Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[selek1]

Tacenda, I didn't do a very good recap. It was pretty brief.

Basically, Dr. Bradshaw's son told him, after he went off to college, that he was gay. Dr. Bradshaw admitted he knew next to nothing about homosexuality...that his life's pursuits had kept him very busy, and he was very ignorant, in this area. He and his wife, then, set out to educate themselves...and found that many of their "beliefs" about homosexuals were very inaccurate. Bear in mind, this is a very bright man, who seems to have no problem with objectivity, even in the face of something personal like this.

Dr. Bradshaw and his wife are, now, co-chair for an LDS support group for gay parents (and the name of it has slipped my mind).

He also goes on to tell what a "normal" life his son actually lives. The son is educated and has a position at Berkeley, lives in Oakland with his spouse. He and his spouse were married while ss marriage was still legal in CA. They, now have a biological daughter via a surrogate mother. Dr. Bradshaw bragged a little about his granddaughter, of course ...and about what a wonderful person his son has always been.

Dr. Bradshaw believes this whole experience has made him a better person...he feels blessed through it. And, he supports ss marriage and does not believe that it will, in any way, diminish the ideal of marriage.

He also believes the younger generation will see and do things differently...not only will, but already do, because they have gay friends and there is more information and more gays "out" than ever...which really does help in understanding this issue.

In other words, it was a verse-for-verse regurgitation of the party line- which explains why certain people swallow it so readily.

It's pre-digested pablum that does not challenge their cherished prejudicies and conceits.

[CASteinman]

Here we go... with one more thread about homosexuality. Its like a never ending water torture. But having watched the video, here are my thoughts:

He starts off really early being closed minded himself, saying that it is a myth that sexual orientation is choice and that people who are gay decided to be gay.

At least, in some cases, that is not true. But he asserts it as a certain universal truth.

Another claim he makes as a certain truth but which is not affirmed as true or even asserted by validly conducted science (although it has been asserted by scientific papers that do not have proper statistical technique or controls) is that the brains of straight and gay people are different.

He says you cannot be seduced to being gay and you cannot be taught to be gay. He states it as a fact, yet this is not a fact.

These are three cases where he does not seem to have an open mind.

He seems to want to disagree with the brethren and the revelations of God. While he has a closed mind on some things, we are supposed to keep an open mind about these things? To what end?

Every time I see an argument in favor of gay marriage and homosexual relations, I never see it couched appropriately. Its always in terms of "They cant help it -- its how they are, its even how they were born". Well, even though that has not been shown to be true, even if it were true there are also other conditions that also lead to sinful behaviors and the people subject to those conditions often also feel that they were born that way. And maybe they were -- as much as gay people were.

Should we always bend the laws of God to fit our frailty so that any sin is countenanced? This seems wrong to me.

So, I wonder what I was supposed to get out of this video with an open mind that is helpful to me in any way? It seems to me that he is subtly advocating rebellion to the brethren -- is that the message I should get from this if I keep an open mind? What is the purpose of this?

[Calm]

I am glad that you and I can agree that homosexuality (if allowed it's natural expression) is a sin, can be very psychologically damaging to homosexuals...and their families.

I read it the way you did the first time through for some reason but what she states is that the belief it is a sin is damaging, not the behaviour.

I believe, sincerely, that the belief that homosexuality (if allowed it's natural expression) is a sin, can be very psychologically damaging to homosexuals...and their families.

[Libs]

Yes...awkward sentence structure, I guess, but that is what I meant, Calmoriah...thanks.

[CASteinman]

I believe, sincerely, that the belief that homosexuality (if allowed it's natural expression) is a sin, can be very psychologically damaging to homosexuals...and their families.

I believe this can be true but is not true for all people.

When I was on my mission we would teach "Feelings of remorse can be beneficial when the lead us to repent". It was not taught but I often thought about the corollary: "Feelings of remorse can be harmful when they fail to lead us to repent". Holding on to negative feelings when we do not intend to (or do not have the capacity) to change can be psychologically damaging. However, I am not fully convinced that this alone makes it wrong to have such feelings.

I accept that there is a spirit in man, but also that God may not always strive with us.

Edited August 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[Libs]

At least, in some cases, that is not true. But he asserts it as a certain universal truth.

No, he says, some time after, that there are people, whom he believes are more bisexual, than homosexual, who can make a "choice" between the two orientations. But, not someone who is completely oriented as ss attracted.

[Libs]

I believe this can be true but is not true for all people.

When I was on my mission we would teach "Feelings of remorse can be beneficial when the lead us to repent". It was not taught but I often thought about the corollary: "Feelings of remorse can be harmful when they fail to lead us to repent". Holding on to negative feelings when we do not intend to (or do not have the capacity) to change can be psychologically damaging. However, I am not fully convinced that this alone makes it wrong to have such feelings.

I accept that there is a spirit in man, but also that God may not always strive with us.

IMO, this just makes it worse. That God is just not striving with some people...because? They're not trying hard enough? They want to live their lives as nature (and I believe, God) intended? They're just bad, depraved, not worthy...?

I completely agree that holding onto negative feelings can be a good thing, if it's leading one to repentance of something they "actually" did wrong. But, gays often feel bad about themselves for simply being who they are. That is not healthy and often leads to self harm.

One of the things I left out, that was in this video, was Dr. Bradshaw's very touching notation of a friend's (parents in their group, I believe?) recent lose of their gay son to suicide.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Libs

[Storm Rider]

IMO, this just makes it worse. That God is just not striving with some people...because? They're not trying hard enough? They want to live their lives as nature (and I believe, God) intended? They're just bad, depraved, not worthy...?

I completely agree that holding onto negative feelings can be a good thing, if it's leading one to repentance of something they "actually" did wrong. But, gays often feel bad about themselves for simply being who they are. That is not healthy and often leads to self harm.

One of the things I left out, that was in this video, was Dr. Bradshaw's very touching notation of a friend's (parents in their group, I believe?) recent lose of their gay son to suicide.

I recently read an analogy that I appreciate and may be helpful here. The Spirit of God is always present; it is incapable of not being present in everyone's life. However, our spirit's are often blinded by a life of sin or actions that are not reflective of the holiness of God. It is as if our spirit eye lids are closed; we cannot see God in our lives because our eye lids are closed. Our spirit's cannot sense him in this self-imposed condition of blindness. It is only when we open or are caused to open our spirit eyes that we see God in us and around us. We see his will for us and his love for us and for our enemies. To open our spiritual eye lids we must be engaged in, have the desire to overcome, our passions, our carnal desires.

We can all feel God and sense his presence, but not all of us have our spiritual eyes open to see him.

[rodheadlee]

Thanks for the summary Libs. I was just curious if at the end he called for SSM to be considered temple worthy? I understand all the rest of his talk as I have lived in the S.F. Bay area among that crowd.

[ERayR]

Yes...awkward sentence structure, I guess, but that is what I meant, Calmoriah...thanks.

Then I guess that point of agreement has vanished. Sorry.

[ERayR]

Thanks for the summary Libs. I was just curious if at the end he called for SSM to be considered temple worthy? I understand all the rest of his talk as I have lived in the S.F. Bay area among that crowd.

He danced around that a bit but finally intimated he felt that way. In about the last 5 minutes.

[Deborah]

I know people who have fallen out of love with their spouses and have found someone else. They have "never been happier" and "how can this be wrong when it feels so right." So should the church excuse these people from the same law of chastity because "it feels right"?

All of us have our crosses to bear. This life wasn't meant to be easy but it was meant as a test. Tests require preparation and study and perseverance. Having failed a few tests of life, I know that esteem doesn't come from following through on one's desires but in holding fast to what the Lord has commanded.

As the mother of a daughter with SSA I know the agony of parents when they realize that their child has such a heavy cross and may never experience the full joy of family life and children. But as the mother of such a child, I have let her know what standard God has set and she made her choice to live the way she did understanding there will be consequences. I would never march in a gay pride parade or try to get the church to change their standards of behavior just so my child can feel like she belongs when not doing what she should. None of us should feel that we are ok when we break the laws of God. I believe most difficulties wayward children have with suicide and other issues is the rejection of those who should love them most, not rejection of their lifestyle but rejection of them as children of God. God never expressed his love by telling his children to go do whatever makes you happy for the moment. His charge was rather, "Go thy way and sin no more."

[USU78]

Yes...awkward sentence structure, I guess, but that is what I meant, Calmoriah...thanks.

So . . . you hold that those of us who believe that homosexuality is a potentially dangerous and destructive sin syndrome are destructive of what? Ourselves? Others? Please speak plainly.

[CASteinman]

IMO, this just makes it worse. That God is just not striving with some people...because? They're not trying hard enough? They want to live their lives as nature (and I believe, God) intended? They're just bad, depraved, not worthy...?

It might be any of those things. It might be all of them. It might be something else. I personally have always thought it was when people stopped listening to the Spirit. But to know for sure -- you would have to ask God.

I completely agree that holding onto negative feelings can be a good thing, if it's leading one to repentance of something they "actually" did wrong. But, gays often feel bad about themselves for simply being who they are. That is not healthy and often leads to self harm.

One of the things I left out, that was in this video, was Dr. Bradshaw's very touching notation of a friend's (parents in their group, I believe?) recent lose of their gay son to suicide.

There are many statistically co-morbid issues with homosexuality -- even in very accepting societies.

[wenglund]

I would suggest watching the Dr. Bradford video and then read through Joshua Johanson FAIR presentation. The contrast is very instructive, particularly in terms of underlying philosophies (the former attempts to conform God to the philosophies of man, whereas the later attempts to conform man to the doctrines of God).

What makes this contrast interesting, is the former is a father with a son that has SSA, and the later, himself, has SSA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

Having children whose lives are not conforming with the Gospel leaves us with a struggle to love them unconditionally while not justifying their behaviors. When they were growing and sometimes misbehaving I often told my children "I always love you but sometimes I don't like what you are doing". Now that they are entering adulthood that is a challenge when they seek approval yet don't always choose the right.

In matters eternally inconsequential I bite my tongue and let them make decisions without giving undue advice. I respect their God given agency to choose. It becomes much more difficult when they make choices I fear will harm them, especially long term choices.

It is difficult for a parent but if we love our children we must do so without condoning actions that will cause them irreparable harm in this life and the eternities.

There are many myths about Same Sex Attraction that are harmful and need to be done away with. However the fact that Homosexual Behavior is a sin does not change no matter how much we love our brethren and sisters and how much we want to alleviate pain and suffering.

Edited August 14, 2012 by KevinG

[cwald]

I thought it was a good interview.

I don't see it as a black and white issue. If ssa is biological, which is what the much of the research is telling us, then I'm not sure it is right to deny those people a chance to marry and find a companion.

I don't really care what the church does. They can make their own rules.I just hope that lds members will focus on kindness and be careful of condemnation.

[Tacenda]

(Thanks Libs, for adding more to the summary you had posted before. It was very helpful and well written!)

Conclusive Points From Dr. Bradshaw's Mormonstories Podcast

1. Bio Chemical evidence that gays/lesbians are born that way (shown below are the references in the links below)

2. No basis that gays/lesbian's got that way because of parenting or sexual abuse.

3. Gays/lesbians brains are different than heterosexuals.

Comments Dr. Bradshaw made that I found helpful in understanding gays/lesbians. I narrowed it down to points I haven't heard anyone else mention on this topic, that I'm aware of. And these points are the most important to me personally.

Stigmatization:

To characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious.

To mark with stigmata or a stigma.

To cause stigmata to appear on.

1. There is no evidence that he could find, that gays/lesbians are intrinsically susceptible to mental health difficulities at a greater rate than occurs in the straight population.

2. Unfortunate incidents like suicide, depression, homelessness, illegal drug use, unsafe sex practices, HIV...come primarily from stigmatization (see def. above) of gays/lesbians and societal disapproval that they face. (IMO, they've been branded)

My concluding thoughts...are what I transcribed from the podcast, I tried to put it word for word and think I accomplished it but knew I needed to cut it short so maybe I'll add on to it, if this thread will even last that long....

(Dr. Bradshaw asks John if he has any questions for him) In John's words he says this....homosexuality is clearly outlined by modern day revelation as being--not the orientation but what your son has chosen to do is a transgression, it's an abomination and there is no place for it in the plan of salvation--carnal passions should be bridled outside the bands of legal and lawful marriage and if Brett is not able to have a happy fulfilled life with a woman of his choosing, then he should or could consider himself like the single sisters of our church who are unable to be married and might offer his life as a sacrifice (the intimacy portion) and as a sacrifice to the Lord much like Abraham and Isaac and he can look forward to the day in the resurrection where that wrong is righted, he can be rewarded by God for his sacrifice and commitment to the church like many of our single brothers and sisters have had to do with all that being righted and his/her celestial increase made sure.

Dr. Bradshaw's response to John: He could and there are those who do, and I can't think of anyone more praiseworthy than gay and lesbian LDS who are able to live a celebate life under those conditions and find a rewarding and productive life. But I'm willing to entertain some other possibilities. All your life as a young LDS you're taught that fulfillment in mortal life comes from a family in preparation for an eternal family. There isn't any better way than to edge your way toward Godliness than to raise children, sacrifice and get up in the middle of the night and work your finger to the bone to pay for college tuition and all the rest. So what do you do, you're sitting in Sacrament meeting and that is open to everybody in the meeting except you. I think it's a false comparison to say that our sisters and brothers who are gay are no different than the widow or the spinster or the widower in the ward. If one of the single ladies in the ward who is 30, 40, 50 or 70 got married, it'd be the biggest party in the ward ever held--we'd all be delighted because that's always open to them. Marriage is not condemned is not refused just not the right person has come along, another stupid mormon male that doesn't appreciate the single woman. It's not qualitatively the same as the man or woman who knows that they are totally homosexual who knows that they cannot fulfill a temple marriage covenant but who may decide that far from being in opposition to church teachings would follow certain church teachings that he or she has followed all of ones life, be honest with yourself, be who you are, don't try to live a life of falsehood, don't live a life of deception. John incercepts here: You are a child of God!. Dr. Bradshaw continues...every hypothetical that I could raise or someone who disagrees with me, could raise, becomes inconsequential in comparison to the testimony bourne by some of my gay brothers and sisters. I have heard, who in complete sincerity, relate religious confirmation from diety about acceptance from Heavenly Father for who they are.

Like Dr. Bradshaw and John Dehlin and many others, I'm willing to withhold judgement, are you?

Gay Mormon Resource...

http://www.ldsresour.../bradshaw.shtml

Dr. Bradshaws has an audio and visual presentation on the biological origin below...

http://mormonstories...ical-origin-of-

homosexuality/http://www.mormonsto...bradshaw31.html

It was covered in the BYU Daily Universe here...

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

Edited August 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

I don't see it as a black and white issue. If ssa is biological, which is what the much of the research is telling us, then I'm not sure it is right to deny those people a chance to marry and find a companion.

When considered critically, your comment is nonsensical--i.e. non sequitur. It also presupposes several myths that were busted in the previous thread. It is, however, consistent with the pop culture party line.

I don't really care what the church does. They can make their own rules.I just hope that lds members will focus on kindness and be careful of condemnation.

In some cases (such as this), condemnation is kindness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Thanks for the summary Libs. I was just curious if at the end he called for SSM to be considered temple worthy? I understand all the rest of his talk as I have lived in the S.F. Bay area among that crowd.

I don't recall that, no. I don't recall that he was asking for any specific change. He mentioned at the end that young people (including LDS youth) are much more informed and tolerant of ss orientation, and that he believed there would be changes, for the better, in the future.

[Libs]

In some cases (such as this), condemnation is kindness.

I could not disagree more. It is not only not kind, in the case of sexual orientation, but potentially harmful.

[wenglund]

...Conclusive Points From Dr. Bradshaw's Mormonstories Podcasts"...

Dr. Bradford makes the fundamental mistake, among several, of not recognizing the important distinction between SSA and SS desires/behaviors/relationships, and naturally his flawed conclusions reflect, in part, that fundamental mistake. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am not questioning his sincerity or his intent to do good and right. I critically question his reasoning and conclusions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I could not disagree more. It is not only not kind, in the case of sexual orientation, but potentially harmful.

I wasn't referring to SSA, but to SS desires/behaviors/relationships. It is unkind to condone or promote SS desires/behaviors/relationships that are at high risk for things like "gay bowel syndrome."

Whereas, using Joshua's analogy of people with an attraction to sweets, it is kind to condemn an all-candy diet, and to promote instead a healthy regimen. (Note: it isn't the attraction that is being condemned, but the behavior. It is vital to the ongoing discourse that you finally get this.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I thought Dr. Bradshaw's presentation in the video was good. I believe he is a passionate father who loves his children. Whatever Dr. Bradshaw believes about the church's policy concerning homosexuals is his own whether I agree with any of his points or not.

I disagree with the overly simplistic dismissal of emotion where reason is concerned. I have seen many philosophical debates that have not been diminished by emotion. In fact, dispassionate reason seems to diminish reasoning.

I am of the opinion that informed, individual Christian conscience is the supreme arbiter of decision-making and not any form of magisterium.

[Tacenda]

I wasn't referring to SSA, but to SS desires/behaviors/relationships. It is unkind to condone or promote SS desires/behaviors/relationships that are at high risk for things like "gay bowel syndrome."

Whereas, using Joshua's analogy of people with an attraction to sweets, it is kind to condemn an all-candy diet, and to promote instead a healthy regimen. (Note: it isn't the attraction that is being condemned, but the behavior. It is vital to the ongoing discourse that you finally get this.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First I need to say that in the interview, he mentioned that Pres. Hinckley made a statement that said it might not be a good idea if gays try to marry the opposite sex. He didn't have the reference, so I'm not sure of how accurate it is. I just thought it interesting and wanted to bring it up to your position on Joshua and his story, which btw is awesome but may not be for everyone.

Also, I wanted to display the last of the words I transcribed from the podcast, the words in bold and specifically meant for those like you. If you believe in revelation from God as per Joseph Smith etc. What are your feelings about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who testify that they had revelation also and is stated below...

Here is the bolded part.... every hypothetical that I could raise or someone who disagrees with me, could raise, becomes inconsequential in comparison to the testimony bourne by some of my gay brothers and sisters. I have heard, who in complete sincerity, relate religious confirmation from diety about acceptance from Heavenly Father for who they are.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Tacenda