none of these things. They cannot seek even non-sexual intimacy without Church discipline. They have no real freedom to discuss relationships, dating, hold hands with someone of the same gender, etc..in other words, they have no way to express even the most basic of feelings.

This life of social isolation must be incredibly difficult. It is not surprising to me that many LDS men with SSA wind up committing or attempting suicide.

Too often, we lack compassion for the plight of the gay LDS person. Boiling the issue down to "God said to not act on it, so dont act on it" is comical.

God told us all to not sin, so I guess that solves that dilemma. Next problem, please?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You sagging pile of shit, what did I say in the my very first post in this thread?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...92&postcount=4

I also pointed out that some of the church's viewpoints were no different than the leading psychological reference guide at the time. Shame on them for relying on the wisdom and learning of men. Maybe that should be a painful lesson to us all that rely too much on the arm of flesh.

I don't get your anger. In that link, you said it's all in a person's mind. That suggests it's something that can be changed with effort. Are you now saying that you said it's unalterable?

I'm not following you.

I don't think you're helping your argument. If the church's viewpoint then was no different than the leading psychological reference guide at the time, are you saying it wasn't based on inspiration? Or was the leading psychological reference guide at the time based on inspiration and the current ones have strayed?

So you're saying the stance at the time of the pamphlet was wrong, because the brethren were relying on the wisdom of men? And not the inspiration of God?

That seems to be what you're saying.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

SoCal is that guy who hides under the table during a brawl, then emerges after it's over and claims victory.

Sorry to differ with you, but I was recently given that title.

MIEQ compared me to a hyena who shows up at the end for a few bites, but his point was similar to yours.

You are going to have to crown SoCal something else. Again, sorry.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't get your anger. In that link, you said it's all in a person's mind. That suggests it's something that can be changed with effort. Are you now saying that you said it's unalterable?

I'm not following you.

I don't think you're helping your argument. If the church's viewpoint then was no different than the leading psychological reference guide at the time, are you saying it wasn't based on inspiration? Or was the leading psychological reference guide at the time based on inspiration and the current ones have strayed?

So you're saying the stance at the time of the pamphlet was wrong, because the brethren were relying on the wisdom of men? And not the inspiration of God?

That seems to be what you're saying.

Just because the brain controls and processes sexual urges doesn't by definition imply that it's strictly a voluntary brain function. There are innumerable involuntary or semi-voluntary brain functions that we can't completely control.

The church is right that homosexual relationships are not of God. That is revelation.

Their interpretation or understanding of the origins and how to "cure" such urges are not necessarily of God and may primarily be a reflection of contemporary academic literature.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Sorry to differ with you, but I was recently given that title.

MIEQ compared me to a hyena who shows up at the end for a few bites, but his point was similar to yours.

You are going to have to crown SoCal something else. Again, sorry.

You're right. He's more like the guy that throws a sucker punch, anyway.

The title of the cowardly hyena you can keep.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're right. He's more like the guy that throws a sucker punch, anyway.

The title of the cowardly hyena you can keep.

He didnt reference courage. Now you are putting words in his mouth.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

SoCal is that guy who hides under the table during a brawl, then emerges after it's over and claims victory.

Pearls before swine, Tex. It's all about not casting pearls before swine.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Pearls before swine, Tex. It's all about not casting pearls before swine.

I would believe that, if I thought you had any.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Just because the brain controls and processes sexual urges doesn't by definition imply that it's strictly a voluntary brain function. There are innumerable involuntary or semi-voluntary brain functions that we can't completely control.

The church is right that homosexual relationships are not of God. That is revelation.

Their interpretation or understanding of the origins and how to "cure" such urges are not necessarily of God and may primarily be a reflection of contemporary academic literature.

Just trying to understand your position.

You agree that homosexuality is not a result of choice, correct?

You agree that homosexuality may well be a result of one of the many involuntary brain functions that we can't completely control, correct?

You accept the church's position that homosexual relationships are not of God, right?

You cannot argue that there are any proven methods or "curing" homosexuality, right?

So, you would agree that the only course of action acceptable before God by a homosexual is to live a life of celibacy, with no hope for entering into an intimate relationship with another human being while in this life?

[Sleeping in EQ]

An interesting case study would be Presiding Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith.