Talk:Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article Creation

All over Wikipedia there are many different sections talking about this topic in relation to the LDS church and they are all starting to say different things and getting stuck becoming non-NPOV. The purpose of this article is to provide a UNIFORM, NPOV and REFERENCED article showcasing this relationship.

Please NO OPINIONS. EVERYTHING CURRENTLY IN THIS ARTICLE IS REFERENCED. I know this is a polarized topic, thats why I say that, but please add more! But only do so using information in the current references or adding your own references with additional information. Trust me, I'm no expert on the LDS church or on homosexuality. I'm almost tempted to throw up a "Expert needed" header...

Regarding something specific - I've noticed a lot of articles have said 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual tendencies' are classified as a sin. This doesn't jive with what the LDS church president says and accounts given by gay members. They specify the behaviour is sinful...

Anyway, let me know your thoughts on the article and refed additions would be appreciated! Chupper 18:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Inline citations would be very nice.
• The three paragraph quote in the Church's official views on homosexuality section is rather long, is it beyond the length that can be considered fair use? Even if it is, it still seems like we should just write it in our own words.
• "Although no groups or organizations have been created that are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many have spawned all over the world."

This needs to be reworded, it currently reads like it contradicts itself: no groups have been created, but many have been created. I'm aware that it is trying to say none have been created that are associated with the church, but it sounds weird to me.

• "In recent years numerous individuals have come forward alleging they agreed to undergo aversion therapy at Brigham Young University"

How many is numerous, and who are these people? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --Lethargy 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lethargy, thanks so much for the comments! I'm really not an expert on this topic - I had to do a lot of research to figure this stuff out. Maybe we can find someone better than me to manage this article... In response to your requests/thoughts:

• Inline citations ADDED.
• I agree it's long, but not too long, imo, considering the topic of the article. I worry if we reword it in our own words, it will become a source of contention and possible non-NPOV as everyone will add in their own tidbits. I thought this was straight from the horses mouth, and like I said, considering this article documents official LDS policy, it might not be that long. I don't know though, I may definitely be wrong. If someone rewords it, I won't have a problem as long as they stay as accurate and NPOV as possible.
• Yea, I agree, a bad wording. I've reworded more simply. Hope its ok.
• Hopefully the inline cites straighten this out. There were 3. Changed 'numerous' to 'several.' (I hope thats not weasel-like) :)

Thanks for the thoughts and I look forward to more referenced additions/modifications! Chupper 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Quotes

When this article was originally written, Lethargy expressed concern on the number of quotes we are using. He said:

"The three paragraph quote in the Church's official views on homosexuality section is rather long, is it beyond the length that can be considered fair use? Even if it is, it still seems like we should just write it in our own words."

At the time I had put in three lengthy quotes that I thought were OK (but I was open to them being rewritten on Wikipedia). However I now feel like they should be rewritten in our own words along with the two additional quotes added. Now, I know it is not easy to rewrite these while keeping a NPOV, but I feel like we are pushing the limits of fair use and including too many quotes from an academic perspective. These next couple of days I will be rewriting these quotes. Any help would most definitely be appreciated. Chupper 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename

It has been proposed that this page be moved to Sexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I oppose this move because the article is mostly about homosexuality. An article on sexuality of the Church should deal a lot more with pre-marital and ex-marital sex, birth control, divorce and other heterosexual issues. As of now, the only mention of heterosexual issues are in refence to homosexuality.Joshuajohanson 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a broader article that includes issues like heterosexuality, transgenderedness, bisexuality, and intersex. The law of chastity is not really about sexuality, it's about the church's moral code of behavior. Sexuality is quite a different thing, and unless we put these issues here, there is no place for them. Many of the sources, in addition, mix a number of these issues together. For example, we need an in-depth discussion about how the church teaches that spirits are heterosexual and either male or female, and how resurrected beings can have sex in the afterlife. If you can think of a better word than sexuality to describe all these issues, I'm open to suggestions. COGDEN 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We can have a broader article, and we can call it sexuality. I am not opposed to that. My point is that this article is about homosexuality, and there is enough information on homosexuality to be a separate article. Most of these sources focus on homosexuality. Also note that this is part of a series on Homosexuality and Christianity. Many other articles talking about homosexuality and the church also reference this article. This article does mention the eternal nature of gender, but only in how it affects the church's view on homosexuality. It would be nice to be able to reference another article that went more in depth on sexuality in general, but that is another article. I only temporarily redirected it to Law of Chastity because I thought that was the best place so far that describes all aspects of sexuality, since this article only describes homosexuality.

Do you have references for spirits being heterosexual? I had heard there was no attraction (hetero or homo) before Earth because we didn't have a body, and hence no sexual organs or hormones. I also don't know much about after Earth life, because sexual attractions here on Earth are so based on temporal things, which is one reason we are not given in marriage after the resurrection. I would be interested to read any resource you had on that or about sex after the resurrection.Joshuajohanson 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about having two separate articles, one about homosexuality, and a super-article about sexuality (as in Sexuality and religion vs. Homosexuality and religion). That might be a solution, although there would be a lot of overlap--possibly they would be the essentially the same article. I notice that at least one of the articles in the Homosexuality and Christianity series refers to sexuality.

On the doctrine that spirits were heterosexual in the preexistence, I attribute that doctrine to Boyd K. Packer, but it's possible a search would reveal other sources of the doctrine. See, e.g., Packer, Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council, May 18, 1993. Packer's terminology and theory here (and in his other speeches on the subject) is somewhat unusual, though, compared to modern medicine. He understands sexual orientation (which he calls "gender (dis)orientation") to be a subset of gender. I suppose we can't really say this is church doctrine, of course, because Packer is only one apostle with a particular set of opinions, and some of those are somewhat more conservative, I think, than those of the current First Presidency.

Even if there were no sexual attractions in the preexistance (and I don't think any church leader has taught either way), that doesn't necessarily mean that Packer's view that sexual orientation (i.e., "gender (dis)orientation") existed in the preexistance is wrong. It just means that premortal spirits were celibate heterosexuals with no "inclinations", "feelings", or "attractions", much the same way that gays and lesbians are said by some church authorities to be, in their soul, heterosexuals that just happen to have same-sex attractions, feelings, or tendencies. COGDEN 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gender (dis)orientation is different than sexual orientation. Gender orientation is more about how you view yourself, while sexual orientation is who you are attracted to. Besides, he is using it in regards to the feminist movement, especially in regards to gender roles. Just because some homosexuals believe they were assigned the wrong gender, doesn't mean all do. There are homosexuals who believe they were assigned the right gender, the wrong gender or even a third gender. There are also heterosexuals that can be confused about their gender, and be involved in cross dressing or sex operations. That seems to be more of an issue about transgenders, not homosexuals. The church has been clear that gender existed in the pre-mortal life, but I don't know about sexual orientation. Again, that would go better under a more general sexuality article.

I don't think there will be that much overlap. One of the articles refers to sexuality because it doesn't have much content. That isn't the case here. Also, that doesn't solve the problem of articles discussing homosexuality pointing here. Most sexuality is heterosexual, and most of the teachings of the church about sexuality is directed towards heterosexuality, families and reproduction. I am also planning on contributing more to this article, especially in regard to homosexual culture within the LDS church that doesn't have much to do with sexuality. How about we start the sexuality article, and focus on gender, gender identity, gender roles, feminist movement, hermaphodites, transgenders, sex operations, birth control, bisexuality, asexuality, marriage, fornication, adultery, divorce, familiy size, polygamy and sex after the resurrection, with a brief summary of homosexuality pointing to this article. Then, if we think there is overlap we can consider a merge.Joshuajohanson 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that gender (dis)orientation is not the same as sexual orientation. But that's not Pres. Packer's view. From a medical perspective, one would say that Packer is confused between gender dysphoria and homosexuality. But that doesn't make it any less doctrinal. Packer thinks that being gay means that you aren't sure about your gender, or your proper gender role, and that sexual orientation, like all other gender roles or other indicia of gender, was assigned in the preexistence.

On the issue of spawning a super-article, I think I agree. I've looked into it a little more, and I think there can be a logical basis for splitting the article with little overlap. One problem, I think, is how to deal with the line of LDS doctrine based on Packer's confusion (from the POV of modern science—or, from the POV of everything-an-apostle-says-is-scripture types, his unusual clarity of mind) about the difference between gender and sexual orientation. COGDEN 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think your interpretation of Elder Packer's comment is a stretch. If it is included, the text itself should be repeated and let the readers decide for themselves the interpretation. I don't think that interpretation should be in the introduction, since it is highly debatable at best.Joshuajohanson 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Intensify homosexual feelings

The church teaches not to indulge in activities that will intensify homosexual feelings. What exactly does that mean? Mormon culture and logic dictate that homosexual dating and kissing would probably qualify, but I can't find anywhere where the church teaches that. Even so, you won't get ex-communicated for kissing someone. I strongly disagree with the edit that homosexuals shouldn't hug. The church rules make no distinction based on orientation, and I have seen lots of women hold hands with another woman and lots of men hug other men. I have even heard stories of President Kimball kissing people on the cheek (in a very platonic way). My understanding is that homosexuals should probably interact the same way as a married man should interact with another woman. He should take all precautions not to get involved sexually or romantically with her, but a simple hug is fine. Even so, he isn't ex-communicated until he breaks the law of chastity, and even that is up to the bishop. Anyway, that is my personal opinion, but that doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless it can be verified. BYU Honor code prohibits "all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings," but BYU is more strict than the church.Joshuajohanson 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Excommunication

The article reads "In 1976, the church amended its church handbook to allow people to be excommunicated because of homosexual orientation, even if they did not take part in any sexual activities." This seems weird because the church doesn't usually even talk in terms of orientation. It is especially weird since in 1965 it taught "Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one's background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message-personal responsibility."[1] Do you have the exact wording for the handbook amendment?Joshuajohanson 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If no evidence of this 1976 handbook reference can be made, it should be stricken from the article. richman9

I deleted the reference to 1976 handbook because no citation or any other evidence of it can be found. richman9 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

I have gone through many references done, I feel, the wrong way. Instead of having (Oaks 1995) after every sentence, I've gone through and put a <ref name="oaks95"/> tag in. I feel it looks much better. I also added the <references/ tag in the references section which wasn't there before. The references were going nowhere. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed that the notes and ref sections were almost identical. Took care of that. Please help in cleaning this article up AS IT NEEDS IT! Carter | Talk it up 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Fundraising events or groups
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. Also, since Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it would be wonderful if several regular editors in this article could pick the (very small number) best, most encyclopedic links and remove the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plural marriages

I don't think plural marriages should be mentioned in the introduction or the history of the church. Plural marriages really is a different issue, and its connection to homosexuality is debatable at best. I think it belongs as part of an argument against the church's current definition of marriage, and maybe an argument for change in doctrine concerning sexuality. I don't think it nullifies the church's current stance that a marriage is between a man and women. A man with 3 wives didn't have one marriage that involved 4 people, but 3 marriages, each involving him and one of his wives. So the church has always taught that a marriage was between a man and a woman, just that a man can be involved in multiple marriages. However, the constitutional ammendment would also forbid plural marriages, and that inconsistency should be mentioned.Joshuajohanson 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The church's history with plural marriage is extremely relevant, and the church press office and Dallin Oaks have acknowledged this more than once. So we have an apostle who admits its relevance, together with the secular press, the gay Mormon community, and the fundamentalist Mormon community, who think the church's history on polygamy is very relevant to the issue. To down-play the issue would be an NPOV problem. Polygamy was the defining issue of post-Smith Mormonism in the 19th century, and not explaining this in the background section is like ignoring an elephant in the room. Also, if the introduction includes a discussion about D&C 132, it's silly not to mention that the section was talking about plural marriage. COGDEN 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's mention it, but only in regards to homosexuality. I don't think it needs a whole paragraph at the top (I did put it down later). A paragraph about polygamy as the introduction to homosexuality without any ties to homosexuality seems completely irrelevant. I am not trying to hide it, and I think all viewpoints should be expressed. I just didn't see how it belonged the way it was written, other than to further Quinn's viewpoint on sexuality in the church. The whole introduction seemed to just be leading up to Quinn's controversial viewpoint. I have tried to just represent the church's official viewpoints without going into any one's personal viewpoint, though I am human and you have been able to catch a couple of my viewpoints being expressed in the article. The different viewpoints among members of the church should still be discussed, but in a section separate from the official standpoint. Speculation should be completely avoided in the introduction.Joshuajohanson 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is something to be said for leaving the section on plural marriage-- if only for the fact that it underscores the history of LDS acceptance for non-traditional marriages. If the recanting of plural marriage is seen in the light of the bloody persecutions of the time, it supports the idea behind the extreme swing towards the present strident standards shaping the LDS concept of the family unit. Rawkcuf (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Info re my recent reversion

The URL which I intended to put in the edit summary was http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf

I wasn't able to put it in because I was reverting with WP:Twinkle, and the popup prompt for the edit summary rendered me unable to switch firefox tabs to get at the url which I had neglected to copy before doing the reversion. On page 2 of that American Psychological Association document, it says,

What causes a person to

have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of

choice about their sexual orientation.

If that is quoted or paraphrased, it needs to be properly attributed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay identity

The article reads that "it is was only in the 1990s that the church first began to acknowledge the existence of sexual orientation." What do you mean by orientation? Science defines orientation as "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person."[2] Kimball talked about both homosexuals and people with homosexual desires and tendencies back in 1965. Before that, I don't think people in general really talked about sexual orientation. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness before 1974.[3] Is it expected for the church to talk about homosexuality in terms different than used by medical practices of the time?Joshuajohanson 08:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. The phrase should probably be stricken, or put into a broader context. The Jade Knight 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone put this content back in, saying "Paragraph is valid". Can you provide why you think it is a valid paragraph? I have shared my thoughts on why that paragraph isn't valid. Besides, the statement did not reflect what the source was saying, but only seemed to be an assessment of what he thought the source was saying, which amounts to original research. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of article

This article is getting rather large. I think we should split off a new section called History of Mormonism and homosexuality, like the History of Christianity and homosexuality does. What do all of you think? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Confessions of a Mormon Boy banner.jpg

The image Image:Confessions of a Mormon Boy banner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

McBride Dissertation

I added references to McBride's work corroborating aversion therapy at BYU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.80.213 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Can you tell me where you found this dissertation? I've searched extensively and found nothing. Is something available at BYU onsite?

I've found references to this dissertation, but nothing on the dissertation itself. Chupper 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the dissertation in PDF, scanned from a typewritten copy. It has taken me about 5 years to find it. Of course, I have no permission to publish it, but it does exist, and it really is as bad as they say it is. How can I get you a copy? Naptastic (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

LDS Church and % of homosexuals & Lynne Pearson

Hello Josh, I have deleted the following statement twice:

Carol Lynn Pearson has argued rates of gay suicide are higher in the church than elsewhere.<ref>{{cite news | author=Pearson, Carol Lynn | authorlink=Carol Lynn Pearson | title=We can change history for gay LDS | work=[[The Salt Lake Tribune]] | date=August 16, 2008 | url=http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10223681 | accessdate=2008-09-10}}</ref>

Pearson's actual statement reads:

"Our current discussion of this issue reflects better science and a more generous spirit, but too many deaths continue. Gay youth attempt suicide three times more often than their straight peers. According to an article in the Deseret Morning News of April 23, 2006, Utah leads the nation in suicides of men age 15-24."

This reference simply does not support the statement above. Utah is not the Church. Also, she is not a reference for suicides in the US. Do you see this?--^StormRider 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Utah men that age may be committing suicide for any number of reasons, including depression caused by lack of worthiness for being a missionary, post-mission funks, or the generally-raised level of depression in Utah generally. As far as we know, there is no hard data linking that statistics to gay Mormon suicides. The statement above might be true for all I know, but we would need better statistics to make that claim. COGDEN 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless Picture in Political Involvement Section

Does anyone else think that the random picture of a homosexual union seems extraneous in the political involvement section? I think a more appropriate picture would be something that involves the Church, like Prop 8 activism, or, if it exists and can be had, the picture of a general authority addressing this topic. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual Mormons

Parts of this section lack a neutral point of view. Most of these examples imply that homosexuality is wrong, a disease, something that can be cured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yekdorb (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about Mormons here. I am sure you can find plenty of ex-Mormons that believe homosexual behavior is okay, but the Mormon church teaches that it is wrong, so it makes sense that people in this section would have the same viewpoint of the church to which they belong. It also makes sense that what they did with their lives (saying they changed orientation, getting married, writing books that teach homosexual behavior is wrong) would reflect their point of view and it is usually those things that make them well-known in the gay Mormon world. Most of those people, that is. I would like to point out that Ty Mansfield did none of those things. He is single and still says he is attracted to men, just that he is striving to live according to the Mormon gospel. Also, what part makes it sound like a disease? I think modern church leaders are pretty inline with modern psychology in saying that sexual behavior is a choice and not a disease. Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Joshua- this is *not* a Public Relations tool on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your assertion that this article should share the same viewpoint as the LDS church is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilepo (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ACtually no, modern psychology doesn't state that it is a choice.Kairos (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Sexual behavior is a choice, both homosexual and heterosexual behavior. Modern psychology makes a very clear distinction. The American Psychological Association stated "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."[4] Together with other internationally recognized organizations, they stated "Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience." [5] Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So? That just means people can choose to have sex or not. That's something All humans can do. Doesn't make their sexuality a magical "choice".Kairos (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality is a sloppy term, which has been used to included everything from orientation to having sex. I did not use that term, but said "sexual behavior is a choice". Modern church leaders have likewise talked specifically about behavior, not sexuality. The section on the BYU honor code specifically involves behaviors, not orientation, which was why I quoted the APA's comments on behavior. Yet you added the text "despite the above sexual orientation issues in the honor code." That is not true, and needs to be removed. The "above issues" were behavioral issues, not orientation. Physical intimacy is a behavior. I personally know several gay people who go to BYU who have not found a conflict between their sexuality and the BYU honor code. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is off topic, but I'm thinking about the mental and physical health of a person who completely rejects all sexual expression. From what I read in this article, there seems to be a complete rejection of sexual expression for the homosexual. The only reason I bring this up is that the ban on extramarital sex, the single hetero 0member at least, has the hope of a sexual outlet in a possible future marriage. In the LDS church, there is no possibility allowed for sexual expression at any time for gay LDS. How does that affect the mental and physical health of gay LDS. Are there any statistics on suicide for gay members? Wouldn't a section on suicide be relevant? It strikes me that the article is a little heavy on the virtues of reparative therapy, and there is almost nothing (data) on recidivism, ultimate rejection of the church, or suicide. All of these things, could help put the claims of reparative therapy success in some kind of perspective. I suspect another problem in the black/white treatment of gay/notgay especially in regards to reparative therapy. I would like the kinsey scale data on ex-gays. It could elucidate the degree of success from therapy given the numbers related to the 'degree of homosexuality'.Rawkcuf (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

I think most of it is slightly off-topic. Not that I don't think that stuff is relevant, just not particularly unique to Mormonism. I would like to see most of those ideas elaborated in the more general conversion therapy or ex-gay pages first, and then maybe summarized here. I am working on those pages now. The church is neutral in regards to therapy, so I think it should only have a light treatment. Be careful not to confuse reparative therapy with celibacy. Controlling sexual expression is discussed in depth here, and I see an argument for discussing how it affects mental and physical health here, but again, that isn't unique to Mormonism and should first be elaborated on the celibacy page. BTW, gays don't have to be celibate. They can be heterosexually married. Also be careful not to confuse therapy with the possibility of change. Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.[6] Current church leaders don't necessarily encourage people to try to change, but simply acknowledge that some have. Numbers would be interesting, but are hard to come by. They currently do not say that the "success" is the result of reparative therapy, so that part seems to be inline with modern science.

There is a section on suicide in the homophobia section, but it could be expanded. I have looked for statistics, and feel pretty confident they don't exist. Carol Lynn Pearson discusses general suicide in the church, and speculates that might have to do with homosexuality, but that is only a conjuncture. That is on my to do list, but isn't my highest priority. I have mostly concentrated on what the church says about homosexuality, and about homosexual Mormons. I also think more information should be added on people who have left the church, gay Mormons in the media (like Latter Days), and the differing views of the Mormon members.Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with History and Background

• The first paragraph of this section is mostly irrelevant. The first three sentences sound a lot like the recent statements that The Church is "not anti-gay, but pro-marriage," and including this irrelevant information turns the tone of the section non-NPOV.
• The way that the first two paragraphs are phrased implies that the Church's stand against homosexual behavior has always been present; in fact, there is considerable historical evidence that, until the late 1940's, Church authorities would leave alone members who were in committed same-sex relationships. (See Joseph Fielding Smith (1899-1964) for just one example.)
• The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 19 cannot be fairly construed as clarified condemnation of homosexual behavior. Pro-Gay-LDS activists have cited the same passage to claim that Joseph Smith actually disagreed with the anti-gay interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. (Smith actually said the sin of Sodom was inhospitality; I need to find a source for that.) If this article is going to use the JST as an explanation of Church doctrine, it should cite use of those passages to that effect by LDS general authorities, as well as the passage itself.
• While Michael Quinn has extensively documented his claims, Hinckley has never cited support for the statement that prophets have "always" considered homosexual behavior sinful. (Spencer W. Kimball made the same claim in The Miracle of Forgiveness, also unbacked. I can find no evidence that any Prophet of God ever condemned homosexual acts before 1952.) The way the last sentence of the second paragraph is set lends undue authority to President Hinckley's statement and invalidates of Quinn's claim.

Naptastic (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some tweaking to the section, but it seems necessary to provide a foundation of beliefs before a clarification of ideas regarding homosexuality. I see no POV problems that you alluded to above.

Joseph Smith's translation clearly condemns homosexuality and the LDS clearly defines it as such. Do you have any references for your proposed interpretation? If so, they should be added. I think the section already cites the JST as a condemning immoral behavior as well as the Bible.

It is evident that prophets of Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and latter-day prophets are all discussed the sin of sodomy/homosexuality. It seems a little silly to note as the article currently does when the term "homosexuality" was used, as if the term itself has a wholly different meaning than sodomy or immorality in general. Have any prophets supported homosexuality or similar behavior? --^StormRider 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actualy.....yes, they have. In my research I discovered that The churches current views on Homosexuality began around the 1950s. Before that there were instances where church leaders supported homosexual relationships. Homosexuality as a sin is not supported by anything but church doctrine. Sin is a church doctrine it is not a historic fact.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This section (and actually, the entire article in general) should be written as a third person observer who has chronicled both the church's stance and the experiences of those who were homosexual in this religion and/or culture. Instead it is written as if it came directly from the LDS church. I will be compiling sources and new paragraphs shortly. In the meantime, I am tweaking sentences so that Church doctrine and beliefs are not stated as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilepo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome?

Call me crazy but the opening sentence seems to torture the word "welcome". Can it be eliminated? Reworded? My basic point in case it's not self evident is that their position might not be viewed as being welcoming, so perhaps saying something more neutral like the church is open to homosexuals who follow church doctrine or something like that would be better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought about it and came up with some other sentences:

• You are welcome in my home as long as you wife your feet.
• You are welcome to attend the symphony, but you must observe the dress code.
• You are welcome to stay as long as you like, but you will have to lend a hand.

It seems like welcome is an appropriate word. The Church welcomes all, regardless of sexual persuasion, but all are taught to be obedient to the laws of God. Your wording of accept is less inviting. You place the Church in the position of closing doors to people...to be unwelcoming. What is the objective? Does the LDS Church welcome people to their Church? Does the LDS Church teach all members to obey the teachings of the Church? Are any treated differently and if so why? Is disobedience an appropriate criteria for religious organizations to use when reviewing the degree of participation in church functions? --^StormRider 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Accepts works for me. We could also rearrange the lead to begin with something along the lines of LDSC forbids homosexual behavior but not thought. Better wording if we think that would improve presentation. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Forbids is not acceptable; it denotes that someone has control over another. The Church has no control over any of its members. The Church teaches... is acceptable. Accept does not work for me because the Church specifically welcomes all to attend. Please change it back until concensus is reached. --^StormRider 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with StormRider. "Welcomes" suggests that the Church wants their presence but doesn't condone a lifestyle. The problem with "LDSC forbids homosexual behavior but not thought" is that it implies that the Church somehow condones homosexual thought (when it doesn't).  EJNOGARB  22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcomes seems too strong to me and may be the wording chosen by the church but this is an encyclopedia and that phrasing seems me to violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. As the church has strict restrictions and prohibitions on homosexual acts and practices, I think it's to much of a stretch to use the word "welcoming". Their position on homosexuality and homosexuals includes prohibitions and disallows the behaviors that go along with being a homosexual. Basically they are saying people are welcome if they don't practice homosexuality. So I don't see how we can say homosexuals are welcome if we agree that most homosexuals engage in homosexual acts. Accepts seems very nice and neutral to me. If the church doesn't condone and in fact prohibits the lifestyle, that doesn't seem welcoming at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Welcomes" and "accepts" both seem to positive to me, while "forbids" is too negative. The issue is that the LDS church is against homosexuality, though they don't forbid thoughts of homosexuality. However, somewhere it should be mentioned that "unclean thoughts" are a sin. tedder (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) I like COM's compromise; "welcomes all" is great wording. I don't like the wording of "mandating the control of homosexual behaviors". Really, homosexual behaviors are a sin- so it isn't control, it's abstinence from homosexual behavior. I'm not a wordsmith; anyone have good ideas of how to craft this phrase better? tedder (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the word control was a bit abstract or something also. But I'm quitting while I'm ahead. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the new edit looks good and nicely summarizes the LDS Church's position.  EJNOGARB  00:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What I found today in the lead was a sentence that had far too much boosterism and was not nuetral or encyclopedic. The word welcom is not the problem, it is an acceptable use of the term. What was not acceptable was thway the tone of the lead was written as fact. It is not. It is only the church doctrine and can never be proven as factual. the lead now reads;

"While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes all people to attend it's church and accepts gay and lesbian members, it is only under the condition that they attempt to live by the church moral codes mandating the control of homosexual behaviors and forbidding extramarital homosexual sex.

The Mormon church officially recognizes homosexuality as a set of “thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.” The Church teaches that homosexual feelings, as distinct from behavior, may be inborn,[1] and that although these feelings are sometimes unwanted, they can and should be controlled.[2] The Church’s law of chastity forbids all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage, and consistently breaking the law of chastity may result in excommunication. Members who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual may remain in good standing in the Church, without ramification, if they abstain from homosexual relations.[2][3]

The Church opposes and campaigns against the extension of marital rights to gay and lesbian individuals believing that it would undermine the tradition of heterosexual monogamous marriage (Hinckley, Monson & Faust 2004). The issue of same-sex marriage has in recent years become one of the Church’s foremost political concerns."

--69.62.180.178 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To Young Men Only

The portion of this section related to "gay bashing" is rather dubious, especially in the context of the story. Reading over it myself, it seems that the advice given is to "protect yourself" from temptation and acts in which you're not a willing participant. People who take this as advice to become violent against homosexuals are clearly misreading the intent -- and that includes Mormons who use it as justification and as Homosexuals who point to it and say, "See? The Mormons endorse gay bashing!" I don't think anybody would object to advising a young woman to hit a man who's advancing on her in a sexual manner, so why the fuss over giving the same advice to a young man? That said, I'm not sure how to fix the paragraph in question, since this relates to the central premise -- adding something like, "However, supporters of the church's position point out that ..." seems inappropriate and inadequate, but complete removal probably isn't right, either. As a side note, the author isn't properly introduced until later paragraphs, so that should probably be placed earlier in the article after this is resolved. 128.187.0.164 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was very implicit in the sermon that the missionary made an indecent advance, and the point was to not allow others to do so. Leaders in the Church have been very explicit about not gay-bashing. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the better analogy is, would anybody sanction a man striking a woman for making a pass at him. While someone might not care about violence by women against men for such advances, if it were the other way around, most people today would have a problem. Packer, apparently, sees the gay missionary as taking the "man-like" position, and sees the straight missionary as taking the "woman-like" position, and sees no particular problem with the "woman on man" violence. Other people might take the opposite view, and see the gay missionary in the feminine role and therefore object to the "man on woman" violence. I think it's just a matter of how you were raised, what level of violence you are willing to tolerate or condone, and who you view as the "victim". There is probably still a contingency of LDS who agree with Packer on this, and if we can find a good source defending Packer's views, we ought to add it. But I don't think his views reflect current LDS policy or practice. Packer is from a bygone era. COGDEN 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your assumptions have no foundation, and I seriously doubt either President Packer or the missionary in question considered who was the "man" or who was the "woman" in the situation. For that same reason, such an assumption should never make its way into the article. What should be included, and is included, is President Packer's statement that he does not encourage such an approach, and that the Church has formally denounced gay-bashing many times. Whether or not you believe President Packer represents a bygone era doesn't matter. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This section strayed far from the original publications wording. I have removed the word "Flatten" and replaced it with the word "Beat" as used in the actual publication. I also removed POV statements that the Missionary had to defend himself. That is POV, He could have just said "No". and walked away. This might need an expansion and it's own section if it can be done properly.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)