Bruce C. Hafen, LDS Church’s official gaybasher
If you ever needed a reason to distance yourself from the LDS Church, Bruce C. Hafen of the Seventy has just given you one. Oddly, this talk was linked to from the blog of the PR Department of the LDS Church as though it is worth reading. I’m not sure why they are proud of it. I recommend reading it yourself, but if you want some highlights, here’s what I found:
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and said, with a look of real anguish, “I suffer from same-gender attraction.” My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was “suffer.”
This makes it sound an awful lot like a disease!
But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling it does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the Adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly “that way,” so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the Father of Lies.
Many other people also live heroically with uninvited daily struggles. The victims of childhood sexual abuse also live with agonizing daily battles that may echo the experiences of some who cope with same-gender attraction.
Here, homosexuality is equated with childhood sexual abuse (he also equates it with quadriplegia.)
You are literally God’s spirit child. Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNA—only one generation removed from Him whom we call Father in Heaven.
Hmm… This sounds like a fact assertion. Unfortunately for him, the data from twins studies suggests there is very likely a genetic component. It may not explain all of the variation in sexual identity, but it explains some. Once again, ignorant religious leaders deny science for their own agenda!
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then–you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.
God don’t make no gay spirits. He just chooses to punish you with gayness while you’re mortal, ’cause he’s a loving god!
It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there.
The latest euphemism for gay sex – “building a nest”!
So something has been going on that has caused a kind of cultural earthquake in just the last few years. What is it? during the last few years to cause the cultural earthquake we’re now feeling on this subject? We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than we’ve witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence. In 1973, in response to increasing disruptions and protests by gay activists, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations removed homosexuality from their official lists of disorders. Significantly, they took this action by simply putting the issue to an open vote in their professional meetings–not because of any change in actual medical findings. As LDS psychologist Dean Byrd writes, “This was the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence.”
Equal rights for homosexuals is “an aggressive political movement” not backed by science! (My favorite part about this article – the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that are… um… not included.)
The activists have used similar methods in the years since then, trying to prove that they are a legitimate demographic category with fixed and unchangeable characteristics. They must present themselves in this way in order to justify their demand for the same legal protections now given to race and gender. That is a crucial point in understanding both the agenda and the tactics of intimidation used by today’s activists.
You heard it here, folks – homosexuals are less human and less deserving of equal rights than are women and blacks, only one of which the LDS Church has enfranchised. Ergo, women might get some degree of parity in the LDS Church before homosexuals do!
However, the activists have almost convinced the American public about this point. A reliable 2009 poll asked U.S. adults what causes people to be gay or lesbian. In the two most common responses, 42% of this public sample said gay or lesbian people are born that way, and 36% said they choose to be that way. Both of those responses are factually wrong.
Gays aren’t born that way and they don’t choose it. They, um, become that way through forces outside of their control? Are touched by Tinkerbell and her pixie dust at age 7? WTF?
In other words, before puberty, boys are typically more interested in other boys than in girls. Then their interest gradually shifts to girls, but a few boys don’t make this transition. Often these boys are emotionally sensitive, introspective, and, especially among Church members, perfectionistic. When puberty hits this group, they can be sexually aroused by many factors. When those factors include other boys, they can become fixated on the fear that they are “gay,” especially if they have male sexual experiences, including male pornography. Then their fixation can block their normal emotional-sexual development. Adult men who have had such childhood experiences can often resume their normal development by identifying and addressing the sources of their emotional blockage, which usually includes restoring healthy, appropriate male relationships.
Bruce C. Hafen, lawyer, has now explained the root cause of homosexuality – Freudian fixation that results in blocked emotional-sexual development at puberty. He’s qualified to make this pronouncement because he…. Um…. Oh, right, he’s not qualified to talk about this.
Both no-fault divorce and same-gender marriage allow personal adult rights to trump the best interests of society and children. The radical personal freedom theory on which the Massachusetts same-gender marriage case is based is actually the logical extension of the same individualistic legal concept that created no-fault divorce. Think about it. When the law upholds an individual’s right to END a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happened with no-fault divorce), that same legal principle can be used to justify the individual’s right to START a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happens with same-gender marriage).
We finally get to the heart of the matter. No fault divorce empowers women in crappy marriages to leave. Thus, no-fault divorce is a scourge and should be stamped out (got to slap down those uppity women). Spousal abuse isn’t a problem; let the women suffer.
Same-sex marriage may not result in more divorces, but it does redefine god’s ordained gender roles. Thus, homosexuality is a threat to the male hierarchy of Mormonism. Ergo, we must crush them out of existence! If gays get rights, then women will want them too. And once that happens, no more all-male clubs for the Mormon hierarchy.
I really recommend you read the whole thing as it is a very disturbing talk.
Views: 3767







have been following the links on today’s MSP outblogness, and read the “Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts” from the American Psychological Assocation
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/resolution-resp.html
which reads in part
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;
which is a way of saying that gay sex and same-sex attraction are perfectly healthy and acceptable, not only for people who identify as gay but for people who identify as straight.
Which means that the question you think needs to be the focus of the discussion has been answered, Seth–and not just because of agitation by the queer community, but through substantiated research.
Well Holly. Until you’ve calmed down a bit, there’s obviously not much point in continuing this.
Best wishes.
Chino, let me know when you actually have a response to make.
I’m still waiting for your response, Seth R.
I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling up and ask you again: What the heck is “spiritual DNA” ??
Let me know when you’re done ruminating on the merits of butt secks and are available to discuss Hafen’s talk.
jeez…I didn’t pay attention to this topic unfold and now I really don’t want to spend time going through 53 comments…I really shouldn’t even be commenting now, since I know I’m not informed as to 53 comments’ worth of exchange.
I will say, actually, that I agree with Seth in 38. Genetics is a positive argument, not a normative argument.
Rather, the point is that it is a *good* thing for people to be in committed relationships with people they are attracted to. It is a *bad* thing for people to try to deny themselves.
I disagree with the genetics argument for a different reason. I think most people have a remarkably poor understanding of genetics (I mean, think about American understanding of science in general. Think about American acceptance of evolution. Need I continue?)…so they have certain preconceptions of what genetic influence would include. People are looking for an on/off switch in a gay gene, but don’t realize that genetics are not quite THAT simple (at least, not in all cases). Rather, gene expression can change things, hormones can change things, and so on.
So, in a swirl of so many factors (whether known or unknown), the argument isn’t necessarily that “it is inborn” (that’s too narrow) or “it cannot change” (also too narrow), but that it is not chosen, and conscious choice cannot change it.
This more open thesis allows for Lisa Diamond’s research in sexually fluid women…which doesn’t hurt the gay cause, but people *think* it does because they are misunderstanding. No, it doesn’t hurt the gay cause that some women have flexible, fluctuating sexuality because still, these women do not choose their fluctuations and cannot choose to fluctuate.
But even disregarding this, the fact is that if someone is so compelled to pursue a relationship — regardless of the sex of the other person — and they do so in a safe way (obviously, promiscuity and unsafeness are problematic in ANY sexual orientation)…then this should not be discouraged. This is not a “scourge to society” or the looming cause of Armageddon and seven kinds of divine pestilence.
I was going to say this myself. That’s what I was saying in that book review — that it gives a heartfelt and intimate portrait of the harm that is done by coercing people into intimate relationships they don’t want in place of the intimacy they do want. (Just my opinion, BTW — apparently there was some disagreement…)
However, I think it’s a bit of a leap to get from there to “Seth’s right” [that the gay activists should stop using the genetics argument. (?)] I have to point out (as did Chino) that Hafen is the one that brought it up. This so reminds me of that funny story of when I was in France during the whole Bill-n-Monica thing!
Seth–
Wow! I wondered how you would respond to my fairly clear demonstration that you’re just plain wrong. And you came up with an ever so clever dodge: Rather than admit that your argument doesn’t hold up, you act like other people are too upset to be reasonable.
How long did it take you to think that sentence up? Or were you able to dash it off, because it’s a ploy you use often?
My, my, my.
At least I got a shout-out, along with LdChino. Most other people you simply ignored. Talk about being upset: my comments must have really rattled you if you picked me to dismiss first.
I second what LdChino says: “Let me know when you’re done ruminating on the merits of butt secks and are available to discuss Hafen’s talk.”
And I say that mostly because I’m fairly sure it will be a very long time, despite your ADD, before you’re able to turn your attention in this discussion to anything but your obsession with butt secks.
@SethR
You know, I’m really indifferent to how you view the LDS Church on this issue.
That’s a lot of commenting on something you’re so indifferent about…
Seth is the Orly Taitz of gay sex: repeatedly demanding and dismissing evidence that has already been produced, then attacking in the craziest ways possible anyone who points out that he’s fighting a losing battle.
If only there was a judge who could fine him $10,000 for being irrelevant.
This is among the dumbest discussions I have ever read, filled with as much prejudice, hate, fear and ignorance as it accuses Bruce C. Hafen of. You have neither an understanding of the LDS Church’s motivation nor of the scientific findings on homosexuality; you have been sold on the propaganda of popular culture. Open your mind, with love, to both sides of this highly-heated issue, and you may actually find some Truth. Sadly, you will probably just say some hateful thing about this comment or about me without accepting the invitation to actually look with both eyes open at what you have so far discussed with one eye shut.
Thanks for your post, Andy. I was wondering what scientific findings about sexuality people are ignorant about, please.
To answer your earlier question that I never got to Chino, I have no real clear idea of what Hafen means by “spiritual DNA.”
[...] Best Response to Apologists goes to ProfXM for Bruce C. Hafen, LDS Church’s official gaybasher. [...]
Good to meet you, Ryan. You are welcome to share your opinion.
It is dishonest, however, to post under three different names. If you post under any other name than Ryan in the future, I will ban your bigoted posterior faster than you can raise your right hand to sustain the prophet.
Turns out Ryan left a phony e-mail address. Don’t you love self-righteous liars?
I deleted his hateful drivel, not because his message was intolerant and bigoted, but because posters are required to submit their e-mail address.
Hellmut — I’ve let these eight Ryan comments through even though this same commenter posted earlier using multiple identities.
Ryan — for future reference, the whole “sock puppet” thing is not welcome here. If you have something constructive to add to this discussion, you’re welcome to join in. If you just want to tell us how much you think we’re wasting our lives trolling (oops, I mean writing) this blog, then your opinion has been duly noted and blogged.
Chanson, the guy posts with a false e-mail address. Therefore I will delete his posts.
OK, that’s reasonable.
On some level, I feel like — if someone is so interested in this site that he feels the need to testify to us on multiple occasions — then maybe he’d like to engage in some real discussion (rather than just informing us that Monson is the prophet, etc….). But if he can’t even be bothered to post with a real email address, then I agree it’s unlikely.
Sexual activity between people of the same gender brings misery. In addition, it causes difficulty in ability to make other appropriate decisions in other aspects of life. Nothing but misery.
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Don’t want to discuss anything over email. I’d be glad to discuss matter over this blog of yours if you’d like.
Ryan — Don’t worry, we’re not interested in having an elaborate email discussion with you. We just want a real email address to establish that you’re sticking to one consistent identity.
If you’re serious about wanting to have a constructive discussion, please post with a real email address.
Ryan is a Prudence McPrude wannabe n’est-ce pas?
This is interesting that you’ve put this notion at the forefront, since it precisely the potential happiness of these relations that threaten the discursive structure of the Church. I’m reminded of a recent story I read by a believing LDS therapist who has a gay friend, happily married to another man, and raising kids together. The therapist said something to the effect of “What if someone intervened in their lives when they were teenagers so they didn’t take this path?” In other words, what if they could be made to feel miserable about taking the path they did? Do not confuse “making people feel miserable” with “misery” itself.
Dear writer..Are you for real? Read the Bible people! What he stated was fact. Not opinion. Do the math, read the begats! Sheesh.. It is utterly rediculous the way you are picking apart the words of a man of God! You shouldn’t be pursecuting the rightous, if there were more rightous people in Sodom and Gomora it wouldn’t have been destroyed by the Lord. Woe be unto you! You who are wicked take the truth to be hard. I know you want to say “I did it my way!” Father in Heaven loves you dearly and one day you will see him again and I hope that when you do, not only will you recognize him for who he is but be able to face him with out any sorrow for the paths you travel now. Those who are persuading you to sin and separate yourself from the love of God, does not love you and will leave you alone in the end. I will pray for you, that you might one day find the peace and joy the evelasting gospel of chirst can bring to your life as it has mine.
What do the “begats” have to do with anything? Are you saying they’re evidence that Hafen’s claims (and/or the Bible) are facts, not fictions?
There are 139 “begats” in the King James version. In Hebrew numerology, 139 is also the value of GN ALHIM, aka the Garden of Eden. And everyone knows there was no Steve in that garden. Like Gina said, do the math!
[...] him/her. It seems like damage control is more in order than advertising, though they are the ones who broke the news about Bruce Hafen’s gay bashing, and they seemed to think that was good news as well. Someone in the PR department needs to be [...]
Did anyone here even consider who the intended AUDIENCE of this speech was? What do you think the INTENT of the speech was? Do you think Hafen would even touch such a politically charged issue unless he was specifically ASKED to do it by a PRIMARILY MALE group of people who want to overcome their same sex attraction and asked for his help? His intended audience is NOT those who embrace their homosexual lifestyle and he is not speaking to or judging that particular group. The number of people in these comments who openly admit that they didn’t read the whole article is staggering. (Note the deliberate number of caps in my comment. I know my audience.)
Rhetoric Much — The POINT is that the article was posted to the LDS NEWSROOM SITE, so apparently the PR department thought that the article was appropriate for a GENERAL AUDIENCE.
p.s. I hope that translating this simple point into your formatting style helps make it easier for you to grasp.
So, is this a promotion?
The Church has been political on the issue of homosexuality since the 1970s. Since the 1990s and the same-sex marriage debate, they’ve become more so. If you read his speech, you might see that it’s a rather political speech. Some Evergreen folks were annoyed that he seemed to spend more time defending the Church’s position and framing (rather naively) the issue than ministering.
While Hafen gets to be “Temple President”, his wife gets the esteemed title of “Temple Matron”. What a flattering title.
Let the Mormons & other religions BE!!!
A Man is created and intended TO BE a MAn and A Woman To be a Woman.(Everything in between is Merely a Man Made opinion,IT IS WHAT IT IS).