The Ghost of Homophobia Past

[consiglieri]

A new Radio Free Mormon podcast went up over the weekend, called, "The Ghost of Homophobia Past."

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... bias-past/

It deals with the 1981 priesthood leadership manual on homosexuality recently released by MormonLeaks.

I hope you like it!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[NewLight]

Thumbs up! I really enjoy all of the podcasts you put together - so well thought out and informative,

Good work!

[moksha]

What about the theory that homosexuals drank too many caffè lattes in the pre-existence? I have yet to hear one single disavowal of this speculation and there have been no reports of BYU professors being fired for discussing this caffè latte causation with gentile publications.

[Jeffret]

It's quite a good podcast.

A few observations:

You repeatedly characterize this church-produced document as very primeval. I find it interesting how much that has changed and how recently. At the time it was published, the document wasn't terribly out of place among the conservative, religious folks like the Church. It was fairly run of the mill. It certainly wasn't progressive by any means, but it wasn't that unusual. The Church and some its entities were heavily involved in reparative therapy and extremely committed to the idea that gays could change. They devoted lots of money, resources, and time to that endeavor. Their recommendations for reparative therapy in this booklet are simplified pablum, like much that occurs in their church. At BYU, their reparative therapy was much more involved. The researchers they approved of, such as Nicolosi at NARTH, JONAH, Exodus International and others, had much more involved therapy programs. Which also didn't work at all. These primeval approaches were still significantly in vogue pretty much up until the Church dramatically changed the discussion by its heavy involvement in Prop 8. Before then, most of these things went quietly unnoticed. Prop 8 brought it out so that everyone talked about it, in and out of the Church. They were terrified that kids would learn about gays, so they made sure that they heard all about it. It's amazing how quickly that has changed. Now, these ideas seem primeval, wholly unjustified, and totally ridiculous. Things have changed rapidly. Lots of people's perceptions have dramatically changed. But not those at the top leadership of the Church.

There's also another dramatic change that interests me on display here. It has become much more acceptable to criticize the Church, even from the perspective of relatively faithful members. During the Prop 8 campaign criticizing the Church openly, particularly regarding gays, was a quick ticket to church discipline. This was the case for several people during that time period. Or much earlier, with rpcman, the Church seemed totally oblivious to the internet but once it's top leaders finally figured out what it was, they acted to excommunicate over criticism. Now, though, there are quite a number of people, such as Radio Free Mormon, others at Mormon Discussions, and many others at a variety of sites who are quite willing to criticize the Church, call its leaders to repentance, and tell them how to behave, without any great concern or any repercussion. The result seems to be pretty much the same, though.

In some ways, the discussion on the podcast comes across a little flat, or perhaps academic would be a better word. Or maybe clinical. It carefully and thoroughly demolishes the booklet, but it doesn't really display much compassion for those affected by it. It kind of lacks an LGBTQ voice, to give it humanity. It recognizes the problems with the ways teachings like this from the Church have harmed LGBTQ folks, but doesn't really feel for them or from them. Admittedly, my own writings on the topic can suffer from the same problem. Perhaps my observations on this point result because I typically read or listen to these sorts of issues from people in the community or heavily engaged with it.

[NewLight]

Personally, I took the podcast as just an analysis of the document from the early 80s and really nothing more than that, so I was not bothered by the "academic" feel to it.

But as I pondered on the effects of the booklet, I thought that working with the LGBTQ population is yet another example of how the LDS Church perpetually lags behind on social issues and damages people. I have a nephew who as a teenager was quite righteous - oh, and gay. He tried desperately to "pray the gay away". I mean this kid spent HOURS in the middle of the night praying and pleading for God to change him.

Why would a church need to "fit in with the rest of the conservatives of the day" if it is truly led by "God"? Should it not be the one church reaching out and stretching its membership to expanding love to all of humanity? Should it not be encouraging people to love my nephew and others in his shoes instead of judging them and believing that they "chose to be gay"?

All rhetorical questions, I know. But it cannot be denied that once again, the church is behind on an important social issue that significantly impacts the lives of people. And a big part of the lag is this chunk of "leadership material" (or whatever we want to call it) and a commitment among the apostles to keep much of the behavior it encourages fresh in the mind of today's lay leadership.

[consiglieri]

It's quite a good podcast.

A few observations:

You repeatedly characterize this church-produced document as very primeval. I find it interesting how much that has changed and how recently. At the time it was published, the document wasn't terribly out of place among the conservative, religious folks like the Church. It was fairly run of the mill. It certainly wasn't progressive by any means, but it wasn't that unusual. The Church and some its entities were heavily involved in reparative therapy and extremely committed to the idea that gays could change. They devoted lots of money, resources, and time to that endeavor. Their recommendations for reparative therapy in this booklet are simplified pablum, like much that occurs in their church. At BYU, their reparative therapy was much more involved. The researchers they approved of, such as Nicolosi at NARTH, JONAH, Exodus International and others, had much more involved therapy programs. Which also didn't work at all. These primeval approaches were still significantly in vogue pretty much up until the Church dramatically changed the discussion by its heavy involvement in Prop 8. Before then, most of these things went quietly unnoticed. Prop 8 brought it out so that everyone talked about it, in and out of the Church. They were terrified that kids would learn about gays, so they made sure that they heard all about it. It's amazing how quickly that has changed. Now, these ideas seem primeval, wholly unjustified, and totally ridiculous. Things have changed rapidly. Lots of people's perceptions have dramatically changed. But not those at the top leadership of the Church.

There's also another dramatic change that interests me on display here. It has become much more acceptable to criticize the Church, even from the perspective of relatively faithful members. During the Prop 8 campaign criticizing the Church openly, particularly regarding gays, was a quick ticket to church discipline. This was the case for several people during that time period. Or much earlier, with rpcman, the Church seemed totally oblivious to the internet but once it's top leaders finally figured out what it was, they acted to excommunicate over criticism. Now, though, there are quite a number of people, such as Radio Free Mormon, others at Mormon Discussions, and many others at a variety of sites who are quite willing to criticize the Church, call its leaders to repentance, and tell them how to behave, without any great concern or any repercussion. The result seems to be pretty much the same, though.

In some ways, the discussion on the podcast comes across a little flat, or perhaps academic would be a better word. Or maybe clinical. It carefully and thoroughly demolishes the booklet, but it doesn't really display much compassion for those affected by it. It kind of lacks an LGBTQ voice, to give it humanity. It recognizes the problems with the ways teachings like this from the Church have harmed LGBTQ folks, but doesn't really feel for them or from them. Admittedly, my own writings on the topic can suffer from the same problem. Perhaps my observations on this point result because I typically read or listen to these sorts of issues from people in the community or heavily engaged with it.

Great observations.

I felt the narrative was getting a bit flat and very intentionally inserted the personal story about Maurice to try to give it a more personal feel.

It was an important story in my personal development, but it was a bit outside the narrative of the podcast. I still wanted to put it in there to try to diminish from the clinical feel I thought the podcast was taking on.

Thanks again for your insights!

[Jeffret]

I felt the narrative was getting a bit flat and very intentionally inserted the personal story about Maurice to try to give it a more personal feel.

It was an important story in my personal development, but it was a bit outside the narrative of the podcast. I still wanted to put it in there to try to diminish from the clinical feel I thought the podcast was taking on.

My comment really was an observation and not a criticism. The story about Maurice certainly helps. I like those personal touches that bring out the humanity.

The podcast also inspired another observation in me, but I haven't been able to quite figure out how to express it. Something about how the Church really can't figure out what it's doing or what it is upset about. This was inspired by your comments and reading where the document states something about how solo masturbation can't be homosexual. But that's not necessarily the case, because masturbation isn't purely a physical act. The orientation may be reflected in the mental portion of it, which is a huge part of the whole thing. Masturbation fantasies aren't necessarily reality, though, nor do they necessarily reflect what someone really wants. But, the Church wants to make action the sin. And then it wants to make lustful thoughts a sin. And now it talks about same-sex attraction and says that's not a problem, but acting on it is. But what does it mean to act on it? The LGBT community kind of considers it gauche to use the term "homosexuality", because it focuses on the "sex" part, which is really only a minor part of what it means to be gay. My being straight impacts a lot of different parts of my life, based on the fact that I orient my life around a close personal relationship with a woman, my wife. Sometimes that's just about spending time together. Or talking. Or touching. Or displays of affection. Or missing her when we're apart. Or sex acts. Or thinking of her. Which of all those things would constitute homosexual behavior, forbidden by the Church, if the target of my interest were a man instead of a woman? The Church's approach just doesn't work and they can't figure out what they're really trying to do. But they want you to feel guilty about it.

(In your podcast, you use the term "homosexuality" a lot, but I don't know how you would really avoid it when discussing the booklet so heavily as that what it uses. I did notice that you used the LGBTQ terms sometimes. In those parts, I found your discussion less clinical, more personal, and more considerate of LGBTQ needs and concerns.)

[Hagoth]

I finally listened to the podcast, Consiglieri. You continue to be one of my heroes.

[moksha]

Do you think the LDS Church would back the religious freedom of other groups to discriminate against the Mormons?

Say for instance there was a group of Southern religionists who felt strongly that the Mormons were pushing a counterfeit Jesus and wished to prohibit Mormons from marrying. Say the civil authorities agreed because they too had prejudices against Mormons who disturbed their Saturday morning sleep with unrelenting doorbell ringing, so they passed a law making it so.

Would the LDS Church bring suit, citing the equal access clause of the Constitution and specifically the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision to affirm the right of Mormon marriage?

[Jeffret]

Do you think the LDS Church would back the religious freedom of other groups to discriminate against the Mormons?

He'll no!

But they're certain that won't be a problem because they're right.

[wtfluff]

Do you think the LDS Church would back the religious freedom of other groups to discriminate against the Mormons?