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

[KevinG]

I thought the notion that there is a physical cause for homosexuality (and by implication the possibility of future treatments for those who desire them) was not politically correct?

My personal conclusion is that there are nature and nurture reasons, but help me out here?! Is concluding that there are physical reasons insulting or enlightened?

[USU78]

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.

My feelings? That this stinks of confirmation bias and groupthink.

My elder brother came out to me in my home. I was disappointed and worried, but not angry. When he tried to 'bear his testimony' to me, claiming that, "In the mouths of two or three witnesses . . ." confirms the righteousness of his decision [actively to pursue a lifestyle in diametrical opposition to G-d's Plan], because so many people of his acquaintance parrot the same self-serving narrative as their newly minted personal history, I threw him out of my house.

Mendacity and self-deception.

[selek1]

I thought Dr. Bradshaw's presentation in the video was good.

Not surprising- he is excusing your predilections.

I believe he is a passionate father who loves his children.

Which matter is neither under debate, nor relevant to the discussion. That he is sincere or well-intended does not make his position correct or his arguments just.

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'd very much like to believe that- but I've also seen the venom and derision with which you attack arguments with which you disagree.

That leads me to believe that your magnanimity is based more on the fact that you like what he's saying than upon principle.

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.

A noble sentiment- if only any of the faithful here had posed such a dismissal.

They have not- thus you are tilting at a strawman (the notion simply isn't important enough to qualify as a full blown windmill).

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

Of course you are- the notion that there isno universal, arbitrary standard or right and wrong is soooo much easier on those itching ears.

Of course, the totality of human history and God's interaction disagree with your position, but that's only because they have failed to grasp the brilliant enlightenment of your "new" and hackneyed rationale...

Edited August 14, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

My feelings? That this stinks of confirmation bias and groupthink.

My elder brother came out to me in my home. I was disappointed and worried, but not angry. When he tried to 'bear his testimony' to me, claiming that, "In the mouths of two or three witnesses . . ." confirms the righteousness of his decision [actively to pursue a lifestyle in diametrical opposition to G-d's Plan], because so many people of his acquaintance parrot the same self-serving narrative as their newly minted personal history, I threw him out of my house.

Mendacity and self-deception.

okay...

[cwald]

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.

I will take them for their word. At the end of the day, one's personal relationship with the gods is what really matters.

[KevinG]

I am certain that many of my Brethren and Sisters who are subject to the thorn of the flesh known as same sex attraction have a burning testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know some who serve in the Church faithfully and who have a firm belief in the restored Gospel and Jesus Christ.

I myself struggle mightily with some thorns of the flesh. Trying to overcome them does not mean I loathe myself. In fact it means I am willing to sacrifice temporary happiness for eternal joy.

When faced with struggles with behaviors that are in opposition to the laws and covenants God has placed us under for our eternal joy we must make a choice between justifying our behavior or repenting of it. When I feel selfish, angry or obstinate about my own struggles I try to follow the counsel of a wise prophet.

"When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, then God will endow us with power from on high." Ezra Taft Benson

[USU78]

I am certain that many of my Brethren and Sisters who are subject to the thorn of the flesh known as same sex attraction have a burning testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know some who serve in the Church faithfully and who have a firm belief in the restored Gospel and Jesus Christ.

I myself struggle mightily with some thorns of the flesh. Trying to overcome them does not mean I loathe myself. In fact it means I am willing to sacrifice temporary happiness for eternal joy.

When faced with struggles with behaviors that are in opposition to the laws and covenants God has placed us under for our eternal joy we must make a choice between justifying our behavior or repenting of it. When I feel selfish, angry or obstinate about my own struggles I try to follow the counsel of a wise prophet.

"When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, then God will endow us with power from on high." Ezra Taft Benson

Excellent stuff, my friend. It is not the decision to succumb, but rather the self-seeking self-justification that offends. Succumbing to our baser natures is a universal, human problem. If one admits to one's weakness, others will surely rally.

But arrogant insistence upon one's 'right' to bend the world to one's will . . . and G-d to one's desires . . . cannot but be met by rejection.

[wenglund]

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.

It wasn't the presence of emotion that was our/my concern, but that emotion appears to have been the controlling factor in the formation of his opinion.

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

Yes, you have made us well aware of your pride.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Not surprising- he is excusing your predilections.

Your predilections are evident in every single post you write, Selek. It is telling how you are always so quick to point out others predilections. I suppose that is how you advance your agenda and the proganda to sustain it.

Which matter is neither under debate, nor relevant to the discussion. That he is sincere or well-intended does not make his position correct or his arguments just.

I agree. I was just commenting on Dr. Bradshaw the person.

I'd very much like to believe that- but I've also seen the venom and derision with which you attack arguments with which you disagree.

Again you like to point out the venom of others, specifically my own, when your own posts drip of antagonism, spitefulness, and piousness disguised as eloquently reasoned and condescending viewpoints.

That leads me to believe that your magnanimity is based more on the fact that you like what he's saying than upon principle.

I simply stated I thought his presentation was good. I have no reason to argue against or for anything Dr. Bradshaw has said.

A noble sentiment- if only any of the faithful here had posed such a dismissal.

I apologize.

They have not- thus you are tilting at a strawman (the notion simply isn't important enough to qualify as a full blown windmill).

Very well. No one in this thread said that emotion was not conducive to reason. I, again, apologize for putting words in peoples mouths.

Of course you are- the notion that there isno universal, arbitrary standard or right and wrong is soooo much easier on those itching ears.

Not at all. The responsibility of responding appropriately to individual conscience over the voices of a 'moral' majority is severely difficult. "Believe. Pay. Obey." is the, albeit overly simplistic and illogical, mindset that is easy. It predisposes people to think "Why question?", "We're led by God's chosen", etc. It is, as I said, so much easier to follow predilections based on an established position.

Of course, the totality of human history and God's interaction disagree with your position, but that's only because they have grasped the brilliant enlightenment of your "new" and hackneyed rationale...

I don't think historians would begin to suggest that the Bible or any scripture for that matter support such an opinion because it assumes that God is has always been relevant to every aspect of human existence. A poor assumption at best. It is also a bad idea to assume, as I have discussed with some Reformed adherents, that scripture is 100% historically accurate...though I am sure you are more educated than that to make such an assumption or to in any way promote such a position to the most minimal degree.

[Tacenda]

In regards to the c/p below, I'd like to request that the stigmatization of gays be stopped. It's un-christlike and those in our church who are in authority, have never been coersive or stigmatized our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the church. But some on the MD&D board are continually stigmatizing ruthlessly.

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)

[wenglund]

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.

The fundamental beliefs (such as the law of chastity) he expressed can be for everyone who has the same goal of becoming like Christ, even though not everyone may be ready in this life for heterosexual marriage.

His fundamental beliefs and story are certainly not for those whose goal is selfishness.

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.

I tend to leave judgments about personal revelation to those personally involved (between God and the person) or to those God has given stewardship over them--that is, unless God determined to reveal to me one way or the other (not that I would ask).

What I may question is the meaning of the phrase "who they are"? If it is in reference to the person's spiritual development, or in reference to their whole nature on balance, and even to an extent if it is relation to their SSA, then that seem consistent with what I understand of God and the gospel of Christ. However, if by "who they are" entails certain SS desires/behaviors/relationships, then that wouldn't comport with my understanding of God and his gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

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 have asked God. I get completely different answers from some of those here.

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

Forgive me if I don't take that at face value. I don't think I know of any "very accepting societies" on this whole planet. Some places are certainly becoming more accepting (which is good), but most still have a long way to go.

[KevinG]

In regards to the c/p below, I'd like to request that the stigmatization of gays be stopped. It's un-christlike and those in our church who are in authority, have never been coersive or stigmatized our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the church. But some on the MD&D board are continually stigmatizing ruthlessly.

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)

Homosexuality is much more accepted in society and celebrated in culture than minority religions and yet Mormon kids are not disproportionately succumbing to suicide, depression, homelessness, illegal drug use and unsafe sex practices. My own children were a minority in their high school by a factor of ten under homosexuals, they were openly preached against by some evangelical and atheist students and they managed to retain their moral center.

The idea that HIV comes from anything but unsafe sex practices (other than the bite of an infected monkey or bad transfusion before 1990) is obscenely absurd.

From the now closed thread: Wichstrøm, Lars; Hegna, Kristinn, Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 112(1), Feb 2003, 144-151. http://psycnet.apa.o...-843X.112.1.144 , which he claimed indicated: "There were factors that affected everyone with SSA, such as social support and peer relationships. However, when he looked at just attraction and behavior, he found that only homosexual behavior was predictive of a higher suicide rate. Having gay sex at an earlier age and having more same-sex partners also contributed to suicide."

We must be capable of distinguishing between condoning destructive behaviors and loving our fellow man. Condoning self-destructive behaviors is not love in any sense of the word.

Edited August 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Tacenda]

The fundamental beliefs (such as the law of chastity) he expressed can be for everyone who has the same goal of becoming like Christ, even though not everyone may be ready in this life for heterosexual marriage.

His fundamental beliefs and story are certainly not for those whose goal is selfishness.

I tend to leave judgments about personal revelation to those personally involved (between God and the person) or to those God has given stewardship over them--that is, unless God determined to reveal to me one way or the other (not that I would ask).

What I may question is the meaning of the phrase "who they are"? If it is in reference to the person's spiritual development, or in reference to their whole nature on balance, and even to an extent if it is relation to their SSA, then that seem consistent with what I understand of God and the gospel of Christ. However, if by "who they are" entails certain SS desires/behaviors/relationships, then that wouldn't comport with my understanding of God and his gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did note the "who they are" part with the same impression as far as it being vague.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

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)

How do you know? Wouldn't the fact that they feel ashamed because deep down they know their behavior is not in conformity with what God has asked also contribute to such things? In fact as I recall Br. Jackson presented research which upheld this idea that it is those whose behavior is immoral who suffer these things, not a person with SSA who chooses to live a chaste life. Chastity may seem like the harder choice but it is the only way to feel the esteem and confidence.

[USU78]

In regards to the c/p below, I'd like to request that the stigmatization of gays be stopped. It's un-christlike and those in our church who are in authority, have never been coersive or stigmatized our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the church. But some on the MD&D board are continually stigmatizing ruthlessly.

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)

There are no stigmata . . ., unless of course one looks to specific, shared behaviors or other outward signs by many/most in a group as constituting stigmata identifying membership in the group.

Fact is, the lack of imposed-from-without stigmata for a substantial number of years in places like Scandinavia and Holland have had little to no ameliorative effects reducing suicides, suicide attempts, depression, etc. amongst gays/lesbians. This would tend to support the proposition that stigmatization has little to no aggravating effects, blowing up your naked assertion.

[Libs]

Homosexuality is much more accepted in society and celebrated in culture than minority religions and yet Mormon kids are not disproportionately succumbing to suicide, depression, homelessness, illegal drug use and unsafe sex practices. My own children were a minority in their high school by a factor of ten under homosexuals, they were openly preached against by some evangelical and atheist students and they managed to retain their moral center.

I don't think this is a good comparison, Kevin. Your children were supported at home and by their church. They had the foundational support that gay LDS do not get..often, even, from their own families. That is much more devastating, than "outsider" criticism.

[USU78]

I don't think this is a good comparison, Kevin. Your children were supported at home and by their church. They had the foundational support that gay LDS do not get..often, even, from their own families. That is much more devastating, than "outsider" criticism.

Libs, your failure to take into consideration gay/lesbian support systems, often with express government support, and the not uncommon practice of encouraging "out" youth to eschew family in favor of such support systems evidences either a charming naivete or a conniving mismanagement of data. I prefer you as charming.

[KevinG]

I don't think this is a good comparison, Kevin. Your children were supported at home and by their church. They had the foundational support that gay LDS do not get..often, even, from their own families. That is much more devastating, than "outsider" criticism.

You will need to show that Gay LDS are subject to higher levels of depression, sexual risk factors and suicide than their peers in general populations for your criticism to have any meaning.

The notion that social groups and peer relationships are contributing factors to the higher incidence of gay suicide was already debunked in the study quoted above.

I do not argue that we need to love our children unconditionally. I do argue it is a dangerous and harmful thing to condone sinful behaviors.

Incidentally I have recently spoken to some social workers and psychologists who are looking at youth suicide trends and they are seeing patterns unlike they have in the past with honor students, popular students, athletes, etc. receiving treatment for depression and suicide. Evidence is in direct opposition to the myth of the emo kid, the outcast or the different kid that is more prone to suicide. The therapists are a bit stunned by these recent trends. I theorize that it is somewhat due to the open discussion of suicide in popular media and the fact that it can get someone attention in an increasingly noisy and crowded world. I have not been able to test that theory. I hope clinicians are working on the reasons for the trends so it can be staunched.

I had a child hospitalized for suicidal thoughts and that child was arguably the most successful in school and the most socially adept with adults and peers in school and church. The child told me it was belief in God and eternity that kept her from acting on the thoughts.

The scientific, social and personal evidence does not match the claim that the stigma associated with being gay leads to the dysfunctional behaviors and negative consequences of homosexual acts.

In fact a belief in LDS doctrines was a factor in helping my child avoid tragic actions.

Edited August 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Libs]

Wouldn't the fact that they feel ashamed because deep down they know their behavior is not in conformity with what God has asked also contribute to such things?

I know you asked this of Tacenda, but I just wanted to say that I would strongly disagree that the "shame" is coming from God or any internal spiritual feelings. It seems obvious to me that those feelings of shame have been placed on the ss attracted, by other people. The burden comes from being taught that homosexuality is wrong...not from God.

[selek1]

In regards to the c/p below, I'd like to request that the stigmatization of gays be stopped. It's un-christlike and those in our church who are in authority, have never been coersive or stigmatized our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the church. But some on the MD&D board are continually stigmatizing ruthlessly.

Translation: "Shut up-your hurting our feelings!"

To which I riposte, "The wicked often take the truth to be hard."

You want to talk about "un-Christ-like" behavior?

Fine- let's talk about bearing false witness against the Saints of God. Let's talk about calling evil "good", and good "evil". Let's talk about perverting the laws of God to lead his children into sin.

Deal with these- and then when your own skirts are lily-white, you can come back and complain about the alleged spots on our garments.

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)

This is a Faithlessness Promoting Rumor and self-serving slur that has zero backing from scientific evidence.

In point of fact, these social ills actually increased among homosexuals in European countries where same-sex marriage was legitimized and mainstreamed.

It is a dishonest, deceitful, and propagandistic effort to pass off the consequences of one's own choices and actions onto others.

One of the mantras of the "enlightened Left" has been "Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a homosexual."

Let's apply the same standards to your hobby horse:

• Don't like being told that your behavior is sinful? Stop rubbing our noses in it.
  
• Don't like being told that God considers your conduct an abomination? Stop telling us that our Churches must conform to your opinion.
  
• Don't wanna die nearly thirty years younger than a comparable heterosexual? Don't engage in homosexual practices.
  
• Don't wanna be in a relationship that is three times as likely to result in domenstic violence? Avoid homosexual counterfeits.
  
• Do you want to avoid a culture that is plagued by rampant promiscuity, epidemic levels of sexually transmitted disease, drug use, and a corrosive effect on self-esteem? Stop drinking the pro-homosexual Kool-aid.
  

You are engaged in a hateful, deceitful, dishonest, and bigoted effort to conflate "contradiction" with "persecution".

You are attempting to silence the ideas of people who disagree with you. That is the province of the book-burners and the thought police. Is that where you really want to go?

You are attempting to blame the people shouting a warning against these behaviors for the very ills of the behaviors they are decrying.

The people of Zarahemla engaged in exactly the same behavior towards Nephi (Helaman 7 and that you are engaging in now.

Such an attempt is foolish, vain, and frankly, contrary to the Laws of God.

Edited August 14, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

There are no stigmata . . ., unless of course one looks to specific, shared behaviors or other outward signs by many/most in a group as constituting stigmata identifying membership in the group.

Fact is, the lack of imposed-from-without stigmata for a substantial number of years in places like Scandinavia and Holland have had little to no ameliorative effects reducing suicides, suicide attempts, depression, etc. amongst gays/lesbians. This would tend to support the proposition that stigmatization has little to no aggravating effects, blowing up your naked assertion.

How do you know? Wouldn't the fact that they feel ashamed because deep down they know their behavior is not in conformity with what God has asked also contribute to such things? In fact as I recall Br. Jackson presented research which upheld this idea that it is those whose behavior is immoral who suffer these things, not a person with SSA who chooses to live a chaste life. Chastity may seem like the harder choice but it is the only way to feel the esteem and confidence.

To both of you, this wasn't my assertion it was Dr. Bradshaw's after intense research on the matter. I assert that some people act out on what they've been told they are alot of times. If a kid is told he's stupid by his parents all the time, he'll believe it. If a girl is told she is ugly all the time she might believe it (think of the Johnny Lingo movie in seminary) until someone starts to tell her she's beautiful and she transforms into that.

[Libs]

Libs, your failure to take into consideration gay/lesbian support systems, often with express government support, and the not uncommon practice of encouraging "out" youth to eschew family in favor of such support systems evidences either a charming naivete or a conniving mismanagement of data. I prefer you as charming.

USU, there is no more basic unit of support than the family. Removal of that basic support can be extremely devastating, regardless of other kinds of support. Not saying support groups are not helpful, but they are certainly not helpful on the same level as full family support (including one's church family).

Edited August 14, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

There are no stigmata . . ., unless of course one looks to specific, shared behaviors or other outward signs by many/most in a group as constituting stigmata identifying membership in the group.

Fact is, the lack of imposed-from-without stigmata for a substantial number of years in places like Scandinavia and Holland have had little to no ameliorative effects reducing suicides, suicide attempts, depression, etc. amongst gays/lesbians. This would tend to support the proposition that stigmatization has little to no aggravating effects, blowing up your naked assertion.

I believe the term you are looking for is "stigma".

"Stigmata"- as I understand the term- refers primarily to the marks and wounds Christ suffered prior to and during his crucifixion.

To use that term in regards to the self-imposed and utterly predictable consequences of self-destructive behavior strikes me as more than slightly offensive.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are no stigmata . . ., unless of course one looks to specific, shared behaviors or other outward signs by many/most in a group as constituting stigmata identifying membership in the group.

Fact is, the lack of imposed-from-without stigmata for a substantial number of years in places like Scandinavia and Holland have had little to no ameliorative effects reducing suicides, suicide attempts, depression, etc. amongst gays/lesbians. This would tend to support the proposition that stigmatization has little to no aggravating effects, blowing up your naked assertion.

This settles it for me. It appears that this life style is destructive.