Homosexuality Thread for the Celestial Forum

[Shulem]

RULES FOR THE CELESTIAL FORUM:

1. Keep all communications "Rated G."
2. No personal attacks allowed whatsoever. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.
3. No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.
4. No swear words allowed. Not only does this mean to avoid the "F" and "S" words and any of their many variants, it also means to avoid lesser bad words such as "bitch," "piss," "ass," etc. Altering the spelling or substituting a symbol for a character does not give you a free pass to disregard this rule.
5. No specific temple content allowed.

Homosexuality

Published by
the First Presidency and the Council of
the Twelve Apostles of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Copyright © 1981 by Corporation of
the President of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints
All Rights Reserved Printed in
the United States of America


This thread is presented in good faith with the sincere wish that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be held accountable for its previous doctrines and policies wherein this official manual (link above) was published as a mandate for all Church leaders and members alike.

This manual may be embarrassing for many faithful members of the Church today. Nonetheless, this was the position of the Church and was totally binding at the time it was given.

Participation in this thread is encouraged and welcome but please be sure to abide by the RULES FOR THE CELESTIAL FORUM as well as the UNIVERSAL RULES.

Thank you

[Shulem]

Where to even start? Here, I'll take a stab at it:

Homosexuality is of grave concern to
the Church because -
1. It violates the Lord's eternal plan for
man's progress by perverting the
proper use of procreative powers and
loving relationships.
2. It deprives God's children of the
happiness and fulfillment possible only
in family life.
3. It debases and demeans those
involved.
4. It is as sinful as heterosexual adultery and fornication.
5. It may involve violent or criminal
behavior.

1. Everyone will agree that Mormonism condemns homosexuality as a sexual perversion. The Church has every right to set the rules of their Church and decide how members must live in order to remain members in good standing.

2. Not everyone wants the same things in life. Different strokes for different folks. Right?

3. Homosexuals don't necessarily feel debased or demeaned in their sexuality; hence, the statement is false. It's the Mormons who debase and demean sexual behavior of homosexuals. It's Mormonism that stands in judgment and is pointing the finger!

4. Fair enough. The Church is entitled to set its rules just as any club or organization.

5. Now this is where I have a problem, a serious problem! Statement number 5 is designed to incite fear and accuse homosexuals of being particularly subject to violence and criminal behavior more so than their heterosexual counterparts. It's an assault on homosexuals and tends to paint them as criminals or at the very least more likely to behave criminally because of their sexual orientation and practice. But the same could also be said for heterosexual behavior that "may involve violent or criminal behavior"; moreover, the same could be said for faithful Latter-day Saints that are just as capable of exhibiting violent or criminal behavior as much as anyone else.

Do you see my point? Being homosexual doesn't make one susceptible to being violent or criminal in nature. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's moral conduct with regards to violence and criminal behavior. The Church is wrongfully applying this to a whole class of people simply because of who they are and ending the list with that kind of subtle accusation is designed to instill fear and prejudice.

What the Church is doing is unprofessional and ignorant. It instills fear and fear instills hate.

[Shulem]

A. The Position of the Church on Homosexuality

. . . . homosexuality is a sin in the same degree as adultery . . . . (p. 1)

I don't object that religions have the right to hold the position that homosexuality is a sin. That is their prerogative but I strongly disagree and question their inspiration as having come from God. However, it seems unfair to class homosexuality for those in a committed relationship as being in the same degree of sin as adultery. A relationship between two persons of the same sex is going to involve intimate homosexual relations, that's a given. But two committed persons who are faithful to their relationship, and treat each other with love and respect, is in a different class than adultery which involves more than just having sex with another person; it involves cheating -- perhaps deceit, lying, and cover-ups. Thus, adultery involves so much more than just sexual relations. It often leads to misery and a great deal of hurt feelings.

So, I find it unfair and unmeasured that the Church classifies homosexual relations to be just as bad as adultery. The list of wrongdoings that can be tacked on to a nasty case of adultery are far worse than two loving committed homosexuals who are pursuing their lives together according to their own conscience. The US Constitution grants everyone basic unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Shulem]

A. The Position of the Church on Homosexuality

Some claim
homosexuality is incurable, therefore
they seek to be considered a
legitimate minority group protected
by law. (p. 1)

The statement that some consider homosexuality to be incurable is not something I want to comment on in this particular post. However, the Church seems to have taken the position that those who consider homosexuality to be incurable are also advocating for basic rights as a minority to have certain protections under the law. What might some of those basic protections under the law be? How about equal employment rights and fair housing? Doesn't it seem reasonable that homosexuals (whether practicing or not) deserve employment and to have a roof over their head?

Fair employment and housing has not always been a basic right that members of the Church have supported. This brings to mind Initiative 13, whereby voters in the city of Seattle in 1978 sought to deny homosexuals basic rights and allow for open discrimination in both employment and housing. The Mormon community was in favor of Initiative 13 which denied gays protection under the law. Thankfully, the measure was defeated: "Seattle voters reject Initiative 13 decisively, by nearly two to one. Initiative 13 would have repealed city ordinances protecting employment and housing rights for gays and lesbians". Religious groups, including the Mormon community, lost their bid in denying gays basic rights affordable to everyone under the Constitution. Decades later, religious groups including Mormons, would lose another bid to deny gay rights but the Supreme Court ruled for fairness under the law and gay marriage prevailed. Freedom under the Constitution and liberty and justice for all!

I would like to point out that the Church and its members, today, generally support fair employment and housing rights for homosexuals. The Church has made major concessions and has shifted its position in recognizing that basic rights protected by law belong to everyone regardless of religion or sexual orientation. This is a positive step in the right direction and the Church should be commended for making a correction and moving forward.

[Shulem]

B. The Causes of Homosexual
Behavior

1. Disturbed Family Background
a) A key factor in the development of
both male and female homosexuality
seems to be the lack of a warm,
supportive, affectionate relationship
between the individual and his father.
Many times the father is either
physically or emotionally uninvolved
in his child's life or is punishing and
authoritarian. (p. 1)

I can't fathom the Church today or any of its various professional representatives supporting the above assumption as a key or root factor in causing homosexual behavior. Surely, this assumption has gone by the wayside and has been dropped. It's simply not true. It was cold and callous and sadly was widely accepted in the mindset of Latter-day Saint thinking -- even sanctioned by the highest levels of Church authority wherein it was seen as a key reason that someone (anyone) might turn gay.

I would like to present two examples that I believe adequately dismiss the above assumption presented by the First Presidency (Leadership of Spencer W. Kimball) as harmful nonsense that should never have been published or endorsed by the Church. It's impossible to weigh the enormous hurt feelings that this official Church policy must have caused to those suffering while seeking pastoral care and understanding from Church officials.

1. Myself. My father was extremely warm, supportive, and affectionate. My relationship with my father did not turn me into a homosexual. My siblings would vouch for that.

2. I'm willing to bet that elder Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve would vouch that his father did not fall into the above criteria and that his gay brother Tom, did not become homosexual because of his father's failure to be a good parent. The following two links share Tom's story about how he learned to deal with being gay and there is no need to blame his father.

Deseret News -- Gay brother of Mormon apostle shares his spiritual journey

The Salt Lake Tribune -- Mormon apostle’s gay brother shares his religious journey, preaches love for his former partner, faith and family

[Shulem]

As a people, we accept today standards of conduct that would have been totally unacceptable yesterday. For example, the filthy, obscene language that is read and heard under the guise of freedom of speech is becoming more and more acceptable in so-called respectable society. Pornography has become a major industry in many parts of the world. The chief psychotherapist at one of Washington's largest hospitals says, "A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual. You can take healthy boys or girls and by exposing them to abnormalities virtually crystallize and settle their habits for the rest of their lives."

Two years later, Bishop Brown, became the Presiding Bishop of the Church and continued to serve in that role for 13 years until honorably released from that position in 1985. It leaves one to wonder how many bishops of the Church were counseled to accept the idea that exposure to pornography could turn one into a homosexual. Add this to the official Church manual which states: "A key factor in the development of both male and female homosexuality seems to be the lack of a warm, supportive, affectionate relationship between the individual and his father"; herein, the Presiding Bishop of the Church at *that* time officially supported the idea that homosexuality may be caused by the following reasons:

1. An unloving father
2. Exposure to pornography


The following year, the saints were told that homosexual acts were "inspired by the devil", thus, inciting fear and a sense of loathing towards those who succumb to such grievous temptations:

Fornication and homosexual acts are inspired by the devil and are grievous sins in the sight of God.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Church has not always been very supportive of legal protections for homosexuals. Elder Peterson seemed to question rights of homosexuals being afforded protection under laws enacted by legislation:

Why should legislatures condone immorality, whether homosexual or otherwise?

Peterson takes it even further to suggest that Americans be forced to abide by Christian laws of the bible whereby everyone is forced to keep rules set by religion:

Why should legislatures favor a wholesale violation of the Sabbath day and defeat Sunday closing laws? Why should so-called Christian peoples put up with it?

I think it's abundantly clear that Peterson is not want to allow homosexuals to have rights under the law or nonChristians the right to shop on the Christian sabbath. But what is the sabbath, Saturday or Sunday? Some Christians maintain it's Saturday and so do the Jews. Does religion get to decide what days Americans can shop? Isn't this a free country with the separation of religion and state?

It's clear to me that Peterson wasn't interested in the rights of free people to shop how they like or whether homosexuals have fair employment and housing rights afforded by law. No, I don't get that vibe, at all. The policies and doctrines of the Church as expressed by its leaders when the 1981 Homosexual Manual was published are quite clear; homosexuals are evil people:

We live in a day of evil and wickedness. The generality of men are carnal, sensual, and devilish. They have forgotten God and are reveling in the lusts of the flesh. Crime, immorality, abortions, and homosexual abominations are fast becoming the norm of life among the wicked and ungodly.

And there you have it. An apostle of Mormonism stating in General Conference that crime and homosexual abominations go hand in hand. Nothing could be more offensive to the listening ear of a homosexual having to hear such slanderous accusation made by an official of the Mormon Church. It's utterly reprehensible. But, to be fair, that was 1980. Times have changed and the Church is seeing things today in a new light -- through further light and knowledge!

Thank heaven for that!

[Shulem]

The Church is on record for painting homosexuals as criminals, lumping them into a pot of every imaginable crime known to man. Gone are the times, thankfully, when homosexuals are considered criminals simply because of their sexual orientation and practice. It's hard to imagine an apostle of the Church today making the kind of statements made in the past that were uttered over the pulpit of General Conference as if the Spirit of God was witnessing that to be be homosexual was to be criminal -- one in the same.

To me, it is an enthralling thought that the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ is the Army of the Lord.

When Cromwell was fighting his battles to obtain the control of Britain, on one occasion he came to a stream, and across the stream was the enemy. Before his men plunged into the stream, he said, "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry." He did not say, "but keep your powder dry," because that would have had in it an implication of derision of the first statement, "Put your trust in God." Cromwell said: "Put your trust in God . . . and keep your powder dry."

That statement embodies a principle which is just as applicable to you brethren as it was to the army of Cromwell.

"Put your trust in God . . . and keep your power dry." And what is your powder? Well, there is one little thing I would like to suggest to you, before talking about the powder, and that is this: Do not cross over the line into the camp of the enemy, and beware of those who cross the line from your enemy and come into your ranks. They may be all right, but many and many a man, I think that is not an exaggeration, is coming over to us from the camp of the enemy. We welcome him and take him in, and he turns out to be a
spy, one who is seeking to destroy us. Be on your guard.

Now, as to the powder. The man who is unchaste has wet powder. The man who is guilty of that filthy crime of homosexuality, has wet powder. The man who cheats his neighbor, his powder is not dry. The man who blasphemes, his powder is not dry. So the man who lies, and steals. Somewhat so the man who is selfish, who is unkind, who is uncharitable. So is the man who does not do his duty in the great Army, who does not stand guard to keep out the enemy, the man who does not live so that the Lord can give him inspiration and revelation according to his needs.

From the above, we learn that the "filthy" homosexual leads the pack as if he too is a traitor and someone that cannot be trusted. In effect, he has become an enemy. Where on earth did leaders of the Church learn this sort of doctrine? The leaders got it from their leaders who have been preaching this kind of hate in the Church and over the pulpit for a long time. President Cannon was quick to condemn the "nameless crime" (homosexuality) in the most harshest of terms and that all homosexuals deserve to die:

In England a short time ago a man who had posed in society as a man of culture and of taste, and who lectured upon esthetics, was found to be guilty of a most abominable crime — a crime for which under the old law the penalty was death; a crime which was practiced by the nations of old, and caused God to command their destruction and extirpation. This crime was proved against this man, and some of his associates were what are called noblemen. He was sent to prison. His term of imprisonment having expired, he comes from prison, and is now engaged, it is so published, in writing a book, and, we suppose is received into society, though guilty of this nameless crime. And is this common? If we may believe that which is told to us, without going into researches ourselves, it and other kindred wickedness, is far too common. The same sin that caused the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah! This and other abominable crimes are being practiced. How will these be stopped? Only by the destruction of those who practice them. Why, if a little nest of them were left that were guilty or these things, they would soon corrupt others, as some are being corrupted among us. In coming to these mountains we hoped to find a place where we could live secluded from the abominations of Babylon. But here in this secluded place wickedness intrudes itself, and is practiced in this land which we have dedicated to the Lord as a land of Zion! How can this be stopped? Not while those who have knowledge of these filthy crimes exist. The only way, according to all that I can understand as the word of God, is for the Lord to wipe them out, that there will be none left to perpetuate the knowledge of these dreadful practices among the children of men. And God will do it, as sure as He has spoken by the mouths or His prophets. He will destroy the wicked, and those who will be left will be like the Nephites after the wicked were all killed off; they were righteous men and women who lived for over two hundred years according to the law of heaven.

Today, in modern times, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are no longer subject to having to listen to this kind of pernicious rhetoric in General Conference. A new wind and a new spirit has come over Mormonism as it begins to embrace the fact that gays and lesbians make up a large part of the population within the family of humankind.

[Shulem]

Basically, the Church Manual makes an overall case for social denial of homosexual rights on a legal (civil) level as well as a religious one:

C. Rationalization

Many persons involved in homosexual activities during recent years have publicly requested special exemption from social, legal, and religious prohibitions. . . .

3. Homosexuality is a harmless alternative lifestyle, and any legal or religious prohibition is a fundamental denial of human rights.

Such rationalization is evident even among some members of the Church who indulge in and justify homosexual practices

The fundamental denial of social and legal rights infringes upon equal employment and fair housing which was a problem for homosexuals in 1980. Apparently, the Church was not taking a position in advocating for basic rights and maintained that homosexuals were not entitled to special privileges in the Church or on a social level under protection of law. Discrimination against sexual orientation was something the Church favored and at the time did nothing to advance the cause of homosexual rights. Consensual sodomy in the state of Utah was strictly forbidden and was a crime punishable under the law.

The Church is on record for zero tolerance and favored laws that prohibit homosexuality:

We see attempts at legalization of drugs, abortion, homosexuality, and other compromising, drifting philosophies.

We should not assume that public schools always reinforce teachings given in the home concerning ethical and moral conduct. We have seen introduced into many school systems false ideas about the theory of man's development from lower forms of life, teachings that there are no absolute moral values, repudiation of all beliefs regarded as supernatural, permissiveness about sexual freedom that gives sanction to immoral behavior and "alternative life-styles" such as lesbianism, homosexuality, and other perverse practices.

We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel's wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot's visitors indicates.

There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.

We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender.

To Moses, the Lord, as recorded in Leviticus, spoke plainly and forcefully against adultery in various forms, whorings, and homosexuality. The Lord told Moses these things were an "abomination."

They are still an abomination. They still corrode the mind, snuff out self-esteem, and drag one down into darkness of anguish and unhappiness. And so we say to you: Teach your children to avoid smut as the plague it is. As citizens, join in the fight against obscenity in your communities. Do not be lulled into inaction by the pornographic profiteers who say that to remove obscenity is to deny people the rights of free choice. Do not let them masquerade licentiousness as liberty.

Again we see history repeating itself. When we see the pornography, the adulterous practices, homosexuality gone rampant, the looseness and permissiveness of an apparently increasing proportion of the people, we say the days of Satan have returned and history seems to repeat itself.

When we see the depravity of numerous people of our own society in their determination to force upon people vulgar presentations, filthy communications, unnatural practices, we wonder, has Satan reached forth with his wicked, evil hand to pull into his forces the people of this earth? Do we not have enough good people left to stamp out the evil which threatens our world? Why do we continue to compromise with evil and why do we continue to tolerate sin?

Last week the screen industry solemnly announced that henceforth perversion and homosexuality would no longer be barred from the screen provided the subjects were handled with 'delicacy and taste.' " What nonsense! . . . . and if we are threatened with the passage of laws which violate the commandments of God, it is our duty and responsibility as individuals to speak out, to organize, and to protect ourselves and our community against such encroachments. . . . . People who argue that they have constitutional rights and want to use what they call their free agency to accomplish unrighteous ends abuse the idea of free agency and deprive others of their constitutional rights.

I want to warn this great body of priesthood against that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been labeled as a sin second only in seriousness to the sin of murder. I speak of the sin of adultery, which, as you know, was the name used by the
Master as he referred to unlicensed sexual sins of fornication as well as adultery; and besides this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world, of which Church members must not be a part.

While we are in the world, we must not be of the world. Any attempts being made by the schools or places of entertainment to flaunt sexual perversions, which can do nothing but excite to experimentation, must find among the priesthood in this church a vigorous and unrelenting defense through every lawful means that can be employed.

Attitudes toward homosexuality have been liberalized in England, and in many cities in the United States some lawmakers, clergymen, and social leaders are clamoring for a liberal attitude in our land.

For homosexuality, it was death to the male and the prescription or penalty for the female I do not know. . . . . I wonder if the defilement of the land by abominations still has force and effect, and if it has any significance for us? That was the way in which the Lord taught the Israelites what they should not do. Death was to be by burning or by stoning.

[Physics Guy]

The lecturer on aesthetics to whom Cannon referred in your post above, who went to prison for formerly capital crimes with members of the nobility, was surely Oscar Wilde. Wilde served two years of pretty hard time and was released but he did not simply rebound into society; he left the United Kingdom for France, fell into poverty and died of meningitis in less than four years.

[Shulem]

The lecturer on aesthetics to whom Cannon referred in your post above, who went to prison for formerly capital crimes with members of the nobility, was surely Oscar Wilde. Wilde served two years of pretty hard time and was released but he did not simply rebound into society; he left the United Kingdom for France, fell into poverty and died of meningitis in less than four years.

Thank you for revealing those details, Physics Guy. This impressed me to click links and uncover more about Sodomy laws in the territory of the State of Deseret which later became, Utah. Here are some interesting cases involving Sodomy Laws in Utah, wherein the Church abused and persecuted homosexuals in a cruel and inhuman manner. This page reveals horrible practices the Church was responsible for:

Please note, some of the following historical acts are difficult to read and is disturbing. Be advised that I have no intention in discussing details that are not suitable for the Celestial Forum.

***VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED***

Utah, settled in 1847, was organized as a territory in 1850.

It enacted its first code of laws in 1851 as the "State of Deseret." Included was a criminal code that prohibited "any man or boy" from having, or attempting to have, "any sexual intercourse with any of the male creation." The penalty was set at fine or imprisonment "as the court may direct." This law, though probably not valid since Utah was a territory and not a state, nevertheless evidently permitted prosecution for fellatio. The "any sexual intercourse" term seemed broad enough to permit it. This would have been only the second such law in the nation.

A new code was adopted in 1852. This code made no mention either of sodomy or common-law crimes, thus legalizing sodomy in the territory.

Despite the legality of sodomy in Utah at this time, it apparently met with punishment in certain cases. In 1853, a Mormon Apostle, Parley P. Pratt, gave a sermon recommending "blood atonement" for sodomy.

In 1857, a man was castrated for an undisclosed sex crime, the punishment meeting with the approval of LDS President Brigham Young. The man so punished later "went crazy." Two castrations for sodomy, or accused sodomy, also occurred in 1859.

Later in 1876, the legislature enacted a new code that contained a sodomy law with the common-law definition providing for a penalty of up to five years in prison.

In 1882, two different men were convicted of sodomy and were imprisoned for just four months after their trials.

In 1923, nearly a decade after the Johnson decision that fellatio was not illegal under the sodomy law, the legislature acted. The statute broadened the definition to outlaw "sodomy or any other detestable and abominable crime against nature" that was committed "with either the sexual organs or the mouth." The penalty also was raised to 3-20 years from the 5-year maximum.

In 1969, Utah became the first state in the nation to pass a law whose sole purpose was to reduce the penalty for sodomy from a felony to a misdemeanor. The new law eliminated the reference to "detestable and abominable crime against nature" and reduced the penalty for consensual acts to a maximum of six months in the county jail, and/or a fine of up to $299.61 Other acts of sodomy were penalized more severely.

Sodomy Laws in Utah