Gay Student Panel At Byu

[selek1]

I need clarification here with the second part of your statement. "Sin is sin"??? Really? You seem to be saying that all sins are equal in "sinfulness". If so, why are there different levels of salvation?

100 cuss words equals 100 murders? Seems to me you're oversimplifying God's work at judgment to merely a job of addition. What about this is it exactly that I don't get?

Quite obviously, not all sins are created equal.

But any sin that is not addressed, repented of, and forgiven through the Grace of God is sufficient to disqualify you.

To put it in more contemporary terms, sin is like high voltage electrical cable.

It doesn't matter if you devote your whole hand to grabbing a 3000-volt line or merely urinate on a 6,000-volt line.

Either one will kill you stone dead.

[CV75]

You are being a lot more clinical than I was. I just meant "sex" in the sense of "having sex." I'm making a distinction between "homosexual relations" and "homosexuality," and between "homosexual relations" and homoaffectionate or homoerotic relations, such as kissing, embracing, lying together clothed (or maybe even in bathrobes, as Louie and May did), writing love letters, living together, raising children together, etc.

Yes I remember years ago Tony Randall used this definition in describing the "Odd Couple" TV show's characters' relationship with each other. I think there are better terms and ways to convey the same idea bit to each their own, and for their own purposes.

I would also think that such a definition is not about sex only if the same person could enjoy the same type of relationship with either a male or female (but then that might be deemed "bisexual"!).

Edited April 13, 2012 by CV75

[Law22]

Wow. I am impressed that the school/church allowed this event to take place. Bravo.

[Kevin Christensen]

Last night, I re-read Steven Fale's, "Confessions of a Mormon Boy," as published in Sunstone December 2003, about his marriage to Emily Pearson (Carol Lynn's daughter), and his entrance into a gay lifestyle, his divorce, the failures of reparative therapy, the failures of The Miracle of Forgiveness, and his determination to be authentic. One of the most obvious things to me now is that Fales was sex addicted and that none of his attempts to change or suppress or finally to celebrate his condition addressed this. That is not his fault of course. Sex addiction is only recently being recognized and fully understood as more than just a social label imposed by one social group that disapproves of another, thanks to pioneering researchers like Patrick Carnes, and the more recent technology that permits close study of how addiction changes the brain.

Where Fales goes into the details of how he went from being married to telling his wife of six years that he'd had "twenty" affairs with men, if anyone had told stories that differed only in that the events involved persons of the opposite gender, a diagnosis of sex addiction would be uncontroversial. The reparative therapy was doomed to fail because it attempts to redirect the acting out, rather than the changing the underlying fact of addiction. The Miracle of Forgiveness neither diagnoses nor treats sex addiction, but simply offers condemnation, shame, and insists that if a person fails, it is their fault for not submitting to a sufficient degree of self torture. It happens that there are treatments that work, not to change a person's sexual orientation, but to change person so that that orientation need not be the single most urgent need in their life, so that a choice between desire and family and covenant is made on spiritual values.

I've occasionally heard protests that "sex addiction is not the same thing as homosexuality," with elaboration on celebration of maleness as a spiritual thing. And since Stonewall, and the political protests that led to the 1974 removal of homosexuality from the list of diagnosable maladies, it is considered politically incorrect to say that there is anything wrong with anyone having same sex attraction. Sad stories of suicide and the failures of reparative therapy provide the moral that "born that way" is the preferred explanation, and that society should be so understanding as to provide nurture and support. And no one would be so politically incorrect as to say, "enabling" since that kind of behavior has been shown to re-enforce addictive behavior.

In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem.^[1][2] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. It is a major environmental cause of addiction.

Look at the Compliance pattern of codependence:

• I compromise my own values and integrity to avoid rejection or others' anger.
  
• 
  
• 
  
• I am very sensitive to how others are feeling and feel the same.
  
• I am extremely loyal, remaining in harmful situations too long.
  
• I value others' opinions and feelings more than my own and am afraid to express differing opinions and feelings of my own.
  
• I put aside my own interests and hobbies in order to do what others want.
  
• I accept sex and/or sexual attention when I want love.
  
• I am afraid to express my beliefs, opinions, and feelings when they differ from those of others.
  
• I make decisions without regard to the consequences.
  
• ^I give up my truth to gain the approval of others or to avoid change.
  

Again, Fales' account everywhere demonstrates the characteristics of sex addiction, and no one would object to the diagnosis if the stories he told had to do with opposite sex encounters. Twenty affairs in the first six years of marriage? Then going to New York and living as a male escort and in the play, yelling "Validate me!"

When we overuse pleasure centers, the cells that produce dopamine are overworked, and in what may be a defensive reaction, the brain decreases the amount of dopamine available for use and also causes shrinkage in the cells that produce the dopamine and in the frontal control areas. Paradoxically, the pleasure cells in the nucleus accumbens may actually enlarge in the addicted state because they have less dopamine available for pleasure and are seeking to extract every possible molecule. These physical changes in the brain have been called long-term potentiation and long-term depression.3 Thus, in addiction, normal pleasures are not enough to alleviate the craving for dopamine, and this craving in the newly reset pleasure thermostat in the brain is likely key in the desire to relapse. The shrinkage in the frontal control areas also contributes to the compulsivity and impulsivity seen in addiction.

So addiction manifests in both increased desire, and impaired judgement. And what happens when a group of people whose judgement has been impared in the same way organize politically or who express their values through dramatic or journalistic media? Patrick Carnes has demonstrated that the addicts display a characteristic set of core values. Knowledge of what those core values are makes it easy to identify which characters and writers in popular media are themselves sex addicted. The condition is so common that the self diagnosis of "this is just the way we are and therefore, just the way I am" becomes a way to support the patterns of thinking and behavior.

The message of tolerance and love and self acceptance that Fales expresses, against the counterweights of failed reparative therapy, failed attempts and failed promises, seems to me to be missing something very important. If one is just born that way, the message is, "nothing can be done. Tolerance and understanding is the only and the best way." But if increased understanding includes and awareness of the nature of addiction and of very real paths to healing and lasting change, then something very important can and should be done.

One of the findings of the latest research into addiction is that 12 Step Recovery, as pioneered by Alchoholics Anonymous, actually heals the brain, reversing the damage wrought by addiction. Done properly, recovery is not about "white knuckling" sobriety a day at a time through sheer will power, but actually healing, so that "white knuckling" is not necessary. Bill W. and Dr.Bob based their program on Biblical principles. And the first LDS addiction recovery book based on the Book of Mormon, Colleen Harrison's He Did Deliver Me From Bondage shows that the 12 Steps appear in the Book of Mormon with an even greater clarity than they do in the Bible. (Interestingly, her own addiction was to perfectionism.) This does not mean that a person's attraction will go away entirely. It just means that it can cease to be the most important and self defining aspect of a persons life, desires, and behavior.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

The Miracle of Forgiveness neither diagnoses nor treats sex addiction, but simply offers condemnation, shame, and insists that if a person fails, it is their fault for not submitting to a sufficient degree of self torture.

Your mild criticism of political correctness throws Elder Kimball under the bus in a way that seems that you have given in to political correctness.

Those of us who have labored in the trenches in the Priesthood structure with brethren who have homosexual urges know and can testify to the fact that many of them have conquered these urges sufficiently to serve in the Priesthood, have families (most of them) and deny themselves what seems to be natural urges to them. I have elsewhere on this board pointed to a recent General Authority with these issues who returned to full fellowship in the Church; as well, I know of bishops and other leaders who struggle.

But it does require submission to a "sufficient degree of self torture," just as that is often necessary to overcome addiction to narcotics. The recoverying narcotic addict can never pass a medicine cabinet in a friends' house without wondering what might lie within in. Similarly, a homosexual active in the Church who suppresses his urges goes through daily self-torture and his own little Gethsamanes. To those I've counseled, it is somewhat similar to the man who is not attracted to his wife, and won't have relations with her, but has problems with pornography and attraction to other women. Or the divorced or separated man who can't satisfy his natural urges and stay faithful in the Church. They all have to endure self-torture.

"Miracle of Forgiveness" is still a miracle to me.

By the way, I have never seen a church-sponsored 12-step program work, ever. A twelve step program has to operate nearly every day; no church stake I've ever seen has the critical mass to pull it off.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

Everytime I see someone use the "throw under the bus" cliche, I want to scream. It's so exaggerated, so removed from any rational real life behavior, such an inappropriate comparison in every situation I have seen it used and unfortunately so common as a rhetorical trope that as an English major and writer, it makes me want to weep for the English language.

I've been working with sex addicts for six years. If someone has to torture themselves on a daily basis to maintain sobriety they are not doing recovery. They are white knuckling and are in danger. Active addiction is not only "cunning, baffling, and powerful," as the AA Blue Book so aptly puts, it, but also "patient." I have seen amazing things happen with 12 step recovery. A narcotics addict in true recovery would not even think about a medicine cabinet. Addicts are trying to fill a void, to medicate some pain. True recovery fills the void and involves actual healing, not condeming a person to daily struggle. Patrick Carnes describes people learning to live in a "recovery zone," which is a positive attitude of doing, not a permanent negative attitude of "don't." I know of three marriages in our stake that have gone from crisis to hope to celebration in just the past few years. And we're in some of the lowest Mormon per captia regions in the US. But the most successful men I know don't just rely on the LDS meetings. There are others around.

I have several specific issues with MoF as a text, but none with President Kimball. Just because I disagree with Brigham Young on Adam God and the meaning of the curse on Cain, that does not mean I'm throwing him under an anchronistic bus, or his favorite carriage or a passing steam train, or even a tribe of squirrels migrating past the Lion House. Nothing of the sort. I'd recommend Colleen Harrison's book to anyone. MoF, no.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think I'd want to go on record criticizing the doctrinal concepts of Miracle of Forgiveness in the name of secular teaching. Bishops and stake presidents are not trained in sex addiction counseling. They are trained in works like Miracle of Forgiveness.

[pcarthew]

Everytime I see someone use the "throw under the bus" cliche, I want to scream. It's so exaggerated, so removed from any rational real life behavior, such an inappropriate comparison in every situation I have seen it used and unfortunately so common as a rhetorical trope that as an English major and writer, it makes me want to weep for the English language.

I've been working with sex addicts for six years. If someone has to torture themselves on a daily basis to maintain sobriety they are not doing recovery. They are white knuckling and are in danger. Active addiction is not only "cunning, baffling, and powerful," as the AA Blue Book so aptly puts, it, but also "patient." I have seen amazing things happen with 12 step recovery. A narcotics addict in true recovery would not even think about a medicine cabinet. Addicts are trying to fill a void, to medicate some pain. True recovery fills the void and involves actual healing, not condeming a person to daily struggle. Patrick Carnes describes people learning to live in a "recovery zone," which is a positive attitude of doing, not a permanent negative attitude of "don't." I know of three marriages in our stake that have gone from crisis to hope to celebration in just the past few years. And we're in some of the lowest Mormon per captia regions in the US. But the most successful men I know don't just rely on the LDS meetings. There are others around.

I have several specific issues with MoF as a text, but none with President Kimball. Just because I disagree with Brigham Young on Adam God and the meaning of the curse on Cain, that does not mean I'm throwing him under an anchronistic bus, or his favorite carriage or a passing steam train, or even a tribe of squirrels migrating past the Lion House. Nothing of the sort. I'd recommend Colleen Harrison's book to anyone. MoF, no.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

When I was on my mission, my mission president banned the use of the MoF. Now as a Bishop I rarely use it. I rather use the scriptures, professionals and LDS family services. I had a person come to me who had read the MoF who I believed to be almost suicidal, they could not reconcile their transgressions, they felt doom and darkness. They could see no veil of light of forgiveness, the self loathing was tragic. I have spent more than a hundred hours trying to help them find the refreshing and peaceful waters of the Atonement. President Kimball was a great man, MoF is a good book for those who have never seriously transgressed, but not for the person who has wandered far, I have personally found it seem more detrimental than helpful. In some parts of the book the rhetoric would indicate full forgiveness might never come for the serious transgressor. That can create an insurmountable darkness in some people.

I think your comments are very insightful.

Thank you.

[Kevin Christensen]

I notice that MoF is conspicuously absent from the excellent LDS sponsored Combating Pornography Reading List.

http://combatingpornography.org/cp/eng/spouses/support/article/sexual-addiction-reading-list

Last month I did a 72 slide Power Point Presentation on resources for healing sex addiction for all of the Bishops in the Pittsburgh area. I quoted extensively from the Understanding the Addictive Nature of Pornography article on that LDS site. Plus from Patrick Carnes and Milton Magness. All seemed thankful and commented on how eye-opening it was. I did not discuss Miracle of Forgivess, but I did recommend He Did Deliver Me From Bondage, and Magness's recent, very practical and helpful Thirty Days to Hope and Freedom from Sexual Addiction.

I agree about tone in MoF often overpowering some otherwise helpful scriptural passages.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

I don't criticize this secular information. But I stick to Pres. Packer's view that bishops should not be counselors in secular matters. It is one thing to tell a ward member that he is on probation until he quits having sex outside of marriage. It is another to probe into areas which you describe.

I could hardly hold marriages together much less counsel a sex addict.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't criticize this secular information. But I stick to Pres. Packer's view that bishops should not be counselors in secular matters. It is one thing to tell a ward member that he is on probation until he quits having sex outside of marriage. It is another to probe into areas which you describe.

I could hardly hold marriages together much less counsel a sex addict.

The point of my recent presentation ot the Pittsburgh Bishops wasn't to turn them into therapists, but to enlighten them regarding helpful resources for understanding the issues and support for successfully treating the condition. And in that respect, it was received with heartfelt graditude. What addicts need:

* Diagnosis, information in a form that helps the addict recognize the true nature of the problem, and that it involves a condition they have, and is not who they are.

* A safe environment of fellowship and support, and that provides safety and guidance, neither enabling, nor shaming.

* Helpful treatment that addresses the roots of the disease, not just the symptoms.

* Understanding the effect that their disease has had on their partner and the resources available for healing

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Cobalt-70]

I've occasionally heard protests that "sex addiction is not the same thing as homosexuality," with elaboration on celebration of maleness as a spiritual thing. And since Stonewall, and the political protests that led to the 1974 removal of homosexuality from the list of diagnosable maladies, it is considered politically incorrect to say that there is anything wrong with anyone having same sex attraction. Sad stories of suicide and the failures of reparative therapy provide the moral that "born that way" is the preferred explanation, and that society should be so understanding as to provide nurture and support. And no one would be so politically incorrect as to say, "enabling" since that kind of behavior has been shown to re-enforce addictive behavior.

...

The message of tolerance and love and self acceptance that Fales expresses, against the counterweights of failed reparative therapy, failed attempts and failed promises, seems to me to be missing something very important. If one is just born that way, the message is, "nothing can be done. Tolerance and understanding is the only and the best way." But if increased understanding includes and awareness of the nature of addiction and of very real paths to healing and lasting change, then something very important can and should be done.

I don't quite understand your point, but if you are saying that homosexuality is really just a form of sex addiction, then that theory is clearly and obviously flawed, given that many gays and lesbians (and probably the vast majority of gay and lesbian Mormons) are not sexually active. Moreover, a large number of gays and lesbians are in monogamous relationships. If they are sex addicted, then every married straight person is also an addict. Moreover, having many partners is not itself addiction. Something is an addiction only when it starts to interfere with your job or other aspects of normal functioning.

Certainly, there are some gays and lesbians that are sex addicts, but the vast majority of sex addicts are certainly straight. If your point is that homosexuality is an addiction, and that we should "treat" every gay and lesbian with a 12 step program ("Hi, my name is Gary, and I'm gay; it's been 10 days since my last bout of flouncing and fashion sense..."), then I think your are quite off base.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Bob Crockett]

The point of my recent presentation ot the Pittsburgh Bishops wasn't to turn them into therapists, but to enlighten them regarding helpful resources for understanding the issues and support for successfully treating the condition. And in that respect, it was received with heartfelt graditude. What addicts need:

* Diagnosis, information in a form that helps the addict recognize the true nature of the problem, and that it involves a condition they have, and is not who they are.

* A safe environment of fellowship and support, and that provides safety and guidance, neither enabling, nor shaming.

* Helpful treatment that addresses the roots of the disease, not just the symptoms.

* Understanding the effect that their disease has had on their partner and the resources available for healing

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I think that is meddling in areas where bishops aren't trained. If you have a degree in the area, well, ok to talk about it but if you don't I question the wisdom of a bunch of lay people doing anything more than talking about what therapists are available. If you don't have professional training in the area I question why you would go along with this.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

I think it is a good idea to inform those not involved in therapy of an individual the general nature of that therapy so that they don't accidentally do something that counteracts the good the therapy is doing and instead can actively support the individual in his or her efforts to act on what is learned.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't quite understand your point, but if you are saying that homosexuality is really just a form of sex addiction, then that theory is clearly and obviously flawed, given that many gays and lesbians (and probably the vast majority of gay and lesbian Mormons) are not sexually active. Moreover, a large number of gays and lesbians are in monogamous relationships. If they are sex addicted, then every married straight person is also an addict. Moreover, having many partners is not itself addiction. Something is an addiction only when it starts to interfere with your job or other aspects of normal functioning.

I'm saying that sex addiction is a legitimate question, not necessarily the answer in all cases. I think same sex attraction is a complicated topic, and one size does not fit all. But in cases where it is the answer, then the answer provides a solution not available to those who don't even consider the question is ever valid one.

I'd have to see legitimate grounds for diagnosing every married straight couple as addicted. Patrick Carnes makes a case that in addicted persons, courtship and bonding and committment has gone awry. (Recovery Zone, 49). "The inability to form a secure attachment has been repeatedly demonstrated as a key factor in addictive disorders." He describes a 10 step sequence of events that should lead to bonding and committment. (Facing the Shadow, 68-71) He the shows how specific sexual fetishistic behaviors correlated to people having problems at specific stages. (Ibid.) By this criteria, it may be difficult to argue that every bonded couple, straight or gay, is addicted. Unless you arbitrarily decide that sex is the criteria, and successful bonding and intimacy does not count.

It happens that a few years ago on this list, someone cited a study of a sampling of relatively stable and committed homosexual partnerships and found an average of eight affairs per year. (As an exercise, do the math for Steven Fales' reported 20 in six years.) Who gets to decide which people represent the general trends in larger populations? Who gets to decide what is normal? Who gets to decide which samples are representative? And who votes on the DSM? And why?

It happens that addiction is a progressive disease. At what stage is it a legitimate, uncontroversial diagnosis? At what stage is it a beneficial diagnosis? Should it be applied only after a person hits bottom, or might there be benefits to early diagnosis and treatment?

I grew up watching the Crest commercials about "our group had fewer cavities." Well, they never said that our group represented a random but representative sample, did they. Just, "our group." If you conclude it was the toothpaste brand that made the difference, that is your problem. Diet programs are also famous for getting testimonials from the most successful and photogentic customers , rather than admitting the actual success and failure rates.

My reading of "Confessions of a Mormon Boy" is a single sample. My personal aquaintainces with gay or lesbian lifestyles represents a larger, but still limited sample.

Certainly, there are some gays and lesbians that are sex addicts, but the vast majority of sex addicts are certainly straight.

Given the relative sizes of the different populations, probably. But what about distributions within communities? Isn't that a much more meaningful issue?

In the straight communities, for instance, a recent study of pornography use among college students was unable to find a control group of non-users. If everyone does it, what it abnormal? Then as the users themselves began to notice the consequences of their socially conventional behavior and began quitting, only then did a control group appear to provide a demonstration of consequences.

http://www.psycholog...porn-experiment

If your point is that homosexuality is an addiction, and that we should "treat" every gay and lesbian with a 12 step program ("Hi, my name is Gary, and I'm gay; it's been 10 days since my last bout of flouncing and fashion sense..."), then I think your are quite off base.

That is emphatically not my point. I'm not trying to overgeneralize about the answer. Just citing a specific case where I think I'm on safe ground. I don't think it is a unique case, but I don't claim it is the general case. I have not based my case on stereotypes and cliches, but on observations of specific individual, relative to specific criteria. And if the answer to the question of sex addiction is yes for such cases, then there are workable solutions of proven effectiveness that achieve not only behaviorial changes, but measurable changes in the brain.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 16, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Kenngo1969]

Not "A-leted."

Not "B-leted."

Not "C-leted."

But ... Deleted!!!

Edited April 16, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Cobalt-70]

It happens that a few years ago on this list, someone cited a study of a sampling of relatively stable and committed homosexual partnerships and found an average of eight affairs per year. (As an exercise, do the math for Steven Fales' reported 20 in six years.) Who gets to decide which people represent the general trends in larger populations? Who gets to decide what is normal? Who gets to decide which samples are representative? And who votes on the DSM? And why?

According to the most recent studies, lesbians are more monogamous than straight women, while gay men are quite a bit less monogamous than straight men, but the trend in all cases, since 1975, is toward increased monogamy. For gay men, the polygamy/polyamory is relatively more tolerated, and thus not as much the source of damage to relationships, meaning that a state of addiction is less likely to occur despite the cheating. These statistics are, of course, not really pertinent to Mormons, given that gay and lesbian Mormons are expected to be celibate, not just monogamous.

However, just because some Mormons are promiscuous, whether gay or straight, they are not necessarily sex addicts. And a 12-step program is probably not going to work unless it is an actual addiction. If everyone is a sex addict who cannot live a lifetime of celibacy, then I think that most Mormons are sex addicts. Straight Mormons cure their inability to be celibate through marriage, a pathway that is barred for gay and lesbian Mormons. A couple of the steps relate to making amends to those you have hurt. If you haven't hurt anyone by having gay sex, then the 12-step philosophy won't help you.

Plus, as I said before, and maybe you agree, no 12-step program is ever going to convert a gay or lesbian person into a straight person.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Jaybear]

I've occasionally heard protests that "sex addiction is not the same thing as homosexuality," with elaboration on celebration of maleness as a spiritual thing. And since Stonewall, and the political protests that led to the 1974 removal of homosexuality from the list of diagnosable maladies, it is considered politically incorrect to say that there is anything wrong with anyone having same sex attraction. Sad stories of suicide and the failures of reparative therapy provide the moral that "born that way" is the preferred explanation, and that society should be so understanding as to provide nurture and support. And no one would be so politically incorrect as to say, "enabling" since that kind of behavior has been shown to re-enforce addictive behavior.

Wow. While it doesn't suprise me that you reject the overwhemning professional consesnsus that homosexuality is not a mental illness, as there are and always will be professional therapists who make a living practicing on the fringe, I am puzlled that the LDS Church would call upon a fringe practicioner to offer insight, training and/or instruction to the area bishops, tasked with meeting with real people with real problems.

I am curious, what are your professional qualifications, and when did you get your degree.

BTW, its not considered politcally incorrect to say that there is anything wrong with someone who is a homosexual. Homosexuals can and do suffer from mental illness. But It is considered professional negligence to diagnose someone as mentally ill, simply because they are homosexual.

[Calm]

According to the most recent studies, lesbians are more monogamous than straight women, while gay men are quite a bit less monogamous than straight men, but the trend in all cases, since 1975, is toward increased monogamy.

CFR please.

[Kevin Christensen]

Wow. While it doesn't suprise me that you reject the overwhemning professional consesnsus that homosexuality is not a mental illness, as there are and always will be professional therapists who make a living practicing on the fringe,

It doesn't surprise me that you miss the point. Mine is not the homosexuality is not mental illness, but that defensiveness on that issue brings with it a reluctance to consider the possible presence in individual cases of something that is a treatable mental illness. It's not the direction of sexual attraction, but the obsessiveness combined with impaired thinking that characterizes the illness.

I am puzlled that the LDS Church would call upon a fringe practicioner to offer insight, training and/or instruction to the area bishops, tasked with meeting with real people with real problems.

The LDS church did not call a fringe practitioner to offer insight in available resources. One Bishop, with the permission of one stake president asked me to share what I knew. Try to keep real here. I brought three recovering addicts with me to share their personal experiences with those resources. And for the record, the one thing I said about homosexual behavior is that I don't consider addiction is always the answer, that there are cases where I think it a legitmate question.

I am curious, what are your professional qualifications, and when did you get your degree.

Read my profile. I simple click reveals all. What are yours?

BTW, its not considered politcally incorrect to say that there is anything wrong with someone who is a homosexual. Homosexuals can and do suffer from mental illness. But It is considered professional negligence to diagnose someone as mentally ill, simply because they are homosexual.

So we agree on something.

And for Cobalt-70's comment here:

If everyone is a sex addict who cannot live a lifetime of celibacy, then I think that most Mormons are sex addicts.

If that was a valid definition of addiction, it might lead to valid point. Circumstances being what they are, it doesn't.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Pahoran]

I said in my post that I'm assuming no sex was involved, absent any clear evidence to the contrary. I'm the one that's saying homosexuality has nothing to do with sex.

This did not come originally from Quinn. The examination

Or fabrication

of the homoaffectionate

Quinnspeak?

relationship between Louie and May was previously discussed here in this publication: http://signaturebook...ary.org/?p=6685.

So, before The Mighty Quinn decided to distort historical facts in the service of his homoactivist agenda, another proudly self-proclaimed homoactivist got there first.

And this is supposed to increase our confidence in this reviling of the dead, is it?

The trouble is that the linked article actually cites The Mighty Quinn. So who really got there first?

Thus, Mitton's and James' ad "homonem" arguments solely against Quinn is not a complete argument.

If you think calling Mitton's and James' arguments "ad 'homonem'" is witty, at least you're half right. But it avoids the substance of their arguments, which had to do with Quinn's use of evidence and analysis.

Putting the secondary sources aside, if you read the actual primary sources, such as the 1919 article about their love affair in the Children's Friend,

Your wishful thinking is showing. The notion that the Church's official magazine for children would celebrate an immoral relationship and hold it up as a worthy pattern for preteen children is absurd on its face, although it may make sense to those as sex-obsessed as homosexualists invariably seem to be.

the conclusion that their relationship was romantic, rather than merely platonic, is inescapable. Mitton and James don't really even bother to refute that fact.

That's false. Did you actually read their article? They pointed out that Felt was married and that it was Felt's husband who suggested that Anderson move in and help nurse Felt.

All they focus on is the sex, or purported lack thereof, which was not even Quinn's point. Nobody knows if they had sex. But it is indisputable that they had a romantic 40 year love affair, because they said so themselves.

No. They did not.

They used terminology in an innocent way that subsequently has become sexualised. I suppose you imagine that when Jesus told his disciples to "Love one another," He was really telling them to be "queer." Sorry, but he was not. The love He commanded was brotherly, and Sister Felt and Sister Anderson (ever wonder why we use those titles?) shared a love that was nothing more or less than sisterly.

Contemporary to Louie's and May's relationship, Oscar Wilde was the world's rock star. He even went to Salt Lake City in the 1880s and was treated with great celebrity. Wilde's 1895 trial for sodomy was covered very closely in the Deseret News. During that trial, he famously noted that "the love that dare not speak its name"

Now better known as "the lust that won't shut up about itself."

was the love between David and Jonathan.

Do you really imagine that a devout Bible-reading and Bible-believing people really allowed a notorious libertine and literary dilettante to tell them what their scriptures meant? Extraordinary!

So Louie and May would have been aware of such implications of "David and Jonathan." Moreover, David and Jonathan were men. It seems a little strange that the Louie and May would compare their relationship to a seemingly-pederastic relationship between men, when if they were just good non-romantic friends, it would have been more obvious to have called themselves the "Ruth and Naomi of the Primary."

I realise that pederasty (the victimisation of a boy by an adult) is and always was the most representative form of male homosexuality, but David and Jonathan were close friends of similar age. Their "love" (i.e. friendship) was said to "surpass the love of women" as way of signalling that it was something special and outside the realm of the romantic/erotic. Ruth and Naomi, by contrast, were daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively.

And just so you know: Evan Stephens was straight.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

CFR please.

Here's a data point for lesbian monogamy. In a recent episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Rosie O'Donnell jokes:

Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?

A: A U-Haul.

(Get it? Because by the second date they're ready to move in together. )

[Bob Crockett]

Read my profile. I simple click reveals all. What are yours?

So we agree on something.

This is, nonetheless, deeply troubling to me that an untrained person would do this. But, it was in good faith.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

This is, nonetheless, deeply troubling to me that an untrained person would do this. But, it was in good faith.

An untrained person can quote the LDS sponsored website here:

http://combatingpornography.org/cp/eng/spouses/recognize/article/understanding-the-addictive-nature-of-pornography

By sponsoring the site, I'm presuming LDS authorities want the information diseminated. An untrained person can also quote books that are actually recommended on the LDS website, particularly as they were written by the formost authority on the topic, Patrick Carnes. I'm assuming that if I quote Facing the Shadow, a book listed on the LDS site resource list, I'm not turning the information by some arcane chemistry, into an alternative treatment.

http://combatingpornography.org/cp/eng/spouses/support/article/sexual-addiction-reading-list

And of course, I quoted the Book of Mormon, showing how it supports the 12 Steps, drawing on Collen Harrison's He Did Deliver Me from Bondage, a book used by LDS social services for 9 years as their pilot text for 12 step therapy.

And since every word should be supported by two or three witnesses to the life changing effectiveness of the orthodox, LDS supported approach, I brought three of them.

So I was invited in good faith, presented in good faith, and my efforts were recieved gratefully in good faith. I was pointing out LDS approved sources for LDS authorities who wanted to be better informed.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Minos]

This thread has run its course.