Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “03 – ‘Homosexual’ is Not a Noun.” You can view other topics here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
03 – “Homosexual” is not a noun
1249:
“There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just ‘that way’ and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our pre-mortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly man—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.” (Boyd K. Packer, General Conference address, October 2, 1976. Conference Report, October 1976, p. 101)
1431:
“[p. 2] And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one.…
[p. 4] Is this tendency impossible to change? Is it preset at the time of birth and locked in? Do you just have to live with it? For example, the shutter of an expensive camera is calibrated at the factory and cannot be adjusted in the field. If such a camera, by chance, is thrown out of calibration or damaged, it cannot be fixed locally. It must eventually go back to the factory, for only there can it be put in order. Is perversion like that? The answer is a conclusive no! It is not like that.
Some so-called experts, and many of those who have yielded to the practice, teach that it is congenital and incurable and that one just has to learn to live with it. They can point to a history of very little success in trying to put whatever mechanism that causes this back into proper adjustment. They have, to support them, some very convincing evidence. Much of the so-called scientific literature concludes that there really is not much that can be done about it.
I reject that conclusion out of hand. And there is a very sensible reason. How can a conclusion on a matter like this be valid when the studies have ignored the part of our nature most affected by it? It has not been fully studied as a moral and a spiritual disorder.
It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. One does not just have to yield to it and live with it. Test it [p. 5] against moral law and you learn something very quickly. If a condition that draws both men and women into one of the ugliest and most debased of all physical performances is set and cannot be overcome, it would be a glaring exception to all moral law.…
[p. 9] Perversion may have some very physical expressions, but it is not a physical disorder. A most extensive physical examination will not reveal one shred of evidence that it is.…
[p. 10] The cause of this disorder has remained hidden for so long because we have been looking for it in the wrong place. When the cause is discovered, it may be nothing so mysterious after all It may be hidden because it is so obvious.…
Have you explored the possibility that the cause, when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness—selfishness in a very subtle form? Now—and understand this—I do not think for a minute that [p. 11] the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with.…
It is hard to believe that any individual would, by a clear, conscious decision or by a pattern of them, choose a course of deviation.…
[p. 18] There is great power in the scriptures. Study the gospel—live it. Read the revelations. Every prescription against selfishness of any kind will bring some control of this disease.” (Boyd K. Packer, To the One, Address given to the Twelve Stake Fireside Brigham Young University, March 5, 1978)
1752:
“You will note from the attached that Elder Packer was not pleased to have his talk the subject of editorial comment in the Universe, even favorable editorial comment.
I send this along for your information. Nothing can be done at this point except to apologize, which I will handle with him directly.” (Dallin H. Oaks to M. Dallas Burnett, March 17, 1978)
“Elder Boyd K. Packer chose a sensitive subject for Sunday’s fireside address. The topic of homosexuality is not a pleasant one. Nor is it one to be frequently or lightly spoken of, as shown by the fact that he chose to use the word ‘homosexual’ only once during his speech.…
Elder Packer said his speech was for the ‘one.’ But many people appear eager to apply it to those numbered among the ‘ninety-and-nine.’” (Shari Eyre, “’Gay’ label misapplied on basis of a few traits,” Daily Universe)
[The photocopy of the Daily Universe editorial was sent by Packer to Oaks, along with the following typed message, on March 16, 1978: “I want to tell you pointedly that I have thought this to be a very personal message. No good purpose will be served if you make this message the subject of chatter in the dormitories, or in classes, or church meetings, or in the Universe. I repeat, I have thought this to be a very personal message, and I have already said that we can very foolishly cause things we are trying to prevent by talking too much about them.”]
1753:
“Homosexuality in men and lesbianism in women violate the moral code of the Church. Common judges should keep this in mind when conducting worthiness interviews.
Enclosed for your information and use in counseling those who have these problems are several copies of Letter to a Friend by President Spencer W. Kimball and To the One by Elder Boyd K. Packer.” (Circular letter to all stake, mission, and district presidents, bishops and branch presidents, May 8, 1978, signed by Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney.)
1253:
“Homosexual behavior is learned and can be overcome. To believe that immoral behavior is inborn or hereditary is to deny that men have agency to choose between sin and righteousness.” (Homosexuality, 2nd. ed., 1981, p. 2.)
1777:
“[p. 3] Be careful not to label the person as homosexual or gay. Such labels can undermine the person’s belief that change is possible and make communicate the mistaken notion that a man or woman his born with a homosexual identity that cannot be changed. It is more appropriate to speak of homosexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior. (Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems. Suggestions for Ecclesiastical Leaders (Salt Lake City: Church, 1992))
65:
“We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote the condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995)
2648:
“We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.” (“Same-Gender Attraction,” Eternal Marriage Student Manual, 2003)
3257:
“Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:
“The words homosexual, lesbian and gay are adjectives to describe thoughts, feelings or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that birth [or some other reason] consigns a person to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.”…
(James O. Mason, “The Worth of a Soul is Great,” Evergreen International 15th Annual Conference, September 17, 2005)
1336:
“The Mormon Church today changed the wording of a sexuality question on an online survey of young church members, shortly after it was reported that the original question discouraged respondents from identifying as anything other than heterosexual and characterized ‘same-sex attraction’ as something a person must ‘struggle with.’
One question on the survey, aimed at members of the millennial generation, originally asked ‘What is your sexual orientation?’ and gave the following options for answers:
I am heterosexual, but I struggle with same-sex attraction.
I am heterosexual and do not struggle with same-sex attraction.
Other, please specify:
… The wording was changed today ‘to better convey the intent of the question,’ a church spokesman told The Advocate via email. The question now reads, ‘Do you experience same-sex attraction?’ and the answers are ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ and ‘other,’ with the ‘other’ option including ‘space for a respondent to provide any context or explanation they wish,’ the spokesman said in the email.
‘The survey is part of the church’s broader research to understand the attitudes and opinions of millennials,’ he added.
For a brief period over the weekend, the survey included an option allowing respondents to explicity identify as LGBT, according to a Monday afternoon report from The New Civil Rights Movement. The site obtained a screen shot of the question appearing Sunday with its original wording – ‘What is your sexual orientation?’ – and the original answer options plus one: ’I consider myself homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered.’ By today, this option was gone, and the question and answer options both replaced with the ’Do you experience same-sex attraction?’ wording.…” (Trudy Ring, “Mormon Survey Changes Problematic Wording of Sexuality Question,” Advocate, April 28, 2014)
4130
“’During the past week, the LDS Church has been surveying Mormon ‘millennials’ (those born between 1980 and 2000) on their attitudes about marriage and same-sex attraction — without ever mentioning the words ‘homosexual,’ ‘gay,’ ‘bisexual’ or ‘transgender.’…
Not surprisingly, gay-rights activists were incensed.
‘In the minds of the Mormon church’s top leadership, either someone is heterosexual, or they are heterosexual and ‘struggle’ with a problem,’ writes The New Civil Rights Movement. ‘Actually being gay, lesbian, bisexual or any other orientation is not within the realm of possibility — as if the entire concept of homosexuality just does not exist.’” (“Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’Gay’ not an option in Mormon survey on sexual orientation,” Salt Lake Tribune, April 28, 2014)
1973:
[p. 94] Thus, when bishops and others entrusted with pastoral care encountered homosexual behavior ‘in its early stages’ among young people, they treated it as a temporary condition that they could control. Such an approach foreshadowed the LDS Church’s tactic in recent years of describing homosexual Mormons as ‘same-sex attracted’ rather than ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual,’ suggesting a passing phase rather than a way of being.…
[p. 95] Focusing on behavior rather than a stable identity implied choice and moral responsibility for one’s actions, but also the church’s ability to control homosexuality and rehabilitate those who faltered.…
(Douglas A. Winkler, “Lavender Sons of Zion: A History of Gay Men in Salt Lake City, 1950-79,” PhD Dissertation, University of Utah, May 2008)
INTERVIEWS
Prince: What about David Bednar saying there are no homosexuals in the Church?
Munson: Their view is that the damage is done, so we can just go and align and go on our merry own way, and there will be no further public relations crisis. That’s their thinking. I tell you, that really is their thinking.
Prince: So they really think they have weathered the storm?
Munson: They do. They’re crazy. They live in this bubble. They are divorced from reality.
Prince: I’ve seen that.
(Shipley Munson, March 2, 2016)