The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[consiglieri]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly what my Bengali guru said, though that may not have been clear in my short quotation.

I think I understand your guru's saying better now.

It is a tad ambivalent . . . 

 

[BCSpace]

On 6/16/2016 at 8:56 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  But we don't have to rub the scriptures in people's faces.  They know what they say.
According to our beliefs those involved in SSM and other such relations have a very unhappy, unpleasant awakening coming.  And they know what we believe.  Do we really need to remind them of it every 5 minutes?

The fact that they don't share our beliefs won't change their final situation one iota.  And that should sadden us, not prompt us to constantly remind them of it.

Yes, they need to be reminded, even told for the first time, that what they're doing is contrary to the will of God.  I would agree that we don't have to go out of our way, but we shouldn't tiptoe around scriptures and doctrines that make others feel uncomfortable.  I think the betrayal ones feels after having been baptized and then finding out what they believe and do is wrong is far worse than telling them upfront.  Baptism is for the remission of sins.  What sins?  And what does this new life, that they should be living, entail?

To do otherwise puts us in the realm of slimy salesmen; baptizing and re-activating for the numbers.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks... I remained puzzled by the degree of silence with which my essay has generally been greeted, considering the paradigmatic importance of Carol Lynn's account, just how well-known Gerald Pearson's story has become, and the number of threads and extensive comment that generally fly around any little bit of news or controversy.  Perhaps the grooves of the current discussion have been worn so deeply that mostly people simply don't know how to wrap their minds around a such a different take on the topic, one which calls for a different set of questions to consider, different implications, different responsibilities, and above all, the possibility of very different perceptions and choices.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA 

It was certainly a perspective I had not heard of before in this context.  It was valuable to read and had the ring of "getting it right" to it.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/17/2016 at 5:32 PM, Teancum said:

Another non response. 

Kant's Categorical Imperative:   “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

[CV75]

On 6/16/2016 at 6:11 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

I don't think an impasse is created by the Church's position vis-à-vis that of members who differ with it in their understanding according to the light they possess, but by the spirit of contention which is employed outside the spirit of counsel, the latter being fostered in the inspired council process the Lord has taught us to use.

Edited June 19, 2016 by CV75

[california boy]

Rumi's answer to questions asked by a disciple
What is Anger?
Non acceptance of things which are beyond our control.
 If we accept, it becomes tolerance...!,

When either group tried to control the beliefs or practices of the other, then anger occurs.  There is way too much of that on both sides of the bridge

What is hatred?
Non acceptance of person as he is.
 If we accept person unconditionally, it becomes love...!

You can't control how another person acts or believes.  The only thing you can do is accept them for who they are, and render service to show love towards them.  If more people would consider doing just that, then the world would be a better place.  You can't control the faults in others, we can only work on the faults we ourselves have.  It may not be possible for both sides to come together, but I fully believe that anyone on either side can come together.  And if enough people take a step towards the other, more will follow.  I don't have to have the entire gay community accept those in the church, I only have to accept them in my own heart. Whether the church accepts me or not is irrelevant.  The churches behavior and policies should not determine mine.
 

[Rain]

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

And of course, there is this sort of thing, which no one seems to want to acknowledge.

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

But it's easy enough to acknowledge if you know how to recognize it when present and then see what to do about it when you do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

In the essay you say, "There is an addiction treatment that works, that actually does address and heal the physiological damage involved in addiction, a treatment that shrinks the enlarged area of the brain containing the dopamine receptors, and restores the area of the cortex associated with weighing costs and benefits. "

I didn't  see what treatment this is unless you are referring to the addictive recovery program.  Perhaps I don't have enough reading comprehension and missed it.  Were you referring to ARP or something else? 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

What is hatred?

 

Non acceptance of person as he is.
 If we accept person unconditionally, it becomes love...!

Nope.

Accepting unconditionally is not the same as loving unconditionally.

[Kevin Christensen]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

In the essay you say, "There is an addiction treatment that works, that actually does address and heal the physiological damage involved in addiction, a treatment that shrinks the enlarged area of the brain containing the dopamine receptors, and restores the area of the cortex associated with weighing costs and benefits. "

I didn't  see what treatment this is unless you are referring to the addictive recovery program.  Perhaps I don't have enough reading comprehension and missed it.  Were you referring to ARP or something else? 

The defining characteristic of addiction is increased craving combined with impeded judgement.  I am referring to, and endorsing, 12 Step Recovery, which has been adopted by the LDS Addiction Recovery Program, as it directly addresses both issues, craving and impeded judgement.  From my Square Two essay:

Quote

An appreciation of the concept of addiction and healing opens the way to imagine a future reality. A period of sobriety based on helpful group accountability reverses the enlargement of the dopamine receptors. In my experience, neural pathways begin to heal after 90 days.  The writing, careful self-examination, disclosing secrets, and dismantling of grievance stories helps to restore judgment of risks and benefits to actions. The stories that people share in groups creates trust, uncovers secrets, removes toxic shame, and those in the group provide helpful role models for behavior.  The first sex addiction recovery group consisted of people who saw the resemblance between their lusting and their alcohol and narcotics addictions.  They successfully adapted the Twelve Steps of recovery from A.A. and N.A. programs to their sexual addiction.  Patrick Carnes began studying the successes of these people. [58] In other words, the therapist went to the recovered addicts and asked them how they succeeded. 

In a book called He Did Deliver Me From Bondage, Colleen Harrison first pointed out that the Book of Mormon contains the twelve steps of addiction recovery. [59] Consider that Laman and Lemuel saw an angel, but did not change in the way Alma does.  Alma’s encounter involves a complete moral inventory (compare Alma 36:13-14 and Steps 4 and 5), his coming to believe that God could help him (Alma 36:18 and Steps 2-3, and 7). Alma demonstrates an ongoing amends and obvious spiritual awakening (Steps 8, 9 and 12).  Laman and Lemuel, in direct and obvious contrast, and very much in line with the insights of recovery literature, focus on fear of Laban, resentment of their younger brother trying to direct their lives, their shame at the eccentricities of their father compared to the appeals of popular thinking, their grievances at their personal sacrifices and social compromises, and their own desires to increase their personal and political power, and to enjoy unrestrained pleasure without judgment or consequence.

For nine years, Harrison’s book was adopted as the pilot text for the LDS addiction recovery program, showing that the solution to addiction had been in hand but unrecognized in 

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

On the topic of unconditional love and acceptance of people as they are, I can't help but notice that it is difficult to find any statement by Jesus in the New Testament that does not expressly state conditions.  From a forthcoming essay of mine:

Quote

We are occasionally told that Jesus taught a message of unconditional love.  And it is true that love permeates and gives meaning to everything Jesus did and said.  But claims that Jesus taught a message of unconditional love typically overlooks the point that nearly everything Jesus said or did, states conditions. Imagine some unconditional Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit and the arrogant alike: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn, and those who cause the mourning: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled along with those who aren’t interested enough to bother.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God, along with the impure in heart.

Blessed are the peacemakers and the warmongers and demagogues: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as well as those do the persecuting, and the oblivious and disinterested: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

These changed Beatitudes obviously do not come from Jesus.  Removing the conditions he stated in the Beatitudes to make them unconditionally inclusive, distorts his message.  Indeed, the message of love seems to me to utterly disappear along with the conditions. What remains is a not love, but indifference, disconcern. Even if we look at boldest passage about love in the Sermon on the Mount, we find that rather than sitting by itself, it comes eternally married to a specific condition:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

This is not a message that love never states conditions and is therefore unconditional in that sense. Rather, Jesus constantly states crucial conditions due to his love for us. Here he says that no matter how other people may behave, if we want to be the children of our Heavenly father, we should show love. Because he loves us, he spells out for us the good and bad consequences of our good and bad behavior. Because he loves us, he challenges us to become more than what we currently fear and desire. There is as much love in Jesus saying to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” as there is in his saying, “Get behind me Satan, thou art an offense to me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”  (Matt 16:23).  What matters most is that the criticism is not the last or only thing Jesus said to Peter.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The defining characteristic of addiction is increased craving combined with impeded judgement.  I am referring to, and endorsing, 12 Step Recovery, which has been adopted by the LDS Addiction Recovery Program, as it directly addresses both issues, craving and impeded judgement.  From my Square Two essay:

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thank you.  I had read that part as well,  but somehow missed the first couple of lines.  And if what you believe is really the case it makes sense for why,  as I have heard from several sources,  that it hasn't worked as well for food addiction since food, in general, is something you can't become sober from.  Thanks again and I'll quit with being off topic now.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On the topic of unconditional love and acceptance of people as they are, I can't help but notice that it is difficult to find any statement by Jesus in the New Testament that does not expressly state conditions.  From a forthcoming essay of mine:

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

The story goes that some years ago a group of salesmen went to a regional sales convention in Chicago.  They had assured their wives that they would be home in plenty of time for Friday night’s dinner.  In their rush, with tickets and briefcases, one of these salesmen inadvertently kicked over a table, which held a display of apples.  Apples flew everywhere.  Without stopping or looking back, they all managed to reach the plane in time for their nearly missed boarding.
All but one, that is.  He paused, took a deep breath, got in touch with his feelings, and experienced a twinge of compassion for the girl whose apple stand had been overturned.  He told his buddies to go on without him, waved goodbye, told one of them to call his wife when they arrived at their home destination and explain his taking a later flight.  Then he returned to the terminal where the apples were all over the terminal floor.  He was glad he did.  The 16-year-old girl was totally blind!  She was softly crying, tears running down her cheeks in frustration, and at the same time helplessly groping for her spilled produce as the crowd swirled about her, no one stopping and no one to care for her plight.
The salesman knelt on the floor with her, gathered up the apples, put them back into the baskets and helped organize her display.  As he did this, he noticed that many of them had become battered and bruised; these he set aside in another basket.  When he finished, he pulled out his wallet and said to the girl, “Here, please take this $20 bill for the damage we did.  Are you okay?”  She nodded through her tears.  He continued on with, “I hope we didn’t spoil your day too badly.”  As the salesman started to walk away, the bewildered blind girl called out to him,
“Mister . . .” 
He paused and turned to look back into those blind eyes
She continued, “Are you Jesus?”
He stopped in mid-stride, and he wondered.  Then slowly he made his way to catch the later flight with that question burning and bouncing about in his soul: 
“Are you Jesus?”
Do people mistake you for Jesus? That’s our destiny, is it not? To be so much like Jesus that people cannot tell the difference as we live and interact with a world that is blind to His love, life and grace.

If we claim to know Him, we should live, walk and act as He would. Knowing Him is more than simply quoting Scripture and going to Church. It’s actually living the Word as life unfolds day to day.  It really doesn't matter if you believe that everything 15 men say comes from God.  It really doesn't matter if you think the dogma that you believe in is right and everyone else is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if you are the most active member in the ward or the most TBM.  

What I try to focus my life on is not dogma, not church attendance, not what the latest policy coming from SLC is.  The kind of life I want to live is when people look up and ask me "are you Jesus".  That is my goal and that is what I try and stay focused on.  I really don't care if someone else thinks I love too much or I am not judgmental enough, or I ignored someone's sins too much;  It is all white noise.  Of course I fail miserably all the time.  But each day starts again with the possibility that I might for one second of that day be confused with doing something that Jesus would have done.  I don't want to imply at all that my life is like Christ's.  I only want to say that is my goal.  And that is more important to me than how someone feels scriptures should be interpreted to judge another person's sins or not love them unconditionally.   I don't mean to infer anything about how you live your own life Kevin, I only want to express another way to look at what might be important.

[Mystery Meat]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The story goes that some years ago a group of salesmen went to a regional sales convention in Chicago.  They had assured their wives that they would be home in plenty of time for Friday night’s dinner.  In their rush, with tickets and briefcases, one of these salesmen inadvertently kicked over a table, which held a display of apples.  Apples flew everywhere.  Without stopping or looking back, they all managed to reach the plane in time for their nearly missed boarding.
All but one, that is.  He paused, took a deep breath, got in touch with his feelings, and experienced a twinge of compassion for the girl whose apple stand had been overturned.  He told his buddies to go on without him, waved goodbye, told one of them to call his wife when they arrived at their home destination and explain his taking a later flight.  Then he returned to the terminal where the apples were all over the terminal floor.  He was glad he did.  The 16-year-old girl was totally blind!  She was softly crying, tears running down her cheeks in frustration, and at the same time helplessly groping for her spilled produce as the crowd swirled about her, no one stopping and no one to care for her plight.
The salesman knelt on the floor with her, gathered up the apples, put them back into the baskets and helped organize her display.  As he did this, he noticed that many of them had become battered and bruised; these he set aside in another basket.  When he finished, he pulled out his wallet and said to the girl, “Here, please take this $20 bill for the damage we did.  Are you okay?”  She nodded through her tears.  He continued on with, “I hope we didn’t spoil your day too badly.”  As the salesman started to walk away, the bewildered blind girl called out to him,
“Mister . . .” 
He paused and turned to look back into those blind eyes
She continued, “Are you Jesus?”
He stopped in mid-stride, and he wondered.  Then slowly he made his way to catch the later flight with that question burning and bouncing about in his soul: 
“Are you Jesus?”
Do people mistake you for Jesus? That’s our destiny, is it not? To be so much like Jesus that people cannot tell the difference as we live and interact with a world that is blind to His love, life and grace.

If we claim to know Him, we should live, walk and act as He would. Knowing Him is more than simply quoting Scripture and going to Church. It’s actually living the Word as life unfolds day to day.  It really doesn't matter if you believe that everything 15 men say comes from God.  It really doesn't matter if you think the dogma that you believe in is right and everyone else is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if you are the most active member in the ward or the most TBM.  

What I try to focus my life on is not dogma, not church attendance, not what the latest policy coming from SLC is.  The kind of life I want to live is when people look up and ask me "are you Jesus".  That is my goal and that is what I try and stay focused on.  I really don't care if someone else thinks I love too much or I am not judgmental enough, or I ignored someone's sins too much;  It is all white noise.  Of course I fail miserably all the time.  But each day starts again with the possibility that I might for one second of that day be confused with doing something that Jesus would have done.  I don't want to imply at all that my life is like Christ's.  I only want to say that is my goal.  And that is more important to me than how someone feels scriptures should be interpreted to judge another person's sins or not love them unconditionally.   I don't mean to infer anything about how you live your own life Kevin, I only want to express another way to look at what might be important.

It's a nice story, but it isn't really on point with what Kevin was saying. People like to focus on the Savior's example of love and charity, and so should they. But sometimes people do that at the expense of everything else the Savior did and said. They wouldn't recognize Him or His doctrine. It was hard and based on today's standards harsh. There was no allowance for sin in his teaching. Yes, sinners should be loved, but their sins shouldn't be tolerated. In fact, he used words so hard that they killed Him for it. He called hypocrites, hypocrites. Liars, liars. He threw people from the temple in anger. He divided families (and still does). He said that those who don't fulfill a simple requirement (baptism) will not be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven. He spoke strongly not only of adultery, but of those who would even contemplate it and entertain lust in their minds and hearts. Yes, Jesus loves. He loves us all unconditional. But His acceptance of us into His kingdom is subject to a whole swath of conditions. 

So, yes, we should always remember His love and His loving example. But to neglect the seemingly harsh doctrines, requirements, conditions and example is to not know the Savior or who He really is. To talk of His love and ignore the rest as if at a cafeteria is to love half a Savior and half a Savior is incomplete. Remember, if ye love Him, keep His commandments. Can't talk about love without that little detail.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The story goes that some years ago a group of salesmen went to a regional sales convention in Chicago.  They had assured their wives that they would be home in plenty of time for Friday night’s dinner.  In their rush, with tickets and briefcases, one of these salesmen inadvertently kicked over a table, which held a display of apples.  Apples flew everywhere.  Without stopping or looking back, they all managed to reach the plane in time for their nearly missed boarding.
All but one, that is.  He paused, took a deep breath, got in touch with his feelings, and experienced a twinge of compassion for the girl whose apple stand had been overturned.  He told his buddies to go on without him, waved goodbye, told one of them to call his wife when they arrived at their home destination and explain his taking a later flight.  Then he returned to the terminal where the apples were all over the terminal floor.  He was glad he did.  The 16-year-old girl was totally blind!  She was softly crying, tears running down her cheeks in frustration, and at the same time helplessly groping for her spilled produce as the crowd swirled about her, no one stopping and no one to care for her plight.
The salesman knelt on the floor with her, gathered up the apples, put them back into the baskets and helped organize her display.  As he did this, he noticed that many of them had become battered and bruised; these he set aside in another basket.  When he finished, he pulled out his wallet and said to the girl, “Here, please take this $20 bill for the damage we did.  Are you okay?”  She nodded through her tears.  He continued on with, “I hope we didn’t spoil your day too badly.”  As the salesman started to walk away, the bewildered blind girl called out to him,
“Mister . . .” 
He paused and turned to look back into those blind eyes
She continued, “Are you Jesus?”
He stopped in mid-stride, and he wondered.  Then slowly he made his way to catch the later flight with that question burning and bouncing about in his soul: 
“Are you Jesus?”
Do people mistake you for Jesus? That’s our destiny, is it not? To be so much like Jesus that people cannot tell the difference as we live and interact with a world that is blind to His love, life and grace.

If we claim to know Him, we should live, walk and act as He would. Knowing Him is more than simply quoting Scripture and going to Church. It’s actually living the Word as life unfolds day to day.  It really doesn't matter if you believe that everything 15 men say comes from God.  It really doesn't matter if you think the dogma that you believe in is right and everyone else is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if you are the most active member in the ward or the most TBM.  

What I try to focus my life on is not dogma, not church attendance, not what the latest policy coming from SLC is.  The kind of life I want to live is when people look up and ask me "are you Jesus".  That is my goal and that is what I try and stay focused on.  I really don't care if someone else thinks I love too much or I am not judgmental enough, or I ignored someone's sins too much;  It is all white noise.  Of course I fail miserably all the time.  But each day starts again with the possibility that I might for one second of that day be confused with doing something that Jesus would have done.  I don't want to imply at all that my life is like Christ's.  I only want to say that is my goal.  And that is more important to me than how someone feels scriptures should be interpreted to judge another person's sins or not love them unconditionally.   I don't mean to infer anything about how you live your own life Kevin, I only want to express another way to look at what might be important.

Your story illustrates what Kevin was saying. All of the men may have loved unconditionally. It was the man who lived the "conditions" that was mistaken for Christ. Both are needed. 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

SNIP

If we claim to know Him, we should live, walk and act as He would. Knowing Him is more than simply quoting Scripture and going to Church. It’s actually living the Word as life unfolds day to day.  It really doesn't matter if you believe that everything 15 men say comes from God.  It really doesn't matter if you think the dogma that you believe in is right and everyone else is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if you are the most active member in the ward or the most TBM.  

What I try to focus my life on is not dogma, not church attendance, not what the latest policy coming from SLC is.  The kind of life I want to live is when people look up and ask me "are you Jesus".  That is my goal and that is what I try and stay focused on.  I really don't care if someone else thinks I love too much or I am not judgmental enough, or I ignored someone's sins too much;  It is all white noise.  Of course I fail miserably all the time.  But each day starts again with the possibility that I might for one second of that day be confused with doing something that Jesus would have done.  I don't want to imply at all that my life is like Christ's.  I only want to say that is my goal.  And that is more important to me than how someone feels scriptures should be interpreted to judge another person's sins or not love them unconditionally.   I don't mean to infer anything about how you live your own life Kevin, I only want to express another way to look at what might be important.

I don't think any of my +3000 posts over the past 12 years here, or dozens of published essays elsewhere, or my face to face communications, lessons, and occasional talks at church, have anything in them assert that the only or best way to know Christ is to quote scripture, go to church, and believe that the Brethren are nothing more or less than God's sock puppets... or what ever.

It does seem to me that my working recovery and making amends is actually very comparable to picking up the apples I have knocked over due to my own episodes of thoughtless or careless behavior.  That may not be the only way to look it it, but, I think it actually fits very nicely.  It's an apt parable.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 20, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo, as usual

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Your story illustrates what Kevin was saying. All of the men may have loved unconditionally. It was the man who lived the "conditions" that was mistaken for Christ. Both are needed. 

 

My post was probably a more reflection on my own weakness. Calling hypocrites hypocrites and liars liars comes easy for me. What I need the most focus on is showing more love and kindness. 

 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I don't think any of my +3000 posts over the past 12 years here, or dozens of published essays elsewhere, or my face to face communications, lessons, and occasional talks at church, have anything in them assert that the only or best way to know Christ is to quote scripture, go to church, and believe that the Brethren are nothing more or less than God's sock puppets... or what ever.

It does seem to me that my working recovery and making amends is actually very comparable to picking up the apples I have knocked over do to my own episodes of thoughtless or careless behavior.  That may not be the only way to look it it, but, I think it actually fits very nicely.  It's an apt parable.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Well like I said Kevin, this was not ment to be a judgement on your life. It is more on what I need to focuse on daily. It is the message of Christ that speaks to me the loudest

[Avatar4321]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:11 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

its not our job to bridge the gap. Our job is to obey the Lord and teach others the truth in love. They will bridge the gap with God when they use the atonement

[Johnnie Cake]

On June 16, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

I predict that eventually it will be the church that will cave in to societal pressures just as it had done in the past...

when the pressure reaches the point where the church will be deprived of assets or reaches a point of marginalisation it will abandon its cherished eternal truths and wrap the change in revelation

if nothing else the leaders of the church are survivalists...they will abandon every eternal truth to save the institutional church and assure its continued survival

Edited June 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I predict that eventually it will be the church that will cave in to societal pressures just as it had done in the past...

when the pressure reaches the point where the church will be deprived of assets or reaches a point of marginalisation it will abandon its cherished eternal truths and wrap the change in revelation

if nothing else the leaders of the church are survivalists...they will abandon every eternal truth to save the institutional church and assure its continued survival

Thank you for sharing your opinion; I guess it is worth the value of every opinion and every one has got one.

Bow to society pressure.  Hmm, what on earth are you talking about.  Whether one agrees with the priesthood ban - you know that priesthood thing that has had some incredibly strict parameters since the dawn of time - and lest the narrow minded forget, was always understood to include the black man - yeah that one - bow to societal pressure is good spin for a rag like the National Enquirer or the majority of English rags, but not so much on reality.  But keep up the propaganda because it will fool....fools for a while and even they wake up with a little reading.

Then there that old, troublesome purpose of life is to procreate and Tom and Tom and Shirley and Shirley cannot do piddley-squat when it comes to reproduction.  It is like this colossal block to the entire purpose of all creation, but hey, if it floats your boat, keep pumping those fairy tale dreams and retain the rose-colored glasses that see only unicorns and puff the magic dragon. 

But whatever you do - don't read scripture.  Absolutely keep that stuff out of the house and away from searching minds.  God knows what would happen if man actually read and understood scripture.  

I am now off my soap box and gone to bed.  Keep smoking that ganja because you do come up with some wild stories when you are on the stuff.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I predict that eventually it will be the church that will cave in to societal pressures just as it had done in the past...

when the pressure reaches the point where the church will be deprived of assets or reaches a point of marginalisation it will abandon its cherished eternal truths and wrap the change in revelation

if nothing else the leaders of the church are survivalists...they will abandon every eternal truth to save the institutional church and assure its continued survival

Matthew 24:

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: 

Daniel 11:

 31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place theabomination that maketh desolate.

  32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

  33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

  34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

  35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

  36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

  37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

  38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion; I guess it is worth the value of every opinion and every one has got one.

Bow to society pressure.  Hmm, what on earth are you talking about.  Whether one agrees with the priesthood ban - you know that priesthood thing that has had some incredibly strict parameters since the dawn of time - and lest the narrow minded forget, was always understood to include the black man - yeah that one - bow to societal pressure is good spin for a rag like the National Enquirer or the majority of English rags, but not so much on reality.  But keep up the propaganda because it will fool....fools for a while and even they wake up with a little reading.

Then there that old, troublesome purpose of life is to procreate and Tom and Tom and Shirley and Shirley cannot do piddley-squat when it comes to reproduction.  It is like this colossal block to the entire purpose of all creation, but hey, if it floats your boat, keep pumping those fairy tale dreams and retain the rose-colored glasses that see only unicorns and puff the magic dragon. 

But whatever you do - don't read scripture.  Absolutely keep that stuff out of the house and away from searching minds.  God knows what would happen if man actually read and understood scripture.  

I am now off my soap box and gone to bed.  Keep smoking that ganja because you do come up with some wild stories when you are on the stuff.

I don't think that the church caved due to social pressure.  I think the church truly believes that God told the prophet to stop the discrimination.  But I do believe that the change in attitude amongst the public and church members caused enough concern to the prophet that he began in earnest to pray to God about it.  Now that is entirely possible.  As time goes on, people will see the fruits of legalizing gay marriage.  More families will be happy and secure in being legally married and their children will be raised in a more secure and committed relationship.  Telling someone they must be celibate without ever having the chance to marry will be seen as wrong.  It is not the life without sex that will cause people to rethink this policy.  I is the very real human need for companionship.

Quote

"The story is told of a widower and a widower. They had known each other for a number of years, having been high school classmates and having attended class reunions in the past, without fail.
 This 60th anniversary of their class, the widower and the widow made a foursome with two other singles. They had a wonderful evening, their spirits high, with the widower throwing admiring glances across the table . . . and the widow smiling coyly back at him.  
Finally during one dance, he picked up courage to ask her, “Will you marry me?  ”
After about 6 seconds of careful consideration, she answered, “Yes…. yes I will!” 
Needless to say, the evening ended on a happy note for the widower. However, the next morning he was troubled. Did she say “Yes!” or did she say “No?” He couldn’t remember. Try as he would, he just could not recall. He went over-and-over the conversation of the previous evening, but his mind was blank. He remembered asking the question, but for the life of him could not recall her response.
With fear and trepidation, he picked up the phone and called her.  First, he explained that he couldn’t remember as well as he used to. Then he reviewed the past evening.  As he gained a little more courage, he then inquired of her, “When I asked if you would marry me, did you say ‘Yes’ or did you say ‘No?’” 
“Why you silly man,” she replied, “I said ‘Yes. Yes I will!’ And I meant it with all my heart!”
 The widower was delighted. He felt his heart skip a beat.
 Then she continued. “And I’m so glad you called, because I couldn’t remember who asked me!

I doubt sex was what was on these two peoples mind.  And I doubt the ability to have children was a part of their desire.  People understand the need and desire to have someone to share life with.  To deny anyone that happiness and joy is just not right.  It doesn't fit into the gospel plan.  And eventually it will not be able to be ignored.  Chastising someone to read the scriptures does not help in this situation because the scriptures are silent on the difference between gay couples having sex and gay couples having sex within the bounds of a legal and lawful marriage. Hence the need for the church to have modern revelation.

As far as the issue of not having children, it appears that God doesn't have a problem with that when straight couples are unable to have children.  That has never been a requirement for the validity of a marriage for the church.

Whether the church ever changes it's policy towards gay couples is a complete unknown at this time.  What is known, is that your reasons for the church not changing are not all that solid.  It is speculation just as much as the reasons to deny temple marriage to black and interracial couples was before the discrimination against blacks was lifted.
 

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 3:19 PM, USU78 said:

Horse pucky.  It was absolutely necessary to guard against abuses.

I actually agree that the Church instituted that policy to pre-emptively guard against a perceived threat of litigation, and not in consideration of children or families headed by same-sex couples.

Not a soul was hurt.  Many, however, have merely feigned hurt  ...  IMNSHO.

Horse pucky.  Are we to assume, IYNSHO, that you reject the notion that harm (or "hurt") can be emotional, mental, spiritual, or familial...?

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I actually agree that the Church instituted that policy to pre-emptively guard against a perceived threat of litigation, and not in consideration of children or families headed by same-sex couples.

Horse pucky.  Are we to assume, IYNSHO, that you reject the notion that harm (or "hurt") can be emotional, mental, spiritual, or familial...?

Although he can speak for him/herself, this point has been discussed quite a bit.  If you know a married, gay couple that are actively raising their custodial children in Church of Jesus Christ then you would have a point.  The problem is such a couple does not exist and thus there are no children that are affected.  If you are talking that the mere existence of a policy that could affect these imaginary children is hurtful, then you may have a point.  None of us can know how others may feel or not feel about a given thing.  Then again, we all are told as children about sticks and stones.  

The Church created a policy that only affects non-existent children.  Though children are often used for emotional impact, the real purpose of the policy was to make clear that a gay LDS individual would be recognized as in a state of apostasy should they marry another gay individual.  Let's drop the emotional chiggering. 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Although he can speak for him/herself, this point has been discussed quite a bit.  If you know a married, gay couple that are actively raising their custodial children in Church of Jesus Christ then you would have a point.  The problem is such a couple does not exist and thus there are no children that are affected.  If you are talking that the mere existence of a policy that could affect these imaginary children is hurtful, then you may have a point.  None of us can know how others may feel or not feel about a given thing.  Then again, we all are told as children about sticks and stones.  

The Church created a policy that only affects non-existent children.  Though children are often used for emotional impact, the real purpose of the policy was to make clear that a gay LDS individual would be recognized as in a state of apostasy should they marry another gay individual.  Let's drop the emotional chiggering. 

So your position is that the part in the policy about not baptizing children of gay couples was inserted just to upset members, increase a bigotry image of the church against gays and further push people away from the gospel.

 

Brilliant move.  Dang, these guys are smart.

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 3:22 PM, USU78 said:

On the other hand, it is now dogma that same sex attraction disorder is no disorder but a genetically generated alternative sexuality, and no dearth of evidence, reason, argument or rational thought can budge the true believer from his dogmatic adherence to his team's colors.

That may be true in some circles, but the above paragraph is NOT the belief that any of my gay friends and acquaintances share, based on the best and most recent scientific research available:

 

What is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of one's own sex) and bisexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

 

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female)* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

 

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

 

How do people know if they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation--be it lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual.

 

Different lesbian, gay and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

 

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

 

 

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

 

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person's (client's) right to self-determination; be sensitive to the client's race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

 

What is the nature of same-sex relationships?

Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40 percent and 60 percent of gay men and between 45 percent and 80 percent of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship. Further, data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicate that of the 5.5 million couples who were living together but not married, about 1 in 9 (594,391) had partners of the same sex. Although the census data are almost certainly an underestimate of the actual number of cohabiting same-sex couples, they indicate that there are 301,026 male samesex households and 293,365 female same-sex households in the United States.

 

Stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have persisted, even though studies have found them to be misleading. For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.

 

A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18 percent and 28 percent of gay couples and between 8 percent and 21 percent of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

 

A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.

 

Far less research is available on the relationship experiences of people who identify as bisexual. If these individuals are in a same-sex relationship, they are likely to face the same prejudice and discrimination that members of lesbian and gay couples face. If they are in a heterosexual relationship, their experiences may be quite similar to those of people who identify as heterosexual unless they choose to come out as bisexual; in that case, they will likely face some of the same prejudice and discrimination that lesbian and gay individuals encounter.

 

Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.

 

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. These are the most common questions and answers:

 

1. Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?

 

For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

 

2. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?

 

For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

 

3. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships?

 

For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members and friends.

 

4. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent's friends or acquaintances?

 

There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents' gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

 

In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents, concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people, are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment or overall well-being.

 

The terms reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy refer to counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality. The most important fact about these “therapies” is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, six published by the American Psychiatric Association, which defines the standards of the field, does not include homosexuality. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

 

 

Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation Through Therapy

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.7

 

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Social Workers together, representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that

counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness.8

 

The American Counseling Association adopted a resolution in 1998 stating that it

opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.9 Further, in April 1999, the ACA Governing Council adopted a position opposing the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.10

 

In addition, ACA’s Code of Ethics states:

Counselors use techniques/procedures/modalities that are grounded in theory and/or have an empirical or scientific foundation. Counselors who do not must define the techniques/procedures as “unproven” or “developing” and explain the potential risks and ethical considerations of using such techniques/procedures and take steps to protect clients from possible harm.11

 

The American Psychiatric Association, in its 2000 position statement on “reparative” therapy, states:

Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

 

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

 

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.12

 

The American Psychological Association, in its 1997 Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states:

That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation and mental health and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.13

 

The American School Counselor Association, in its position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning youth, states:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth often begin to experience self-identification during their pre-adolescent or adolescent years, as do heterosexual youth. These developmental processes are essential cognitive, emotional and social activities, and although they may have an impact on student development and achievement, they are not a sign of illness, mental disorder or emotional problems nor do they necessarily signify sexual activity. . . .

 

It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. . . .

 

Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to “coming out,” including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process, and identify appropriate community resources.14

 

The National Association of Social Workers, in its policy statement on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues, states that it

endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. 15

 

Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. 16

 

NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy.

 

NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so. 17

 

NASW reaffirms its stance against reparative therapies and treatments designed to change sexual orientation or to refer practitioners or programs that claim to do so. 18

 

As these statements make clear, the nation’s leading professional medical, health and mental health organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through therapy and have raised serious concerns about the potential harm from such efforts. Many of the professional associations listed in the Resources section (pp. 17–19) can provide helpful information and local contacts to assist school administrators, health and mental health professionals, educators, teachers and parents in dealing with school controversies in their communities.

 

 

Links for the above info on the APA's website can be found in my last paragraph.  Hopefully the above helps clarify what leading scientific and mental health organizations are saying about these issues, USU... though I unfortunately anticipate it will likely prove to be more valuable to readers other than yourself.  

Edited June 21, 2016 by Daniel2