Talk:Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 2

Problems with Criticism Section
I propose that the section on polygamy be deleted since it makes no reference to homosexuality, except the vague, unsourced claim that "many people have criticized the church's stance on marriage being between a man and a woman." Even if a reliable source were to be found saying this, it violates wp:synthesis to assume that this affects the church's stance on homosexuality. Unless there's a consensus against this proposed change, I'll delete the material in a couple days. EJNOGARB 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking, but I don't think you meant "Unless there's a consensus against this proposed change", which implies you'll remove it unless people agree with you :-)
 * Ontopic, I agree that it can/should be removed. I don't see the relevance to homosexuality. It belongs in another LDS criticism type article, just not this one. tedder (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First time round and based on just the section title I thought it should probably be removed. However, having examined the piece that was removed it seems relevant - but it really does need citations and the wording sorting out or it's going to get ripped apart on review. This interview would seem to be a good start, (Last question on the first page) but I'm unfamiliar with the topic - does anyone with more knowledge have more sources? ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rodriguez misleads on a couple of points in the last question on the first page of the above link to the Salon interview. The Church's position is that marriage is ok: "...between a man and a woman..." vs Rodriguez's "one man and one woman". To his point of hypocrisy, while the modern church has stated that plural marriages are no longer part of God's plan for families here on earth, it is not an attempt to retroactively disavow any and all plural marriages solemnized prior to 1890.


 * Also, Rodriguez's assertion that his mormon women friends tell him that The Church urges them to "reject their gay children" is a serious distortion. Church leaders make very clear that members are to "...love them as sons and daughters of God."Flee67 (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)flee67

Style guide
Whenever using the phrase "The Church," both words should be capitalized, according to most style guides. Please, someone, correct this, or reword it. Fredsmith2 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to which style guide? Users of Wikipedia are not beholden to the style guide set forth by the LDS church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.177.216 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

reverted POV edits
I removed some POV edits that occurred today. There were too many and there was too much complexity for me to simply undo the more flagrant ones. This one removed Michael Quinn and replaced it with the peacock-y term "Some", this one removed a source (either remove source + text and explain it on the talk page, or leave them alone. Don't remove a source and leave a statement uncited), this one was the removal of cited information without explaining how it was "twisting the words of a quote", and finally this one was simply POV, effectively using a press release as the source (see WP:PSTS).

Finally, a random one: this is a POVish edit to insert the full name with honorifics (WP:MOSBIO) rather than referring to someone by their last name on subsequent mentions. tedder (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits to intro paragraphs
I made a series of edits to the intro paragraphs. It has been brought to my attention that I wasn't providing appropriate documentation to my edits. With my apologies...

There was a lot of repition of the same point-- namely that the law of chastity prohibits all sexual conduct outside of recognized marriages. It is simply unnecessary to make that point three different times in a single into. This one change realigned several paragraphs.

Other edits: -A change from the idea that the chruch "welcomes" all to its services to "permits all to attend". "Welcome" is probably not an encyclopedic POV. A related change helps clarify previous ambiguity re church membership and allowing church attendance. And added needed references for such.

-Change sentence stating that the church opposes, "the extension of marital rights to same-sex couples" -- to remove "the extension". Prop 8-- for example-- removed the right of gay couples to get married. So the church opposes the extension, but also favors reversing the right where it currently exists. Removing "the extension" makes the distinction moot for the purposes of this entry.

-Removed reference to the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage, "the tradition of heterosexual monogamous..." It's clear the doctrinal issue at stake is not monogamy. It seems clear from previous conversations on this talk page that we are trying to avoid polygamy/monogamy discussions in this entry.

-Removed a convoluted sentence about the relationship between orientation and agency. The sentence greatly confused orientation (i.e. who one is attracted to) and sexual activity. Attempted to simplify with a sentence explaining that church teachings dictate that no matter the cause of orientation, gay people should-- in the eyes of the church-- refrain from sexual relations.

Adkinsc1 (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Construction to Integrate Positive and Negative Content
I am working to integrate "positive" and "negative" content into the entry. At this point the article contains many examples of POV forking-- some sections are positive and others negative. The article also weights some negative sections to the bottom of the article.

The page also contains many links that are now dead due to the migration of the LDS Newsroom site, and new SL Tribune site.

If you have thoughts or additional revisions, please help. I look forward to discussing any issues or concerns with my edits here on the talk page. I will post updates in this section.

Thanks! Adkinsc1 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved the Historic Church subsection from the Critics section to the History and Background section in order to resolve forking issues, and prevent possible POV issues arising from undue weight.
 * Removed the Westboro Baptist Church subsection. Westboro protests countless groups: Funerals for soldiers, Matthew Shepard's funeral (and subsequent productions of the Laramie Project), Lady Gaga concerts, federal courthouses, the US Holocaust Museum and Memorial, Jewish community centers, Papal visits, etc. In most cases (with the exception of protests targeting Jewish groups), the message of the protests is that Americans are too accepting of LGBT people. [This is even their message when protesting soldiers' funerals.] A reference to Westboro in every entry where they have protested is simply not noteworthy. The fact that Westboro protested the LDS church once doesn't really tell us anything about the church or its teaching on homosexuality. That said-- it could probably be noteworthy to add info to the Westboro Baptist entry regarding the protest of the Hinckley funeral.
 * Moved Homophobia subsection from the Critics section to the Current Policy section. [See previous notes re forking and undue weight]
 * Moved Boyd K Packer and To Young Men Only Subsection from Critics section to History and Background Section. [See previous notes re forking and undue weight]
 * Deleted header for Critics section. The Critics section is NOW INTEGRATED into the entry at large. [See previous notes re forking and undue weight]

Tightening up
This article is a complete mess. The issue of gay marriage, for example, pops up in like seven different places. Things are repeated over and over again with tid bits of new information each time. It needs to be overhauled and reorganized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.10.179 (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So get in and contribute! This is what Wikipedia is all about... -- S ansumaria  t@lk  12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)''


 * Can I just say that this is the worst article ever written. Seriously.  This type of work doesn't belong on my toilet paper, let alone Wiki.  I have several major problems with the treatment of this entry.  It's vague and terribly, horribly, unfixably, uncontrollably biased.  I recommend a complete rewrite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.21.194.169 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What a joke
I came to this article looking for a serious discussion of its subject. And what do I find right at the start of the article? "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints permits all people to attend its local Sunday services" What a joke!! Can't the article introduce the subject properly without apologetic blather like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viramag (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead
I have tried to change the lead to make it more logical but Araignee reverted my change. We need to have the lead so it reads like this:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints historically taught that the practice of homosexuality, meaning sexual behavior with someone of the same sex,[1] was a choice or curable mental illness.[2] This is a position still held by some leaders in the LDS church.[3] The church teaches that regardless of the cause of homosexual orientation, one can and must avoid homosexual relations.[4][5] Homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Law of Chastity, as well as other sexual acts outside the bonds of marriage. Violating the Law of Chastity may result in excommunication. Members of the church who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual may remain in good standing in the Church if they abstain from homosexual relations.[4][7] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints permits all people to attend its local Sunday services.[8] Acquiring and maintaining membership in the church, and receiving a temple recommend, is dependent upon the personal observance of its teachings, including the law of chastity.[9][10]

But in Araignee's version, it's like this:

Homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Law of Chastity, as well as other sexual acts outside the bonds of marriage.[1] Violating the Law of Chastity may result in excommunication. Members of the church who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual may remain in good standing in the Church if they abstain from homosexual relations.[2][3] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints permits all people to attend its local Sunday services.[4] Acquiring and maintaining membership in the church, and receiving a temple recommend, is dependent upon the personal observance of its teachings, including the law of chastity.[5][6] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints historically taught that the practice of homosexuality, meaning sexual behavior with someone of the same sex,[7] was a choice or curable mental illness.[8] This is a position still held by some leaders in the LDS church.[9] The church teaches that regardless of the cause of homosexual orientation, one can and must avoid homosexual relations.[2][10]

That version is illogical, because the material about how "Homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Law of Chastity" should follow on from "The church teaches that regardless of the cause of homosexual orientation, one can and must avoid homosexual relations", NOT come before it. That "The church teaches that regardless of the cause of homosexual orientation, one can and must avoid homosexual relations" is the basic fact that needs to be mentioned first; "Homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Law of Chastity" explains the reason for it, so it comes second. Araignee's version is contorted and breaks up the flow of the material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viramag (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, it's not "my" version, persay. The original lead, which had been present for quite some time, was moved without explanation and I changed it back. I appreciate your explanation here, but I disagree with it. First, what the LDS Church taught historically can be found in the meat of the article. Second, to state the opinions of a few leaders of the LDS Church in the lead is misleading, as it is not at all a consensus position (and this is explained later in the article). Lastly, the lead should state what the relationship is currently between Homosexuality and the LDS Church, which the original version did well (homosexual acts are prohibited by the LDS Church due to its law of chastity). If you disagree, we need to get some others in on the discussion, but for now I'm going to change it back. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"What the LDS Church taught historically" should be there in the lead. That's what the lead is for - to sum up the article. The fact that homosexual acts are prohibited in the LDS Church only makes sense if you put the more basic information about how that church sees homosexuality first. Viramag (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So I stand by my view that the lead as currently written is illogical and silly. Viramag (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And I am going to change the lead back again if no one objects. Viramag (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the introduction. One of the immediate problems I saw was the reference to Spencer W. Kimball being used as "the" position of the LDS Church. SWK is giving his position; in the text he is not speaking for the LDS Church. This is blatant misuse of references. It seems someone is trying to press an agenda or POV rather than just write the facts.
 * The text used for SWK's position is also problematic. I did not read anywhere that SWK said it was a mental illness. He quoted medical journals and the word "cure" was used. When using a reference, the reference itself must state clearly what purported in its use in the article. It does not.
 * Neutrality is apparently a problem here.- Storm  Rider  11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I too still think that changing to Viramag's version would push an agenda, and the sides are meant to be debated in the article. The fact is that homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church. That is the most important relationship between the two subjects (homosexuality and the LDS Church), and should be the first thing people read. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I had thought that Wikipedia had some kind of policy about assuming good faith? You would appear to be violating that policy. I am not interested in pushing agendas. I am interested in making the lead read logically and sensibly. I think an honest person would agree that the lead of this article has long had major problems (until relatively recently, the first sentence was "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints permits all people to attend its local Sunday services"...not quite what one expects to find in an article specifically about homosexuality)and that it continues to have major problems now. I am aware that homosexual acts are prohbited by the LDS Church. I do not necessarily think that that is the most important fact that the lead has to deal with, or that it should come first even if it was. Viramag (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat what I already said about the lead. Its current arrangement is illogical and contorted. The paragraph starting, "Homosexual acts are prohibited by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Law of Chastity, as well as other sexual acts outside the bonds of marriage" should logically come after the sentence, "The church teaches that regardless of the cause of homosexual orientation, one can and must avoid homosexual relations", not before it, because it provides the reason for and spells out the implications of that fact. That's all that should need to be said, if we're going to approach this sensibly. But since Araignee is assuming bad faith and making accusations of agenda pushing against me, I'm just going to let the matter drop. I am not prepared to deal with this kind of hostile environment, and I've no time to waste defending myself against false accusations of whatever kind. Viramag (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus on the change, and as stated by Storm Rider, the quotes by SWK, questionably cited but discussed in the text nonetheless, are out of context and are not current teachings nor official doctrine. This is not suppression of content or censorship or even bias. The lead should state, first, clearly and concisely, the current teachings and relationship between the Church and homosexuality, not a historical opinion of a few men. Before changing this yet again, please discuss this further and invite others to join in. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "No consensus" is a silly reason for a revert. So far as I know, there's no consensus for your changes, either. Obviously, the lead needs to explain the past as well as the present views of the LDS church on this subject, so it's not relevant at all that the views mentioned "are not current teachings nor official doctrine." I can understand why someone concerned with promoting the current view of the LDS church might have a problem with that material (not that I'm saying that that is - or isn't - your motive; it's not for me to speculate), but it does belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. Viramag (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've said numerous times, I disagree completely that the lead should first say what the current position of the LDS church is on homosexual sex. This is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia article, not a way of telling LDS church members that they aren't allowed to have sex with a person of the same gender, or an advertisement for the LDS church's official view of homosexuality. The current position of the LDS church on homosexual sex only makes sense in the light of current and past LDS views on homosexuality itself, which is why they should come first. We need to begin at the beginning. Viramag (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CON. Having no consensus is a valid indicator to leave the lead as it was, though it is not enough to prevent a change. That being said, it should be a larger discussion than being one between just you and me. As I said before, if you disagree with this, feel free to get others in the discussion. This is why I left a note on the LBGT project page. I don't claim to own the article. The things you are trying to move to the front are already discussed in the article, and to have a spurious reference (cited out of context) listed in the lead is already questionable. The lead should not be a history lesson, but a brief summary of what the relationship is. As per guidelines in WP:BRD, I am moving it back to the state it was in. I have proposed this version as a more neutral intro, but you disagree with this as well. I am also requesting more voices for discussion at WP:DRN. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 02:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed
For a few months there has been a citation needed tag on the statement that reads, "Others dispute that estimate, saying numbers in support groups for active Latter-day Saints and for self-identified gay Mormons are comparable." Does anybody know who these "others" are, or have a citation for this? It sounds a little bit like original research to me. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Early Tolerance?
I recently heard it remarked that in earlier times there was greater tolerance of gay people because there was a greater emphasis on D&C 64:10, which encourages people to be more tolerant of others. Any comments? RomanSpa (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There'd need to be a RS to support anything like that, but to be honest (and this too is not sourced), society in the 19th century largely considered homosexual relations as forbidden by moral/religious code. As a new Christian religion largely made up of people formerly of other Christian religions, it's unlikely there was much difference as to their take/tolerance on the subject. That being said, it wasn't likely a topic that came up nearly as often as today, adhering to a widely-understood societal convention to not discuss the controversial and taboo. "Greater tolerance" implies "lesser tolerance" in today's LDS Church, which is quite the claim. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this claim of greater tolerance is derived from some of Quinn's writings. Though I find Quinn to be a good historian in finding a great number of sources for his suppositions, he makes some rather egregious leaps of logic. On this topic he alleges that some of the early leaders may have been gay because it is noted that at times they slept in the same bed as another man. Unfortunately, this is hardly evidence of being gay. Further, in Millard's book, "Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President", she recounts a situation where the soon-to-be President, James Garfield, was put in the position of sleeping with a stranger at the 1880 Republican Convention. Sleeping with other men, even strangers, does not justify that one is gay or anything else; society and cultures made do with what they had - a scarcity of most things lead to a different way of doing things than today; Quinn's assumptions to the contrary. -- Storm  Rider  09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed 2nd paragraph
Changed the second paragraph to remove the implied change in positions of the Church which I couldn't not find in the references provided. Please show me the specific quotes from the referenced articles to support the claim that the Church previously said homosexuality is a choice and then that it is not a choice. Also removed the words, mental illness, I did not see this wording in the referenced articles.

Although the LDS Church has taught that homosexuality[7] is a curable condition,[8] they acknowledge that: "individuals do not choose to have such attractions." The church teaches that regardless of the cause of same sex attraction, such "immoral relationships" must be abjured.[2][9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.88.139 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Packer quote again
User:InfiLaw continues to reinsert this after being reverted by two separate editors. My interpretation of an above section is that calling this gay-bashing or even saying that this condones violence against gays without qualification is against consensus. I would note that the Packer story from "To Young Men Only" is included in two other sections of the article and this inclusion would be a third. One of the previously existing mentions does talk about how Quinn believes this endorses "gay-bashing" - I'm fine with this because the opinion is referenced to a reliable source and not stated as fact. Stating it as fact, whether endorsing gay-bashing or condoning violence, also IMO runs afoul of WP:BLP. Is there a new consensus on this? Until then, I'm reverting. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)