A Personal Interpretation of Elder Hafen’s Remarks

Question #5 – Do the General Authorities of the LDS Church support Elder Hafen’s remarks? – and if so – How would that impact on the the other 4 questions?

The problem ultimately comes down to the “purpose of life.” Our world is patterned after God’s world only it has become corrupted. With “the fall” has come all kinds of ills to afflict mankind. The scriptures plainly state that “man cannot be without the woman in the Lord” Our doctrine is that those who are not sealed will not have claims upon one another in the next life.So where does EH get it wrong? Others want to use man’s logic (science & theory) and “kick against the pricks.” Joseph Smith taught that the first principle of the gospel is faith. That is where the whole controversy around homosexuality begins and ends.

Brother Hafen had a specific audience trying to deal with a specific problem, and I’m not sure that he intended his remarks to become the pseudo-official rhetoric which is fueling this (smallish) firestorm. He was encouraging those who have made the decision to fight off homosexual tendencies, which is a decision we should respect as self-determining agents, and in the process interspersed some of his own ideas, which is to be expected in any keynote. Would it have been more offensive if Brother Hafen had made the same remarks to Affirmation rather than Evergreen, given the context of their personal decisions?

Here’s a hypothetical for you: if the Church (and society at large) were to embrace homosexuality, what would we think of those (heterosexual and homosexual) who systematically tried to change their orientation for some reason? Is that the same as Weight Watchers, or is it like learning a foreign language, or is it like an Indian man trying to be Irish, or something more dangerous to mental health than any of these? In that case, would someone who encourages those who have decided to change be excoriated or ignored?

As with so many things that are said, one just has to get over it. It’s not a personal assault on anyone; it’s meant to be hortatory to those who made a certain decision to fight rather than embrace a lifestyle that, as we now understand things, is inconsistent with the gospel. His usage of facts is somewhat suspect, but hey, welcome to the Bloggernacle!

If one has a testimony that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet and had a mandate from Heaven to bring forth the restored Gospel for the benefit of mankind and is now a member of this true Church of Jesus Christ, – then why leave it because of a personal weakness?

If this ‘thorn’ is so obvious that others in the Church ridicule and snicker at you but your testimony of the truthfullness of the Church is just as strong or stronger than theirs, then – although it’s understandable that your feelings are hurt – it still does not make sense to leave a Church that you know by a testimony to be true.

One who has this particular ‘thorn’ indeed has a problem – for they are constantly bombarded by a ‘worldly’ view that this is not a thorn at all. So, one’s testimony that the LDS Church is headed by Jesus Christ and guided by a living Prophet becomes a key factor to remain with the Church. – No matter what the hardship – For all must be tested as a metal in fire.

One thing to keep in mind is General Authorities do not have the authority to establish new doctrine. Their main purpose is to testify of Jesus Christ and to call people to repentance and to help people to try to live the gospel. While some of his logic may have been faulty, he goal seems clear that he wants to help people who don’t want to give into their homosexual tendencies. There is little ambiguity that the gospel does not condone engaging in homosexual activity, but how homosexuality tendencies will play at in the eternal scheme of things is not as clear. I think the intent of Elder Hafen’s talk was to give hope to those who are not of the attitude that you are rejecting your true self if you don’t give into your homosexual tendencies.

Neal (#6) – I agree with you that Elder Hafen’s talk needs to be viewed in the light it was intended. Evergreen’s mission is clear – they are a resource for those who wish to change their homosexual desires.

In terms of your comparisons with someone choosing to be Irish, WW, or learning a foreign language – I think we are dealing with something intensely different. First, Evergreen is intended to be a resource specifically for LDS homosexuals. Although the Evergreen website clearly indicates that they are not officially affiliated with the LDS Church, they do have emeritus GAs on their board, and the choice of a Seventy as a Keynote speaker – and the Church’s subsequent highlighting of that speech on their website – indicate an implicit condoning of Evergreen’s practices. When we are talking about weight loss or learning a new language, its not like Weight Watchers or Rosetta Stone have GAs on their board, Seventies speaking at their conferences, and their programs featured on the LDS.org newsroom.

Second, if you look into the mechanisms for treatment that Hafen (and presumably Evergreen) gives implicit nod to (namely, by citing quotes from books by Dr. Byrd and Dr. Robinson), you will find that those treatments fall under the domain of “conversion treatments” – trying to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. These treatments are pretty varied, but one that is popularly known is electroshock treatment, which was actually used on homosexuals at BYU for some time. Conversion therapies have no scientific basis. They have been shown in several meta-analyses to be ineffective. Not necessarily harmful (although they have the potential to be), but ineffective. Hafen gives the impression in his talk that the APA is in favor of those programs, when nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than being like the church supporting Weight Watchers (which has been proven clinically and is recommended by American physicians), it would be more like Elder Bednar getting up and giving a keynote address to a Mormon dieter’s association on using laxatives to control weight. Laxatives have been clinically proven to be ineffective at weight loss, and there is the potential for harm. Having the church give its implied consent to such treatment would be medical malpractice.

Finally, there is the issue of the tone used in the talk. It was condescending and homophobic. Comparing homosexuals to “angry dogs” and mistaking gender identity with homosexuality are big deals. Is this really the “public image” the church wants to give in terms of its views on homosexuality?

I was going to respond to the entry but #5 stopped me. Tell me, Jon Miranda, what you think of the fact that the divorce rate has declined in MA every year since they initiated same sex marriages? Did you know that MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country and that it is now comparable to pre-WWII rates? By contrast the 10 states with the highest divorce rates are overwhelmingly states with the highest proportion of LDS populations.

These are inconvenient facts but ones that should enter into our pronouncements if what we want is to understand Heavenly Father’s will. The kind of “knowing” that allowed Elder Hafen to make statements as fact that strategically ignore science are sending the church down a path that is pulling it apart.

Alice:

“…if we want to understand Heavenly Father’s will” – we will listen and follow the General Authorities of the LDS Church in this matter – which would mean that #5 is more right than wrong.

If the Church goes “down a path that pulls it apart” – by listening to Elder Hafen and those like him, – then it is merely a cleansing process – and many will fall to the wayside. But the Church will go on – stronger than ever.

Madam Curie:

It sounds like you are saying – what many say about pedophilia – that homosexuality is incurable.

jmb, in my opinion, the answer to #4 is categorically yes. I think that anyone who tells themselves otherwise is simply whistling past the graveyard. I know you have said before that you don’t care what others think of you, but I think it really goes beyond that. You are voluntarily maintaining your association with a group that espouses policies that are hateful and hurtful, and unless you are able to convey to every person who knows you’re a mormon that you don’t agree with that one particular issue, then you are, at least tacitly, supporting and propagating it. This also begs the question: is this the only church teaching or policy with which you strongly disagree? I think the questions you posed above can be asked about a number of other issues as well.

As a corrollary, my answer to #1(b) would be yes.

“One other thought that I had was that it is really irresponsible for Elder Hafen or the church to give “hope” to individuals for change, when its part of who they are.

Imagine that the talk were re-written and it was given to a group of black Mormons who desired to become white. Elder Hafen gave the talk, commending them for their desires to become white.”

Not the same thing at all. Choosing to act on your homosexual feeling is a choice. The color of your skin is not. Choosing to nuture and allow your homosexual tendencies to grow is a choice. Who your parents are is not. While making someone have heterosexual feelings cannot be forced, managing your homosexual feelings can be controlled, just like everyone else has to control certain tendencies that some would say are “part of who I am”. I have a natural tendency towards a short temper and yet few people know it because I have choosen to work hard to overcome those feelings. I have naturally very strong hetersexual feelings and yet I manage not to have lustful thoughts about beautiful women I see and am faithful to my wife because I have chosen to learn how to control those feelings. You could say that I am denying my true self but I know I much happier for having denied these parts of myself.

#20 – Great points, Hawk.

#25 – I definitely wasn’t suggesting that you, or anyone else, need to get into any other issues you may have with the church. I apologize if it seemed like I was fishing. I was just pointing out, as relates to the whole “tacit endorsement” issue, that I personally believe that, as you said, the same logic applies. And to the extent that you asked if this is the last straw, and should you leave, I think there may be many potential “last straws.” Of course I’m speaking of the editorial “you” as I would never tell anyone what they should do with respect to the church, even when they’ve asked my opinion. For me, though, I think that generally speaking if you have serious problems with the way an organization operates or the beliefs it espouses, I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile that with remaining a voluntary member. (again, just speaking for myself) I mean, we’re not talking about a family, where you didn’t choose to become or remain a member. This is an organization in which each person (at least those over the age of 8, guffaw) voluntarily choose to become and remain members. I think it’s a tough sell to just slough off the beliefs and policies that you disagree with and say those don’t really apply to you. I would have an easier time accepting your position about not living your life through the lens of others if we were just talking about points of doctrine. In this case, though, we’re talking about the church going on the affirmative in helping enact policies that are actually destroying families and damaging many, many people’s lives. If you think that’s what god wants, that’s one thing and as you said, we can all agree to disagree. But if you feel strongly that this is wrong, I personally have a hard time seeing how that is reconciled.

That said, I am from an extremely strong LDS family going back to the pioneers in every direction, so I understand the issues of culture, etc., and I know there are many factors involved in deciding how to handle one’s relatioship with the church. As I said, I only have to decide how I’m going to handle these issues, and don’t want to judge anyone else. I do have a hard time understanding, though.

Question 2 has another connected question implicit in it: Can Elder Hafen disagree with me on this issue and still be a good person? I would posit that agreement on unessential doctrine is not required, and this is not an essential doctrine. However, I think it’s worthwhile to respond to disagreement with reflection, rather than defensiveness (defensiveness really being an attack). If someone disagrees with me, might they be right about something, and might I be wrong about it?

Nobody likes to do this, and very few will even try it, but I think it has merits to consider, at least as an intellectual exercise.

Beyond that, question 1 is about where you think your loyalty is owed — to your Church or to your opinions. We all have opinions which contrast, to some degree, with something we have heard from the institutional Church at some level or another. But do those opinions offer you adequate compensation for what you give up by leaving the Church? For me, they do not, and, at this point, they don’t for you either, apparently.

I realize we keep getting off topic, and I think perhaps it is because no one really feels comfortable telling you what YOU should feel/do, jmb. We can just tell you how we deal with the same questions.

1. Is this the last straw? Should I simply leave the church?
I think what constitutes someone’s last straw is going to differ from person to person, and it will in large part depend on whether or not he or she already been “through the wringer”. Taken alone, this talk is nothing. In the context of one’s personal experiences with church leadership and homosexuality, or with the church’s activity in Prop 8, the wording of things like Hafen’s talk may be enough to push you over the edge. It reminds me of the “going apostate over spilled milk” story. No one goes apostate over spilled milk; there is always something deeper and more intrinsic that is being threatened. The spillage is just the straw.

2. If not, do I have to agree with Elder Hafen to be a member in good standing?
Absolutely, categorically, 100% not.

3. How can I categorize, or otherwise deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?
This is where it gets trickier for me to answer for you. You are not me. I can tell you how I deal with his remarks (which lead me to rant and scream and cry, for what its worth) – I picked them apart as false, and then recognized him as a flawed man (as we all are). I recognized where his comments were speaking from a place of discomfort and a lack of knowledge, as he is not a homosexual. This naturally leads to stereotyping and assumptions. I am guilty of making assumptions about others I do not understand as well. I also recognized that he was talking to a group at Evergreen – not to me, and not to Affirm. That makes a big difference. Talking with him one-on-one may differ from his giving prepared notes on a prepared topic.

I also recognize his biases. He is clearly a right-wing attorney. Those biases came out in his talk. We don’t just have right-wing attorneys in the church; they are all over America. He is not a scientist, or even a social scientist. He clearly believes strongly in the nature of our spirits, and the idea that there are divine, prescribed roles for men and women. I may disagree with him strongly, but I recognize that I can disagree without being disagreeable, and I can reject the talk without rejecting him.

4. What is my relationship with the church, and does my membership imply my consent for, or agreement with what has been said?
I think its totally ok to respond to friends, others, whoever, that you disagree with what was said. Heck, people managed to stay active Mormons in CA while voting “No” on Prop 8. It was hard, but some managed. I think the answer to this question all depends on how you view your membership with the church, as well as how you view Prophets and their counsel on such things as homosexuality.

Mr. (I refuse to use the honorific “Elder”) Hafen’s comments were disgusting to me, and make me ashamed of the association I have with Mormonism. They were very much a last straw, breaking my hope that there ever could be progress in the church toward formally renouncing its racist, sexist, homophobic doctrines. There’s no room for people who believe in equality in Mormonism.

#33. “It might not just be a question of whether or not he (or any member) can stomach that teaching. It’s a question of whether they can maintain membership as the church continues on the warpath against all things gay, both within and without the church. I think the consideration is much different.”

I see your point in 2 parts that need to be replied to:
1. Different than other laws: No, I don’t see it different at a certain level, meaning obedience to the law of chastity or obedience to the law of Word of Wisdom. Some people have more of a problem with some laws, and some have different tests in life. But we’re asked to live the laws the church teaches, or choose not to be a part of the church. It is our choice.

2. Doctrine: I don’t see the issue should be embelished to become a church “warpath against all things gay”. I don’t believe that is the church doctrine.

Because of that, one can choose to be gay, and still stay in the church. One cannot choose to actively break the commandment of Word of Wisdom and be worthy to hold any church office or have a temple recommend. It is no different.

The issue (homosexuality vs word of wisdom) are completely different, have completely different implications in life and to individuals, they are not similar in nature…however, they are similar in regards to there is a church standard that members need to live by. All of us need to find a way to reconcile that with our testimony in our Savior and our Heavenly Father’s teachings.

#39-

sxark-

I believe the Lord will always give peace to us, even in the most frustrating, difficult circumstances, if we seek after Him and let Him know that we want to do His will. So, we can feel an overall peace, yet struggle and suffer at the same time. If, however, we can’t find that peace residing with us while dealing with the struggling and suffering, I know I would feel that something in my life needed to change. I don’t see anything rough about that.

alice
Sep 25th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I was going to respond to the entry but #5 stopped me. Tell me, Jon Miranda, what you think of the fact that the divorce rate has declined in MA every year since they initiated same sex marriages? Did you know that MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country and that it is now comparable to pre-WWII rates? By contrast the 10 states with the highest divorce rates are overwhelmingly states with the highest proportion of LDS populations.

These are inconvenient facts but ones that should enter into our pronouncements if what we want is to understand Heavenly Father’s will. The kind of “knowing” that allowed Elder Hafen to make statements as fact that strategically ignore science are sending the church down a path that is pulling it apart.

Alice:
These is no justification for gay sex/marriage. Humans do not have the power to determine what is sin and what isn’t. All the statistics quoted in the world will not change that.

#41. yes, I see your point, it is different and hard to compare.

However, I think the point on this thread is not on the talk itself, or on homosexuality itself, but I’m reading it as what does it mean to JMB275 and his faith in the church.

To me, it is no different. JMB275 can be gay or not be gay. If he is not gay (which I know he has some beautiful daughters, which is besides the point), can he still be a member of the church and disagree with their stance on Prop 8 and these talks at Evergreen?

I say, why not? I don’t agree with the church on many things. My bishop said something last week I don’t agree with…do I have to leave the church over that? No. It doesn’t mean the church has to be perfect for me to believe in it. The teachings just have to be good enough to be making me a better person, and bring me closer to God. I do not have to be spoonfed what is right and what is wrong about every issue facing society for me to test if God has His hand in this church or not.

I don’t have to understand all the mysteries of God before I can have faith in Him. So I choose to have my faith built on what I do understand the church makes me feel good about. And I choose to disagree with Elder Hafen. That’s all, and now I can go to church next week and think about it more.

#40 – “The issue (homosexuality vs word of wisdom) are completely different, have completely different implications in life and to individuals, they are not similar in nature…however, they are similar in regards to there is a church standard that members need to live by.”

This is exactly the point. When it comes to homosexuality, the church is not content to require its members to live its proclaimed standard. It has seen fit to go outside the boundaries of its membership and push for laws that dictate to everyone how they must and must not live. This is an enormous difference between other commandments that only affect LDS members.

35 — Okay, so make it “values” instead of “opinions,” and the answer remains the same. Do you gain more by sacrificing the Church for your values as you understand them than you lose by that act? If the answer is “yes,” then, by all means, leave. The Church doesn’t claim to be a place that will conform itself to the values of anyone who might belong to it — it claims to be an organization created and run by God to teach his children how to become like him. If it was our nature to be like him out of the box, then we wouldn’t need the Church, nor would we need this life. This isn’t a social club — it’s the Kingdom of God on Earth or it’s a crock of crap. It’s made up of fallible humans, and so it has a fallible nature, but it’s not something that you can long be lukewarm about.

41 — Only if you accept that a same-sex marriage is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage for the purposes of the Law of Chastity. The Church has never, to my knowledge, done so — it’s vocal and consistent opposition to same-sex marriage strongly stands in the way of that idea. Whether you agree with these applications of the Law of Chastity as reasonable or not, there is no question in my mind that they are clearly based in the Law of Chastity, and not bigotry or hatred. I have no disagreement with homosexual individuals who accept and strive to live the Law of Chastity in terms of their lifestyle (I’ll disagree with them from time to time, just like I do everybody else).

36 — Yes. That’s why I bothered to respond to this thread. But I think we need to make the implicit question explicit so we realize what we’re talking about.

#50 – You make a good point, in that the Church’s definition of the Law of Chastity must be far more explicit than what is given in the temple – “legally and lawfully wedded”. I had always assumed that “lawfully” meant according to God’s law. However, if that is that case, since Mormons believe that God only recognizes temple marriages why do we not consider those who are heterosexuals and married outside the temple to be living in adultery?

Ugh, sorry, I do so mean to stay on track of the original discussion. Its just difficult when sub-conversations get going.

#52-

However, if that is that case, since Mormons believe that God only recognizes temple marriages why do we not consider those who are heterosexuals and married outside the temple to be living in adultery?”

What? Since when have Mormons believed that God only recognized temple marriages? Apparently, I missed something.

#55 Holy Cow! You mean Nephi was a sinner! I knew it…Lamanites were right all along!

Heber, you beat me to it!

#54 – Well, its the logical conclusion based on the authority claim. Since God only recognizes baptisms performed by those having authority, we do not consider baptisms by other churches to be valid and we rebaptize those who wish to join the church. Since we also say God only recognizes marriages when performed by one having authority, and that can only be in the temple, does that not mean that God doesn’t really recognize non-temple marriages? I mean, we tell those individuals that their marriage has no real effect after this life. How is that any different from allow a homosexual couple to be married civilly?

Madam Curie-

“Since we also say God only recognizes marriages when performed by one having authority, and that can only be in the temple, does that not mean that God doesn’t really recognize non-temple marriages?”

I understand your point, but there are a lot of people who aren’t LDS who believe in God and make Him a part of their lives and their marriages, and I don’t believe that God just doesn’t recognize their marital relationship. In fact, I believe that He expects them to be faithful to their spouse and to work on the relationship to the best of their ability like everyone else.

#62 – I understand your point, but there are a lot of people who aren’t LDS who believe in God and make Him a part of their lives and their marriages, and I don’t believe that God just doesn’t recognize their marital relationship. In fact, I believe that He expects them to be faithful to their spouse and to work on the relationship to the best of their ability like everyone else.

The same could be said of those who are baptized outside the church – they “believe in God and make Him a pare of their lives and their [church membership] and I don’t believe that God doesn’t recognize their [baptism]“.

Furthermore, I also believe that many HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES believe in God and make Him a part of their marriages. So why doesn’t He recognizes theirs, if He recognizes those not performed in the temple?

#66 – Hawk, that’s exactly where I think the role of good parenting plays a role. If one is open with their child and explains to him/her the natural curiosities and sexual confusion that come with adolescence, then I think extreme sexual experimentation can be largely averted. Sexual confusion is very common among adolescents. I’d much rather than confusion be more commonly accepted and understood than less.

Hawkgrrl re #66:

“….mainstreaming homosexuality…..comes with it’s own set of costs”. – And so close to 2012.

Madam Curie-

I believe that God does recognize the commitments that are made through marriage and baptism by those who are outside of the church and blesses them for their righteous desires and for seeking to espouse the values and follow the patterns that He has prescribed. As a matter of fact, I’m sure there are many such individuals now in the spirit world and on the earth who will accept the fulness of the gospel when it is preached to them. Then those heartfelt commitments will be connected to authoritative ordinances that will be binding in the eternal realms and not just in this life.

As far as homosexual couples and God’s established pattern for relationships, well, you have to take that up with Him, not me.

Elder Hafen’s remarks have several ethical problems. First, like all Church leaders who speak on the topic he reduces homosexuality to physical acts / attractions. Second he is willing to speak for, and in place of the other. These two are closely related.

Its amazing to me that it needs to be said over and over again that homosexual folks are seeking to forge the same trusting, interdependent, spiritually and emotionally intimate relationships that heterosexuals are. Homosexuality and heterosexuality will always both be about far more than sexual acts, they are both about being relationship. Hafen won’t allow gay people to describe their own lives and the meaning of their sexuality because he believes he already knows it. For him the institutional discourse of the church has far more meaning and descriptive power than the lives and experiences of gay folks. This is what makes gay rights exactly the same as other civil rights struggles. Its a clash between an empowered group believing it has the right and authority to define the meaning and nature of another group’s being. During women’s suffrage men continually defined women as irrational and intellectually inferior. Throughout the ugly history of slavery and jim crow whites continually asserted that the nature of blackness was to be violent, dumb and lazy. In both cases religious arguments were brought in to justify prejudice. The same exact structure is found in the remarks of many of our church leaders.

I just don’t see where Christian / Mormon ethics and theology allow us to use difference for the sake of degradation, or allow us to assert that we have the power and authority to definitively speak about the meaning and nature of someone else’s existence.

Compassion, empathy, and love are born out being in genuine relationship with others. They are not a veneer applied to our remarks as we assert our power and redefine the experiences of others to meet our own needs.

#74 – Its amazing to me that it needs to be said over and over again that homosexual folks are seeking to forge the same trusting, interdependent, spiritually and emotionally intimate relationships that heterosexuals are.

Thank you, Ethics. I tried to say this in #31, but it got lost in the melee.

Jen, I guarantee that whatever ward I live in, there will be at least one couple stealing kisses.

Jon (#79) – There is a HUGE difference between same-sex relationships and pedophilia. The first is between consenting adults; the second is a violation of a child.

#76- I saw and enjoyed your remarks in #31. I was hoping to reinforce it. Its a point we are going to need to keep making for years to come.

I was hoping for a post dedicated to this one point of Elder Hafen’s talk:

“If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.”

If I awake on resurrection morning with normal attractions for the opposite sex, I’m not sure that I would be qualified for the CK based upon the definition of normal. After all, aren’t we supposed to be ressurrected in our prime, an age where men would find sexual attraction to any number of attractive women?

If I was to see Marilyn Monroe in the CK with feeling “normal attractions for the opposite sex”, then a hatch in the clouds would likely open and drop me out of there. The teenage nerd in me wants to giggle that I will RISE with normal attractions…especially in the MORNING.

Seriously though, is there a doctrinal place for earthly physical attraction in the CK? Isn’t one of the whole points of eternal marriage for men to help place sexual attraction in perspective of seeing the total beauty of their partner, emphasizing inner beauty? Do we expect all resurrectee’s to become Celestial hotties? Extreme Makeovers in the Celestial sense? If we are all resurrected with different levels of “attractiveness” by earthly standards, then how fair is that? If attractiveness standards are of a different nature in the CK, then how can anyone say that anyone will rise with “NORMAL” attractions—same or oppostite gender.

79- Jon, who is Pink Patient?

#84- good points. I think the materialism of church’s teachings about human experience are both a great strength and a great weakness. We expect the resurrection to be a remarkable moment of transformation and yet we can’t talk about it without using this language and even desire of / for normalcy. Very interesting! As you point out there are reasons to wonder if being normal is such a good thing for us.

Then of course there is the issue of how sexual attractions are a mixture of different elements, including what the culture we live in, since culture plays a large role in defining our desires and people as normal and sexually attractive and how we should respond to attraction. What is “normal” in one society is not “normal” in another. What is normal is one time period is not normal in another and so on. I think we can hold onto the spiritual materialism of Mormon doctrine as long as we don’t fall into the trap of essentialism that Hafen and others are in.

“After all, aren’t we supposed to be ressurrected in our prime?”

Right, but how do we define what prime is? Being a life long athlete, I’ve had more than one prime and each was different, what is more important to God anaerobic or aerobic fitness? and what about our spiritual prime? Will we be transformed into beings with the minds of octogenarians and the bodies of 25 year olds?

who is Pink Patient?

Wasn’t she a character in a movie I watched on in-room pay-per-view during my stay at Marriott hotels?

I could of sworn Hawgirl was on a Hee Haw episode I saw long ago.

Oh, come on sxark, we have to get to 100!

Ok. We’re at 100. Can we go home now?

Jon Miranda, you are a pathetic and miserable person. It is dispicable of you to continue to equate consenting, adult relationships with child rape, as you predictably and ignorantly do every time the issue of homosexuality comes up. I realize that it is a mistake to engage you in this, as it only encourages you, but I am sick to death of your hateful prattling. If you are unhappy with your natural proclivities, then by all means, do whatever you feel you need to do to make yourself a better person than you think you are naturally. But please, save your disgusting vitriol for your fellow evergreeners.

“We expect the resurrection to be a remarkable moment of transformation”

I am thinking of this transformation in the way that Elder Hafen concluded his remarks with Brigham Young’s quote:

“He is the Father of our spirits; and if we could know, understand, and do His will, every soul would be prepared to return back into His presence. And when they get there, they would see that they had formerly lived there for ages, that they had previously been acquainted with every nook and corner, with the palaces, walks, and gardens; and they would embrace their Father, and He would embrace them and say, ‘My son, my daughter, I have you again;’ and the child would say, ‘O my Father, my Father, I am here again.”

I think one of the amazing parts of the transformation would be to acquaint our earthly persona with our pre-existent persona, when we lived under a different name outside of the physical tests/constraints that were part of our mortality. How do the physical talents we were given correspond with the spiritual gifts we knew? How were those spiritual gifts shaped by the culture/time/relationships of mortality?

Rather than saying we will rise in the resurrection with normal attractions to the opposite sex, I would hope that we will rise in the resurrection with reconciliation of how the challenges, temptations, trials were saw during mortality fit into the eternal development of our soul and with a clear picture of how we can enthusiastically serve our Father. It should, furthermore, be a liberation from unwanted physical distractions to service. If lust is defined as the desire for something God has not given you, then there will be no lust after God gives you the greatest gift He can give you.

Jen, I agree that everyone has pain in some way and that it’s an important part of our shared experience to try and understand one another’s pain. Can’t you see, thougn, that it is the church that is separating these people? Do you honestly not see the difference between someone who, in all practicality will not be able to find someone to be with in this life and those who are told they are not allowed to be with someone? That is an enormous distinction. Now, if you believe that is god’s will, then I understand you accepting that position, although I disagree with it. But I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that it’s just one of many such situations in the church. If this is so, I would ask someone to provide an example of another class of persons in the church who have been asked to go their entire lives in denial of a basic, fundamental human desire. (Please save your comparisons to murderers and rapists, as those are not basic fundamental needs). I think everyone would agree, as Dexter has pointed out, that love and companionship is at or near the top of the list of basic human needs. There isn’t anything else that’s even close. If there was, members of the church wouldn’t continue to invoke those who are asked to repress criminal desires, which is the typical,and utterly offensive, I might add, response.

brjones-

I do see the difference, but really they are not being asked to not be with someone, they do have the option of marrying a woman (or man) and some do. I understand that a woman (or man) may not be what they ultimately desire, but to say they don’t have an option to marry or to be with someone in this life is just not true.

The reality is I don’t understand why people feel the way they do (SSA), and I don’t think any of us do really. I think only God knows and until we get more information from Him, we do the best we can to understand one another and to be compassionate and understanding. When it comes to this subject it is a very difficult one for me. I believe in God and I feel that there are many truths in the LDS church, and I feel it is where I belong. I have also experienced many things that have helped me to see how the Mormon culture is doing a lot of harm and I want that to change. I don’t know what the solutions are and I hope they do come sooner than later.

Jen, I honestly do appreciate and understand this to be the case. And I am not implicating you or anyone else simply by virtue of your membership or activity in the church. It is clearly the church’s policies that are driving behaviors in the church and I think the majority of the accountability lies there. I have certainly never seen anything from you that indicates you are anything but a genuinely compassionate and sympathetic person. And I do understand that it’s a very difficult issue on many levels.

Sxark, actually I think that your comment in #8 is a cogent and accurate encapsulation of the church’s position on this issue. I think that’s the very reason you see homosexuals remaining in the church despite the many difficulties that come with such a decision. I daresay that most gays would flee the church without hesitation if they didn’t feel it was true, or at least where they are supposed to be. Obviously not all gays believe that their feelings are a “thorn” to be suffered through life, although some undoubtedly do believe this.

brjones re #112

Thank you. Since many have one ‘thorn’ or another, then the key for all is a testimony of the restored Gospel and Church – therefore, there is no need to critisize the Church or it’s Leaders. And it is wise to study the words of Elder Hafen and other Church Leaders who speak on this subject.

I’m very much opposed to “cafeteria Mormonism,” and I also think people in the blogernaccle have been excessively harsh on Elder Hafen. That having been said, some of the things Elder Hafen taught do seem to contradict what the bretheren having been saying over the course of the past few years. Given how the institutional church has recently defined “doctrine” (see http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine), I don’t think Elder Hafen’s talk is necessarily doctrinal. From that link, for example, we read, “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.”

Those here defending (and quite viogorously I might addz) homosexuality act as though it is somehow a “new thing” and thst science is somehow on the verge of giving us a reason to “accept it.” Why don’t we look at homosexuality from an athropological standpoint. With nearly 7000 years of recorded human history, how many societies welcomed and permitted himosexual behavior and what was the ultimate result of said group, cultue , or nation?

#119 – Replace “homosexuality” with “monogamy” and you’d be quoting Brigham Young.

#118 – In 7000 years of human history, how many societies have been consistently successful indefinitely? All societies wax and wane. What evidence do you have that homosexuality has anything to do with it?

History lessons for South Bend and Jon Miranda, and

#120 Mytha is correct. Rome and Greece were notorious for open homosexuality–and Rome’s bath houses existed concurrent with perhaps the longest standing and most advanced civilization for 1000 years, and Greece was by far the most progressive civilization during it’s golden years. HOWEVER, let’s combine citing authorities with a lesson in history and you have the following:

After reading this, I would invite South Bend and Jon Miranda to tell me which of these prophet and apostle quotes he/she endorses as the REAL CAUSE for Rome “shortest lived nation”:

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

“…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there,…”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195

“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations.”
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22

“Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. ”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

Previous comment should say: “the modern church does not recognize such a comparison.”

GBsmith, I know, and I have no intention of engaging him in an ongoing debate. But sometimes when no one responds to his comments it starts to feel like maybe it doesn’t bother anyone and I just wanted to make my feelings clear. Enough said.

Sxark
People who do not adhere to the opinions of Bro Jones and Madam Curie are trolls.

“Rather than saying we will rise in the resurrection with normal attractions to the opposite sex, I would hope that we will rise in the resurrection with reconciliation of how the challenges, temptations, trials were saw during mortality fit into the eternal development of our soul and with a clear picture of how we can enthusiastically serve our Father. It should, furthermore, be a liberation from unwanted physical distractions to service.”

Very sound LDS theology, thanks for this and your other comments.

I have an idea. If I were God I would design the Heber C. Kimball, Eliza Snow and Lorenzo Snow model which involves Multiple Mortal Probation. How is works is this. If the spirit can enter a body once it can do it again. For example, Pres. Monson unwittingly taught it last general conference (did anyone notice it?). In other words, we have perpetual resets (Ground Hog Day) until we get it right.

SO, all those with Same Sex Attraction have the next of their D 132 “liveS” as having normal sex attraction as Elder Hafen promised and they can then fulfill the measure of their joy. THose that think it is NOT in DNA and just a matter of self will and self control will be given on one of their mortal pass throughs a “same sex attraction” chemistry/DNA and see how they do—-

Oh the justice of a world designed to provide MMPs–instead of the make up “saturday warriors once pass through model” I would design a world with multiple liveS and multiple deathS until we have a fulness of experiences and knowledge. So then whatever anyone really judges others one harshly then they can have an opportunity to return to mortal experience and see how they do it.

That is why one close friend who is staunchly conservative and Glenn Beck type I said: “Now if I were God I would invite you to return as a black, muslim, gay women—and see how you do.

This whole once through stuff is really silly….and illogical as Spock would say..

I think we have a love connection.

I’m waiting for comments to be closed now. We seem to have lost any semblance of a rational, civil discussion.

#133,

Just because something is repeated innumerable times does not make it true (ex. Thomas Marsh left the church because of “milk strippings). In 1952 the APA classified homosexuality a mental disorder based on no studies/ science. Then after 21 years of studies, applied science it was reclassified as not being a mental disorder using scientific methodology. THe fact that many voted for it is similar to any scientific advance-when enough realize the world is round then the votes naturally follow. In fact the talking points of saying it was changed in 1973 due to political pressure without science is totally backwards. It was first classified without science and changed on science.

I am on board with Elder Hafen and others of our faith preaching a universal standard of chastity and morality which I believe in. And whether I have a proclivity or not in any area (such as alcohol) does not mean that we abandon the WOW. What it does mean to me is that we quit the confabulation of evidence, half truths, and taking talking points and exalting them to doctrine. We have done far too much of that in our zeal in the past (blacks priesthood being a continuing problem clinging to false,confabulated doctrine to justify what was simply man made policy based on racism) and we should have learned by now to above all be honest, objective and let the truth vindicate itself without us out of insecurity justifying every wind of doctrine/ commentary used to justify our policies.

I am in favor of keeping the standard but withholding the judgment. Pres. Hinckley said it best, “we don’t know.” Fine. But to morph from “i don’t know” to “We know” is typical organization creep seeking to justify spending millions to deny others certain civil liberties.

RonM re #138

I would be carefull of making statements like: “[blacks priesthood being a continuing problem clinging to false, confabulated doctrine to justify what was simply man made policy based on racism]” – as if this statement is supportive of your arguement, no matter how politically correct you may think it is. For there is no official LDS Church statements supporting this viewpoint. But another post could be created where this issue could be dealt with.

My point in bringing up the AMA’s decision in the early 1970′s was to show that the legitamcy of Homosexuality is not written in stone as some might think. I am not in agreement with your version as to what took place in 1973, but – no matter. There is no need to quibble or split hairs over this scientific principle or that scientific principle as to causes or effects or ramifications etc. of Homosexuality. It is already acknowledged that Homosexuality, Pedophilia, and Heterosexual acts [outside of marriage] have little or no effect on one’s ‘worldly’ success in life.

The two main points to be made is: [1] These 3 ‘disorders’ must be controlled and maintained if one wants a successfull relationship with the LDS Church. [2] Remarks by Elder Hafen and others who hold the same or higher positions in the LDS Church, should be treated with deference and respect according to the offices that they hold.

However, if one is a non-member of the LDS Church, they are free to scream and holler as loud and as long as they want. If they are members of the LDS Church, then, it would be wise for them not to use a ‘wordly’ standard of analysis when looking at Elder Hafen’s remarks – lest they offend those in Heaven who are supportive of his remarks.

Yes, whatever we do, let us not consider scientific evidence.

# 143. Joseph Smith was a walking, talking, teaching, prophesying heterodoxy—not just to the world but also to those trying to stay up with his constant shattering of their orthodoxy even within the church.
I suspect I am older than most here, but for the first 160 years in our faith it was clear that the world “orthodoxy” had a very negative connotation. In other words, we were uncomfortable with anyone attempting to teach the orthodox religion” or insisted on creating orthodoxy —for the “church” was to be by definition a continuing heterodoxy to the world and even itself. Not only is it possible but necessary for the progression/organic evolution of a faith to have heterodoxy within it’s rank and most especially among those who are hold the keys to leadership. It was heterodox for Hugh B. Brown and Pres. McKay to believe that the blacks were wrongfully denied the Priesthood and express those sentiments and wait to build a consensus knowing it would shatter the orthodox minded within the faith unless there was unanimity. It was heterodox for Talmadge to understand that evolution was a reality, but the church is like the Queen ship Mary. It turns but turns very slowly. But heterodoxy is not only possible, but essential element for a faith to grow in further light in knowledge. The false heterodox concepts fade but in time the true heterodox opinions/teachings are vindicated and thank God for that element in our faith, and pray that heterodoxy is eliminated and cast out entirely—for it will put ironically at jeopardy those that demand uniformity and orthodoxy.

#141. Thank you for the post. Frankly I am leaning more and more towards universalism and I think in time it is all good. I believe God is a universalist but us his children are as judgmental and restrictive as hell itself. I would personally make the tent a lot larger and a lot more liberal but that is me and I have no more authority then my own personal opinion.

One last thought. One can exile a person but not his ideas; one can excommunicate a person but not his truth.

Thanks jmb. Your post was topical and insightful, and I think some of the responses answered your questions.

I don’t think people should be too frustrated at the direction these threads take. One of the things I like best about MM is the organic nature of the threads. They develop in the direction of people’s interests, without someone clamping down on responses that don’t directly address the original post. This is definitely a sensitive topic, but I, for one, appreciate the diversity of ideas and the general open-mindedness that prevails on this site.

I think we should change from orthodox/heterodox to homodox/heterodox. Heterodox = the idea that various doctrines are interpreted multiple ways by different people. Homodox = the idea that there is only one allowable interpretation of doctrines.

Re: #6

“Brother Hafen had a specific audience trying to deal with a specific problem, and I’m not sure that he intended his remarks to become the pseudo-official rhetoric which is fueling this (smallish) firestorm. He was encouraging those who have made the decision to fight off homosexual tendencies”

This is a somewhat reasonable way of reconciling Elder Hafen’s remarks with regard to question #3. The remarks were meant to resonate with those in the audience for this program and to inspire them to continue a quest that they have challenged themselves to follow. Some of the participants may indeed be bisexual men who will find a straight relationship to be ego-syntonic despite having strong homo-erotic sexual feelings.

LDS men with bisexuality can find a particularly challenging era of sexual awakening. Bishops/Youth leaders may induce a great degree of guilt in having looked at a Playboy magazine at scout camp etc., but not be aware that gawking at peers/coaches in the locker-room becomes an acceptable alternative as locker-room nudity is considered a male rite of passage.

Then while their peers are “going steady” with girls at age 12-13, guilt is induced if they spend too much time alone with girls before 16 and even after 16 before missions. Meanwhile, male bonding with scout camp and superactivities is another rite of passage.

So bisexual LDS males, for reasons of faithfulness to the law of chastity, may shut down their heterosexual inclinations, which in the face of poor self-esteem may already be challenged. If they are not acting with heterosexual enthusiasm in middle and high school, even if it is for law of chastity reasons, they are likely to be labeled gay by their peers. Older YSA males are often ridiculed by non-member LDS peers for being “30 year old virgins” and have their sexualities questioned by members.

Add to this the secular education that teaches if you have homoerotic attraction, the only thing to do is embrace it and live within a dichotomized culture where “coming out” is the first step of being at peace with your homoerotic attraction. Homoerotic sexuality, however, doesn’t mean necessarily that one is, as MoHoHawaii once put it, homosexual to the core–i.e. ones sense of humor, relating to groups of friends, finding ultimate satisfaction in a relationship.

If someone in Evergreen DOES discover that they are homosexual to the core, then Evergreen becomes the “bridge to Affirmation.” If they are not, it can save a man from major depression by trying to live as an out gay man with repressed heterosexuality.

So one can look at Elder Hafen’s remarks as audience specific. I remember Gordon B. Hinckley giving a talk to my state university institute group and encouraged us to remain at the state university rather than going to BYU because we had more opportunities to befriend and fellowship non-members. Obviously this was NOT official doctrine. He did not, for example, go to BYU and suggest to all the students that they should transfer to state universities so they could follow his counsel.

The difference here is that Elder Hafen’s talk was posted in the Newsroom at the LDS website, which gives it MORE of an official status, even if it is NOT doctrinal. I can see that it was published in the newspaper because of the unique doctrinal assertion, but it really should have less reason to be in the newsroom then any address given by Elder Holland to African congregations during his recent visit.

JMB, I appreciate the way you set up this post and have tried to keep my responses in line with the idea of question #3 and not fall into the typical debates. Even though it is not my “business” to “convince people to stay in the church” as you mentioned, I am strongly interesting in encouraging people to do so. Our church is our local ward family as much as it is our connections to the Quorums of 70s. Those local connections are more likely to teach us life skills that can become critical to our pursuit of eternal life, and the absence of a member of the ward family takes away the interaction between the member and one person who would be better reached by that member than anyone else. I just finished reading Bound for Canaan by Margaret Young and Darius Gray and found it very difficult to read of the way Elijah Abel and Jane Manning had to endure their last years of life in the church. They had more reason than almost anyone I can think of to leave. Now the story of their endurance is an example that touches many members in a way that nothing else could.

I don’t think the Lord has made truth difficult to discern. Things that have never changed that the brethren throughout the ages have warned us against
1. Denying the Holy Ghost
2. Stealing
3. Sexual Sin
4. Murder
5. And others. King Benjamin saaid in his address that we have to watch ourselves because there are so many diverse ways to commit sin.

Certain truths never change. I take the stance that I do because if someone is reading these things maybe they will skip their first foray into the gay bathhouse or into that gay bar. Others are encouraging people to try the gay lifestyle they say it’s not such a bad thing. You choose the voice that you listen to. I want to clarify that I do not want to appear holier than thou. These are interesting discussions and Thank God for free will and thought.

Mytha:
I am just puzzled why you and others think it’s okay that church members engage in sin that the Brethren have clearly warned us about.

This conversation is much simpler than most of you are making it.

No one asnwered my question so let me state it again:

Which do you think is a more loving attitude towards gays?

The churh’s, which states: abstain from your natural feelings and god will fix you later.

or those who say: you are fine the way you are, seek to find someone to love in this life and may you find joy in that relationship.

Anyone who would tell gays to avoid finding someone to love, which is one of the most important human needs, if not the most important, is ignorant and/or cruel.

Morality is not that complicated, people. We don’t need god to know right from wrong. Causing another to suffer is wrong. How is it wrong for two adults to consent to be together? Why do you care if John and Jack want to be married and commit to each other through marriage? Who does that hurt? NO ONE.

Who is hurt by teaching that homosexuality is wrong? Tons of people. Alice just made a nice note explaining some of those who are hurt. This is all much ado about nothing.

When Jesus was asked how a follower should behave He came up with two commandments: love God with all your heart and love your fellow man the way you love Him. Nothing about judging anyone or persecuting anyone or anyone being a second- or third-class individual or letting anyone do your thinking for you.

If we’re trying to live a restored gospel we should think about what and Whose gospel it is that was restored.

How convenient. Nice excuse not to answer. Just ignore.

I would expect no less a tactic from verbal cowards. A tactic that only temporally works.

#164

Actually it works both temporally and spiritually.

Would anyone happen to have a urim and thummim handy?

#169 – Well, I don’t necessarily agree that a testimony of the present day church leads naturally to the conclusion that either a) homosexuality is a mental disorder; or b) homosexuality and pedophilia are related in nature. That said, I do agree with you somewhat that if you accept the LDS church as true and having authority, then it makes little sense to me to continue to complain about its policies or practices. The mormon church is not, and has never been, a democracy. You take what you get or you’re free to leave. I continue to wonder why people insist on remaining in a church that teaches and does things they find highly offensive, but that’s just me. I also understand that there are many factors that make up someone’s decision to stay or go, so it’s not always black and white.

Hawkgrrrl:
Who says they are natural feelings? If someone has SSA and decides to be celibate and live as good a life as possible and keep the commandments, God has promised that all will be made right. Assuming this is correct, SSA is not a natural state and there are no NATURAL FEELINGS.
People twist this around but there are certain things that you should not act on even if you feel them.
1. The urge to murder someone.
2. The urge to rape someone.
3. The urge to steal
4. The urge to molest children.
5. The urge to have sex with someone of the same gender.

Addiction to gay sex is like any other addiction. The addiction must be avoided at all costs.

“There is no need to ‘crucify’ LDS Church Leaders [past and present] – based on a “worldly” standard of analysis.”

Then may we ‘crucify’ them based on an LDS standard of analysis? I think it’s equally effective.

re: huh?
I don’t think Hawkgrrrl is justifying E. Hafen’s remarks. Rather, she is putting them in context with an attempt to understand which is the point of this post. This post is not about homosexuality, or the church’s position on it. It is an attempt to understand, put in context, and show compassion to those with whom we disagree.

You seem to be conflating understanding and perspective with some sort of justification. Once again (as I said in my comments previously in this thread) silence is not consent, understanding and compassion is not an endorsement.

jmb275-

I know everyone considers Jon M. a troll. Who else are you referring to?

I know that Jen says absolutley senseless things! So who is the other troll?

On this post, a Troll is: Anyone who agrees with Elder Hafen and the Church he represents and belongs to.

Labeling one as a “troll”, in my opinion, is an intellectual cowardly act. Were I to set up a post, I would never label someone as a “troll” – unless I couldn’t win the arguement. – But that’s a coward’s way out.

Huh?

I see Elder Hafen as one who spoke the truth as he saw it. I see him as trying to assist those he was addressing to progress through a Church, while controling and maintaining their weaknesses, to a point where they are worthy of all Blessings offered by that Church.

And all you can say is that Elder Hafen is a Liar. Big deal. I’ll believe Elder Hafen and all General Authorities who support him.

My last comment should read either “habits” or “hobbits” depending on which you see as lending itself to a more understandable tpyo.

huh?, I think most of us respect your point of view. But, please understand that jmb275 was trying to learn compassion for a person with whom he disagrees. IMO, this shows true confidence in his own position, to be able to see past the argument to the person. This is a quality that is sadly lacking in human discourse these days.

I think Hawkgrrrl’s point is also very important in that Elder Hafen’s remarks were directed to an audience already seeking the very message he delivered. If they wish to change, it is certainly their right to try.

So, although I personally believe that his comments were his opinions, that’s ok. I would venture a guess that when it comes to gender, attraction, and sexuality, there is alot more opinion out there than actual data. This is exactly why I choose to err on the side of compassion, because there is just so much that we don’t know. But, I definitely want each person who desires to belong to our church to feel welcomed and loved. Because that’s what I think Jesus would want.

This is an interesting position. I’m wondering if you’ve read any of the science. If so, maybe you could provide some data that suggests that homosexuality is not genetic.

Answer to question #1: Yes.

In answer to Brjones question: read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1742/64/ (in regards to APA change of position that Homosexuality is genetic)

In case my comments don’t make it out of moderation. The claim I made is not ignorant or uninformed.

Re: 191 huh?
“I guess I am confused…who are we trying to understand and have compassion for? Hafen? Why? I dont see any reason to have compassion for someone who makes blatantly false, ignorant and divisive statements…I dont think people that behave that way should be handled with kid gloves – he knew he was taking a controversial position and even fudged the data to agree with what he wanted his position to be…What is there to understand, he is a corporate figurehead who said something ignorant and controversial as a representative of the LDS church…why should he get a pass because he is LDS when corporate figureheads get roasted all the time for sharing their beliefs (see whole foods).”

I respect your point of view, and you as a person. If you want to despise, belittle, and label those with whom you disagree that is your prerogative. If you cannot see the need for compassion in a world whose trend is spewing vitriol at those with another point of view then I have nothing to offer you. I seek what I consider to be a higher, nobler method of human discourse and discussion. I know there are those who do not agree with my method. That is fine. In my experience, compassion, love, and understanding go further to solve problems, influence people, and elevate my fellows than anything else I have seen.

Please notice again that you’re conflating these elements with “a pass.” Not me, nor Hawkgrrrl is giving E Hafen “a pass.” I have separated, in my mind, E Hafen the person from his comments. I liken this to Christ’s message with the adultress. Surely Christ was not giving that woman “a pass” by telling her He did not condemn her and to go “sin no more.” Of course not. Rather, He had separated her from the sin, and loved her for her, not for her actions.

Re 205: huh?
This is easy.
“but why would that lead me to want to understand why Hafen made blatantly false statements”

It doesn’t.

“and why would i need to have compassion for someone who chose to speak as a representative of the LDS church on a controversial topic AND THEN choose to support the most ignorant and divisive position he could.”

You don’t.

There, piece of cake. But you could understand and have compassion in spite of that. That might be nice. Do you really only give compassion and understanding to those who “deserve” it? I personally don’t find that to be in harmony with what Christ taught. But to each his/her own.

jmb275 – If you dont see that there are issues in the world that dont deserve compassion and understanding then i have nothing to offer you…

“If you want to despise, belittle, and label those with whom you disagree that is your prerogative. If you cannot see the need for compassion in a world whose trend is spewing vitriol at those with another point of view then I have nothing to offer you. I seek what I consider to be a higher, nobler method of human discourse and discussion. I know there are those who do not agree with my method. That is fine. In my experience, compassion, love, and understanding go further to solve problems, influence people, and elevate my fellows than anything else I have seen.” – Again, what exactly are you trying to understand??? why he would falsify information? why he would continue to push the hurtful and ignorant position that homosexuality is a psychological disorder? what is there to understand??? Its sad that you equate pointing out dishonesty and bigotry with “spewing vitriol”…

“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

GBSmith – wow, you tell me to be reasonable and then call me a troll…i can feel the compassion and understanding…

“You may find this a small citing error. Yet Hafen’s citation to the WSJ article instead of to an actual APA resolution misleads the reader into believing that the APA stated in a resolution that it is ethical and beneficial to help clients reject same sex attractions. Even worse, Hafen’s selective quoting seems to indicate that the APA endorses reparative therapy, or at least doesn’t oppose it.In the second major error, Elder Hafen claims* that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. He then says that the A.P.A removed homosexuality from the official list of psychological disorders under pressure from political activists and not due to any scientific research:”

“Elder Hafen misrepresents the APA’s position on reparative therapy, and he claims* that homosexuality is a psychological disorder despite the absence of any scientific evidence. LDS Church leaders must be careful and provide accurate information instead of relying upon their own opinions regarding homosexuality. If Elder Hafen had read the A.P.A report – not just the WSJ article – he would hopefully have corrected his misconceptions regarding homosexuality. The A.P.A. directly addresses some of Elder Hafen’s misconceptions here:”- http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2657

Feel free to read up on how he tried to dishonestly support other opinions through selective quoting and misrepresentation of the information. It looks like i was right on by saying he dishonestly supported his ignorant opinion…I have yet to see a retraction. Again, why would i need to show “compassion” or understanding for someone who dishonestly told a room full of people that God gave them with a psychological disorder and that there is data to support that position? It funny to me that you guys think i am spewing “bile” because i cant stand to see someone dishonestly misrepresent information to suit their own agenda…

#211

If you feel that way, engage in what you feel is civil discourse with him and see how far it goes. But from what I’ve seen that’s exactly what he’s doing. It may be from his passion about the issue or for some other reason but he’s not contributing anything to the discussion other that vitriol and bile.

Listen, I’m not saying he’s is not using inflammatory rhetoric, or even that he’s not intentionally trying to stir the pot. I’m just saying that to me that’s not clearly the ONLY point of his comments. I’m not saying I agree with him, but he’s obviously attempting to engage in a substantive debate, whether or not it’s civil is another matter. To me a troll is someone who calls someone a liar and when you ask them to substantiate such an accusation they simply make additional accusations. If someone lies, they are a liar. He has claimed that Elder Hafen intentionally misrepresented the facts. You called on him to produce evidence to substantiate his claims and he has provided evidence that he feels does just that. Whether you are convinced by his evidence or approve of his tone, he’s clearly not just spewing out hateful sentiments with no desire to debate the merits. If you don’t approve of his language, you shouldn’t engage him, but I don’t think that’s the same as being a troll.

Look – my point is this…you guys continue to tell me to be “civil” and “understanding” and “compassionate” without actually considering that i have been on the other side of this issue. What if i were to tell you i dealt with these types of ignorant “leaders” for much of my life as a member of the LDS church and was constantly told i was broken/evil/sinful/etc. and was led to believe that God gave me a psychological disorder that needed to be “overcome”…You guys are making huge efforts to be understanding and compassionate of Hafen’s dishonest and offensive comments without even trying to UNDERSTAND how those comments might affect someone who was the focus of those remarks…

So what if the people who he was talking “wanted” to be there – that doesnt make his comments any less offensive to those of us that were able to get beyond the ignorant (and untrained) rhetoric of the LDS leadership regarding SSA…ON TOP OF THAT, he misrepresented the actual information he was quoting to suit his own ill-informed opinion – that, in my mind, is unforgivable – at least be honest and make it clear that you are expressing your own opinions instead of trying to pretend like the scientific community supports your beliefs…So, again, i see NO reason why his position deserves “compassion” (BTW – I “understand” his position and i am violently opposed to his methods and rhetoric). I feel like some of you are going to great lengths to be compassionate toward hafen (even though i saw no “compassion” in what he said or did) while not considering what someone like myself has been through because of people like him….

Additionally, what is the line between “vitriol and bile” and “civil discussion”? The man was caught being dishonest and i stated as much. The man made ignorant and ill-informed statements about SSA tendencies and i stated as much. How in the world should i have more compassionately said “he is showing his ignorance and stooping to dishonestly to prove his point”? Just because i chose not to pussyfoot around his statements and “compassionately” disagree doesnt mean i am spewing “vitriol” or “bile”…the fact that i was dismissed as a troll for calling a spade a spade is somewhat staggering – what language do you not approve of? I feel like i have stepped into some kind of PC twilight zone where words like “dishonest” and “ignorant” are all of a sudden offensive…

Huh?

What’s the difference between what you have suffered and the Apostle Paul, with his “thorn” in his side [11 Cor. 12:7] that he prayed 3 times [to no avail] to have removed? We don’t know what that “thorn” was and it’s possible that it was worse than yours. If others can suffer in agony to the end, why can’t you, or anyone for that matter. The essence of Elder Hafen’s remarks are to show that the suffering and agony of those with this affliction does not have to be as bad as many think. What fouls things up more is all this “wordly” reinforcement that this state of being is not an affliction at all.

pink – please read my comment above yours. I “perceived” hafens comments as hostile but it appears i am the only one….How about this, when you read my comments, do with homer simpsons voice – it might help dull the parts you “perceive” as “hostile” .

It’s simply amazing to read all the condescending comments of the critics of Elder Hafen. It doesn’t bother me not to receive a response or acknowledgement for #192 or #220, for I assume that I have been given the dreaded label as a “troll.”

Big deal! For I know that all those who support Elder Hafen and his efforts will prevail. For, if comments expressed in #223 like ["I simply cannot believe that my Saviour would inspire anyone [Elder Hafen] to treat another person unkindly”], are considered the normal perception of Elder Hafen’s remarks – then there is no way that the critics of Elder hafen will prevail.