Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was verbally attacked on this board when I pointed out the obvious flaws in the motivations and bias's of this study when it was first discussed on this board.  So now that it is coming under greater scrutiny and its flawed finding being exposed...can I expect an apology from those who criticized me?  I won't hold my breath. I know the policy of those board members is to not seek apologies nor to give them

I'm sorry, my good man.  I get carried away with my verbal assaults sometimes.

[Curious_About_Everything]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

...some members do not do their own due diligence to confirm inspiration and leadership counsel through the Holy Ghost.  

How does one perform the process of confirming inspiration through the Holy Ghost?

What are the individual steps to take?  

What does a positive result look like?

What does a negative result look like?

To what extent must one go through to satisfy the requirements of due diligence?

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

You may recall a recent thread on gender and sexuality a number of you here were happy to use to bolster the LDS Church's opposition to homosexuality and such things.   One the apparently Elder Oaks was happy to site.  Well it appears that many of the author's peers have denounced the study:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-lgbtq-hopkins-20160928-story.html

Thanks for posting this, really appreciate it.  I'm not surprised at the push back.  I think its important to remember that the original study was not submitted to a scholarly journal with peer review.  This doesn't mean that all the findings of that study are inaccurate, however, it should raise a red flag from the beginning and we should take an initial skeptical position of studies like this.  

As to Scott's comments, I would also point out that in addition to the three authors for this OpEd, there were six other faculty members that contributed to the OpEd for a total of nine faculty that were wanted these concerns expressed.  

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting this, really appreciate it.  I'm not surprised at the push back.  I think its important to remember that the original study was not submitted to a scholarly journal with peer review.  This doesn't mean that all the findings of that study are inaccurate, however, it should raise a red flag from the beginning and we should take an initial skeptical position of studies like this.  

As to Scott's comments, I would also point out that in addition to the three authors for this OpEd, there were six other faculty members that contributed to the OpEd for a total of nine faculty that were wanted these concerns expressed.  

I think what is the most offensive result of this so called study...is that Dallin Oaks chose to incorporate its flawed findings into his message, which is viewed authoritatively by believers...and since he doesn't offer apologies...the damage done will remain with no counter-accountability.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I think what is the most offensive result of this so called study...is that Dallin Oaks chose to incorporate its flawed findings into his message, which is viewed authoritatively by believers...and since he doesn't offer apologies...the damage done will remain with no counter-accountability.

You would think that with his legal training that he would take a more measured and methodical approach.  Unfortunately, even Oaks is guilty of the human tendency to simply just accept things that confirm already held beliefs, and in this case spread those beliefs using his authoritative clout.  

Edited September 29, 2016 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I think what is the most offensive result of this so called study...is that Dallin Oaks chose to incorporate its flawed findings into his message, which is viewed authoritatively by believers...and since he doesn't offer apologies...the damage done will remain with no counter-accountability.

Well that, and he goofed what the report says. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The report doesn't say much other than to suggest, "well we don't really know stuff".  We don't know whether being born that way is possible. 

 

We don't know why there is a higher rate of mental health cases among homosexual people. 

Regarding Transgender:

In the end, I don't see the report doing anything near calling "into question some past assumptions on which the gay-rights movement has relied rather heavily but which are lacking in merit."

Additionally, here's what the report says:

So we have one study that estimates as many as 80% of MALE adolescents...

Elder Oaks reported:

The Gender confusion part of the report says, regarding 80%:

It seems Elder Oaks confused some things.  His claim just isn't supported by the report. 

I think you and Oaks are looking at different parts of the report. It talks about post-op studies but it also talks about the research that indicates that most youth who experience gender dysphoria/confusion usually don't as they grow up.  I've got work to do today, so I don't have a lot of time to dig it up and find the exact spot. But that the majority of children who exhibit gender confusion won't as adults isn't super disputed in the Psychology world. Once they're teens, if that conflict still exists, it's more likely to remain (this is what I remember from a presentation on this topic, unrelated to the study/report in question). 

Just wanted to clarify.

With luv,

BD

[Danzo]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

You may recall a recent thread on gender and sexuality a number of you here were happy to use to bolster the LDS Church's opposition to homosexuality and such things.   One the apparently Elder Oaks was happy to site.  Well it appears that many of the author's peers have denounced the study:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-lgbtq-hopkins-20160928-story.html

 

from the article:

Respect is the cornerstone of university life: respect for speech and a diversity of views; respect for students, colleagues and patients; and respect for science, which is our lifeblood as an institution.

As faculty at Johns Hopkins, a major educational, research and health institution, we are writing to express our concern about a recently published report that we believe mischaracterizes the current state of the science on sexuality and gender.

Science, and particularly the fields of psychiatry and psychology, has made major advances in our understanding of the complex issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, accumulating data support the concept that gender identity is not strictly a binary phenomenon. And scientific evidence clearly documents that sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same and/or different sexes are normal variations of the diversity of human sexuality.

Homosexuality is no longer considered an illness by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association or any of the other mainstream professional organizations in the health field. These organizations have come to affirm what LGBTQ people and their loved ones have known for years: that being gay or transgender is perfectly consistent with being healthy and well.

 

 

I read through the article.

Other than than showing their support for LGBT people, I was not exactly clear what the factual disagreements with the study were/

What I understood the authors were trying to say is

1.  They are concerned about members of the LGBT being treated badly

2.  As far as I can tell the only substanitive disagreement the the report is the following paragraph, indicating that there were two studies that were omitted by the authors of the report. 

" For instance, the report omits post-2010 work by Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University and thereby underemphasizes the negative role that stigma and oppression play in LGBTQ mortality and health behaviors. It comes to different conclusions about complex questions such as the origins of homosexuality from those reached by a recent review of the scientific literature by psychologist Dr. J. Michael Bailey and colleagues, commissioned by the prestigious Association for Psychological Science. "

Does anyone here have access to the studies mentioned? I am not clear exactly what facts or conclusions are being disagreed with/

 

They also seem to be afraid of the Human Rights Campaign.

" Because of the report, the Human Rights Campaign has warned Johns Hopkins that it is reviewing, and may remove from the institution, its high ranking in the HRC Healthcare Equality Index. The national benchmarking tool evaluates health care facilities' policies and practices related to equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ patients, visitors and employees. "

 

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, maklelan said:

I weep for our community.

I appreciate you well thought out, fact based approach to this subject.

It is really easy to let emotions get carried away when discussing these kinds of topics.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Danzo

[SteveO]

The real issue with all this--and what I think is at the root of the discord that is attached to this issue...there's no belief that President Monson is a Prophet, Seer, and  Revelator...and it really is as simple as that. 

I get tired of this issue anymore.  If you want to be a "free thinker", go be one and follow the dictates of science (irony?).  In this mixed up world the only thing I rely on anymore is my faith that these men are divinely appointed, and as the watchmen on the tower, see things we are not yet able.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sorry, my good man.  I get carried away with my verbal assaults sometimes.

I have a hard time picturing that

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

The real issue with all this--and what I think is at the root of the discord that is attached to this issue...there's no belief that President Monson is a Prophet, Seer, and  Revelator...and it really is as simple as that. 

I get tired of this issue anymore.  If you want to be a "free thinker", go be one and follow the dictates of science (irony?).  In this mixed up world the only thing I rely on anymore is my faith that these men are divinely appointed, and as the watchmen on the tower, see things we are not yet able.

I'm not aware that President Monson has ever weighed in on this issue. 

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not aware that President Monson has ever weighed in on this issue. 

Yeah, I'm sure he privately supports SSM in opposition to the brethren.

You know what I meant, don't go off on tangents

Edited September 29, 2016 by SteveO

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well that, and he goofed what the report says. 

Yeah nothing like using a flawed study and then making it worse by twisting the flawed study and spewing it out with all the power and attention given of his perceived authority

 

And we wonder why so many young LGBTQ youth are taking their lives...

Edited September 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Yeah, I'm sure he privately supports SSM in opposition to the brethren.

You know what I meant, don't go off on tangents

Given that the topic was the recent study, I'd say mentioning what you think President Monson thinks is a tangent, right?

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given that the topic was the recent study, I'd say mentioning what you think President Monson thinks is a tangent, right?

You're being intentionally obtuse. 

The issue, with the study on gender and sexuallity, is going to go back and forth for 8 pages with no one swayed on it.  And then the thread will be closed, and then someone will start a new one with a new title, talking about the same topic.  

I simply said that at the root of the disagreement, is the lack of belief in the divine appointment of President Monson and by extension, Elder Oaks and the rest of the brethren.  On the other side is the belief that they are divinely appointed.  And why we keep insisting that it is anything else is a exercise in futility.  

Why you failed to understand that and go off on whether or not Monson specifically released a statement on the matter is beyond me.

Again, you knew what I meant

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think you and Oaks are looking at different parts of the report. It talks about post-op studies but it also talks about the research that indicates that most youth who experience gender dysphoria/confusion usually don't as they grow up.  I've got work to do today, so I don't have a lot of time to dig it up and find the exact spot. But that the majority of children who exhibit gender confusion won't as adults isn't super disputed in the Psychology world. Once they're teens, if that conflict still exists, it's more likely to remain (this is what I remember from a presentation on this topic, unrelated to the study/report in question). 

Just wanted to clarify.

With luv,

BD

I most definitely agree with what you said about the point Elder Oaks made--it's not really telling of anything and is expected.  I'm not sure why he made an issue of it not being found in the media, or whatever.  The point he raised was hardly a point.  But on top of that, I can't find the figure attached in the report.  if you can, I welcome notification. 

There was a lot of talk about gender dysphoria for children, but I didn't quite see where it says what Elder Oaks suggested.  It could be there, though. 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

How does one perform the process of confirming inspiration through the Holy Ghost?

I don't know that I've ever read a list like you suggest.   It is generally a matter of considering the matter to determine if you believe it is of God, maybe studying it out compared to existing doctrine, the scriptures, or other canonized material, and then simply asking God to confirm it.    Sometimes, as in an Solemn Assembly, it may be an instant confirmation or even sort of a vision where one see's the mantle of authority.    In other cases, one may have to wait upon that inspiration that the Holy Ghost confirms what we are asked to do  is of God.  

(NOTE, that if we've misconstrued what the instruction was, or its application to us personally, we aren't likely then to ever get that confirmation.  It is important to consider that this might be the issue, rather than saying it isn't from God, when we just can't seem to get that confirmation.)

And then there is the question of what to do without that confirmation.   Certainly if what are leaders are asking involves committing sin that we know are sins from other sources (read killing the wagon train at the Mountain Meadows Massacre), then we wouldn't act on that order, invitation until or unless we got such confirmation.   But there are other situations where proceeding in faith based on on the request to do something that one cannot get confirmation as God's will, but is otherwise consistent with what we know of His ways, isn't wrong.   And on some occasions, when I've chosen to venture in that way, I've eventually received spiritual confirmation (sometimes with what feels like a slap upside the head about my own pride or sins that interfered with getting it in the first place).   Other times, I've received inspiration to stop doing it after having tried it that way. 

And my point is that I think the confirmation of the spirit is an individual thing, that we all learn over time how it happens for us. 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You're being intentionally obtuse. 

The issue, with the study on gender and sexuallity, is going to go back and forth for 8 pages with no one swayed on it.  And then the thread will be closed, and then someone will start a new one with a new title, talking about the same topic.  

I simply said that at the root of the disagreement, is the lack of belief in the divine appointment of President Monson and by extension, Elder Oaks and the rest of the brethren.  On the other side is the belief that they are divinely appointed.  And why we keep insisting that it is anything else is a exercise in futility.  

Why you failed to understand that and go off on whether or not Monson specifically released a statement on the matter is beyond me.

Again, you knew what I meant

Suppose we accept your premise that LDS GA's are divinely appointed...can you accept that they are human, fallible and often make mistakes in judgement (which is the bain of all humans)

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

You may recall a recent thread on gender and sexuality a number of you here were happy to use to bolster the LDS Church's opposition to homosexuality and such things.   One the apparently Elder Oaks was happy to site.  Well it appears that many of the author's peers have denounced the study:

What did Elder Oaks cite?

ETA: found it:

"Elder Oaks was asked the following question: “…what would you tell a friend who was once in the church and is struggling with gender identity?”

"Part of Elder Oaks’ answer included the following:

“There was a study about, published about a month ago from Johns Hopkins University in this very state, where we are, and these were two MDs, one a psychiatrist, one a professional medical researcher, and they studied 500 scientific studies about the problem were talking about. One of their findings was that when young people are feeling gender confusion when they are young, 80% of them will lurk through that and not have that gender confusion when they’re older. Now that’s the study of two very eminent scholars. The media for reasons that I won’t go into has hardly taken any notice of that study. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to read it, but consider that fact when you think about an experience you may be going through or somebody else is going through, it’s a good thing just to be patient and keep the commandments of the Lord, don’t label yourself.”

That's good counsel, pure and simple.

Edited September 29, 2016 by CV75

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, SteveO said:

The real issue with all this--and what I think is at the root of the discord that is attached to this issue...there's no belief that President Monson is a Prophet, Seer, and  Revelator...and it really is as simple as that. 

I get tired of this issue anymore.  If you want to be a "free thinker", go be one and follow the dictates of science (irony?).  In this mixed up world the only thing I rely on anymore is my faith that these men are divinely appointed, and as the watchmen on the tower, see things we are not yet able.

Can't we also acknowledge that any one of us could also accept they are prophets, seers and revelators (sorry I know you only meant Monson but I'm extending to the 15) and still think they are wrong on this issue? 

I don't agree with the dichotomy you are trying to set up.  All of us are somewhere on a spectrum not on polar opposite sides. 

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Suppose we accept your premise that LDS GA's are divinely appointed...can you accept that they are human, fallible and often make mistakes in judgement (which is the bain of all humans)

Right.  I think Oaks gets in the weeds with his response on this particular study.  I think he's making a mistake in commenting extensively on it.

Blacks and the priesthood was a mistake, but the brethren always knew it was temporary...I just don't see that mindset with the church's stance on gender and sexuality.  And after they have continued to remain unwavering in their commitment to that stance, I see the issue boiled down to either we believe that they're divinely called, or we don't.  And the affirmative of that requires faith.  You may not like it, understand it, or even agree with it, but you have the faith to trust that their position doesn't come simply from being old, white, out of touch men.

[SteveO]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can't we also acknowledge that any one of us could also accept they are prophets, seers and revelators (sorry I know you only meant Monson but I'm extending to the 15) and still think they are wrong on this issue? 

I don't agree with the dichotomy you are trying to set up.  All of us are somewhere on a spectrum not on polar opposite sides. 

My problem with that is that this isn't a "minor issue".  This is of paramount import.  If we were discussing the issue of more than one ear piercing, then yeah, I would chalk it up to their personal opinion.  

But it isn't.  And that's why I can't just brush the issue off and be open to the fact that they're letting their personal opinion cloud their judgment.. I have to believe and have faith that they know what they're doing.

Edited September 29, 2016 by SteveO

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I appreciate you well thought out, fact based approach to this subject.

It is really easy to let emotions get carried away when discussing these kinds of topics.

My well thought-out and fact based approach was when I shared the link in the OP last night in the original thread on the original article. My comment here reflects how sad I am to see so much wriggling around the data and making excuses to try to maintain this flawed notion that LGBT are less than and other. It is tragic.

[maklelan]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Am I interpreting this post correctly as showing sympathy and support for our gay brothers and sisters? If so...I applaud your post

Yes, that is correct. So much misunderstanding and judgment is tragic.