Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

The FP/Q12 have been very unified on the issue of defining marriage. But they have not been unified on the question as to whether LGBT people are "born that way." In fact, judging by the church's website mormonsandgays.com, and from the church's decision to edit out phrases from President Packer's general conference talk where he suggested the LGBT people are not born that way, I would argue that there is ample room to conclude that President Monson has not taken a stance on the questions discussed in the Johns Hopkins report. So I'm confused as to why you think that listening to President Monson is the clear and simple answer here. If we were discussing SSM, sure, I would understand your point. But we're talking about sexual identity, which is something different.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

The FP/Q12 have been very unified on the issue of defining marriage. But they have not been unified on the question as to whether LGBT people are "born that way." In fact, judging by the church's website mormonsandgays.com, and from the church's decision to edit out phrases from President Packer's general conference talk where he suggested the LGBT people are not born that way, I would argue that there is ample room to conclude that President Monson has not taken a stance on the questions discussed in the Johns Hopkins report. So I'm confused as to why you think that listening to President Monson is the clear and simple answer here. If we were discussing SSM, sure, I would understand your point. But we're talking about sexual identity, which is something different.

Meanwhile, whether they debate or join together on whether LGBT's are born that way...some LDS gays are trying to "fix" themselves.  They need to come together on this and soon. 

[Flexible]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suffice it to say I am underwhlemed at this point.

It is scarcely surprising that liberal faculty members at an eastern university would take exception to a report that calls into question some past assumptions on which the gay-rights movement has relied rather heavily but which are lacking in merit.

Let's see what further developments there are. For now I remain unconvinced that this op-ed piece reflects the views of a majority at Johns Hopkins faculty, or even a majority within the university's School of Public Health. Had it done so, I feel certain they would have indicated so in the about-the-authors note.

Contrast this with what happened in 2004, when the entire membership of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at BYU issued a statement rejecting certain claims of one Grant Palmer.

Yes, and we all know how tolerant BYU iwould be of publicly-expressed faculty dissent in support of Grant Palmer.  Good grief. 

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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...

My heart breaks when I think about the suicides.  Years ago (ok not as old as you, but I mean like 12-14 years ago) I found a friend at work.  A good guy who often kept to himself.  One day he and I were, as part of our job, travelling through town to meet with others.  We drove right past his house.  He pointed it out to me and said you're welcome to stop by any time.  He was a good 30 years my senior, but Monday night (yes, this week) my wife and I went to a concert put on by UCA mostly to support a friend (who happens to be gay) and drove right past that house.  And sadness came upon me.  This old friend of mine took his life in our office one day.  This was, I'm guessing around 2005.  A little before he took his life in our office, his partner took his life while hunting with other friends.  my friend who took his life recounted to me the difficulty he had in life being gay in this area in his family.  His partner of decades hit a low, no doubt.  And all I have is some faint memories. 

Back to my friend who sings with UCA--well he was raised LDS, went on a mission and all that.  He speaks about how difficult and depressing his youth was.  He is an amazingly friendly and loving person.  One whose cheeriness and thoughtfulness is really striking.  To know him is to not realize the deep pains he's lived through.  He's the type that likes to build up and encourage others.  It'd be a shame if this friend of mine had taken his life was a youth, as he contemplated so many times.  When I hear of or read stories or obituaries of LDS gay youth who take their lives I feel sad that they don't stick around to bless the rest of us. 

The Church is missing the boat here.  There's certainly more we all can do.  And there's more the Church can consider doing and changing.

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The FP/Q12 have been very unified on the issue of defining marriage. But they have not been unified on the question as to whether LGBT people are "born that way." In fact, judging by the church's website mormonsandgays.com, and from the church's decision to edit out phrases from President Packer's general conference talk where he suggested the LGBT people are not born that way, I would argue that there is ample room to conclude that President Monson has not taken a stance on the questions discussed in the Johns Hopkins report. So I'm confused as to why you think that listening to President Monson is the clear and simple answer here. If we were discussing SSM, sure, I would understand your point. But we're talking about sexual identity, which is something different.

By President Monson, I meant by extension, all of the brethren.  Just in case there is anyone still hung up over this.

I saw in the OT, this:

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.

 

I think the brethren have a common consensus concerning that paragraph. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

That's fine for you, but for some of us, that doesn't work.  The Church and its leaders can err on big issues, in my mind.  I have to accept that, else I'd be ok with polygamy and the priesthood ban. 

[Curious_About_Everything]

33 minutes ago, rpn said:

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. 

You mentioned due diligence in obtaining this confirmation.  What does that entail?  What signifies you have satisfied the requirement of due diligence if patiently waiting is part of the process?  How long do you wait without receiving confirmation?

Does no answer mean the answer is no?

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My heart breaks when I think about the suicides.  Years ago (ok not as old as you, but I mean like 12-14 years ago) I found a friend at work.  A good guy who often kept to himself.  One day he and I were, as part of our job, travelling through town to meet with others.  We drove right past his house.  He pointed it out to me and said you're welcome to stop by any time.  He was a good 30 years my senior, but Monday night (yes, this week) my wife and I went to a concert put on by UCA mostly to support a friend (who happens to be gay) and drove right past that house.  And sadness came upon me.  This old friend of mine took his life in our office one day.  This was, I'm guessing around 2005.  A little before he took his life in our office, his partner took his life while hunting with other friends.  my friend who took his life recounted to me the difficulty he had in life being gay in this area in his family.  His partner of decades hit a low, no doubt.  And all I have is some faint memories. 

Back to my friend who sings with UCA--well he was raised LDS, went on a mission and all that.  He speaks about how difficult and depressing his youth was.  He is an amazingly friendly and loving person.  One whose cheeriness and thoughtfulness is really striking.  To know him is to not realize the deep pains he's lived through.  He's the type that likes to build up and encourage others.  It'd be a shame if this friend of mine had taken his life was a youth, as he contemplated so many times.  When I hear of or read stories or obituaries of LDS gay youth who take their lives I feel sad that they don't stick around to bless the rest of us. 

The Church is missing the boat here.  There's certainly more we all can do.  And there's more the Church can consider doing and changing.

How sad and what an experience for you.  This goes to show that human value is not based on the sexuality of others..We lose so much when kindness, empathy and basic goodness becomes silent.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My heart breaks when I think about the suicides.  Years ago (ok not as old as you, but I mean like 12-14 years ago) I found a friend at work.  A good guy who often kept to himself.  One day he and I were, as part of our job, travelling through town to meet with others.  We drove right past his house.  He pointed it out to me and said you're welcome to stop by any time.  He was a good 30 years my senior, but Monday night (yes, this week) my wife and I went to a concert put on by UCA mostly to support a friend (who happens to be gay) and drove right past that house.  And sadness came upon me.  This old friend of mine took his life in our office one day.  This was, I'm guessing around 2005.  A little before he took his life in our office, his partner took his life while hunting with other friends.  my friend who took his life recounted to me the difficulty he had in life being gay in this area in his family.  His partner of decades hit a low, no doubt.  And all I have is some faint memories. 

Back to my friend who sings with UCA--well he was raised LDS, went on a mission and all that.  He speaks about how difficult and depressing his youth was.  He is an amazingly friendly and loving person.  One whose cheeriness and thoughtfulness is really striking.  To know him is to not realize the deep pains he's lived through.  He's the type that likes to build up and encourage others.  It'd be a shame if this friend of mine had taken his life was a youth, as he contemplated so many times.  When I hear of or read stories or obituaries of LDS gay youth who take their lives I feel sad that they don't stick around to bless the rest of us. 

The Church is missing the boat here.  There's certainly more we all can do.  And there's more the Church can consider doing and changing.

So sad...thanks for sharing

[CMZ]

30 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

If we were discussing SSM, sure, I would understand your point. But we're talking about sexual identity, which is something different.

Yes, two different things... and people thinking they are the same thing will always confuse the issue and hinder learning.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

You're being intentionally obtuse. 

How do you figure? The topic is the science behind sexuality. No one in the 12 or the FP is an expert on that. 

 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

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 think that's accurate.

 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

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.

 

What would your theological views have to do with the science under discussion here? The science is what it is, right? The bretheren could go on record saying it is their religious view that the world is flat. In its physical dimensions, however, the world would continue to be roughly spherical. 

 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

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

I think the only one who can speak for President Monson is President Monson. And so far, he has not weighed in publicly. Would you speak for him?

[SteveO]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine for you, but for some of us, that doesn't work.  The Church and its leaders can err on big issues, in my mind.  I have to accept that, else I'd be ok with polygamy and the priesthood ban. 

So if the brethren never change their approach, you'll keep continuing in the church?  If yes, I would see that as an expression of faith on your part.  

 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

First can someone please link the Oaks comment. It's probably somewhere obvious. But I don't know what everyone is talking about and I'd love to read it myself. 

Second, he may have gotten the numbers confused. 

Here's one point: 

Quote

 

As we have seen above in the overview of the neurobiological and genetic research on the origins of gender identity, there is little evidence that the phenomenon of transgender identity has a biological basis. There is also little evidence that gender identity issues have a high rate of persistence in children. According to the DSM-5, “In natal [biological] males, persistence [of gender dysphoria] has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.”^[67] Scientific data on persistence of gender dysphoria remains sparse due to the very low prevalence of the disorder in the general population, but the wide range of findings in the literature suggests that there is still much that we do not know about why gender dysphoria persists or desists in children. As the DSM-5 entry goes on to note, “It is unclear if children ‘encouraged’ or supported to live socially in the desired gender will show higher rates of persistence, since such children have not yet been followed longitudinally in a systematic manner.”^[68] There is a clear need for more research in these areas, and for parents and therapists to acknowledge the great uncertainty regarding how to interpret the behavior of these children.

 

I think at least one of the points Oaks may be making is that there's a growing assumption to have the children who have some form of gender dysmorphia ID transgender, as their preferred sex, and at times take hormones to delay puberty, transition to their preferred sex, etc. There's also a move to have children be raised outside concepts of gender. Both of these I have concerns with. I don't know what Oaks is brining up....because, again, I don't know what statement people are talking about. So I'll say more when I have more that I can chew on. 

 

As for the statement quoted. I'm a little confused by how it related to the report. I haven't read the full statement (Busy day). But I have read the full report a while back and none of these assertions found in what Teancum quoted are necessarily in contradiction with what the report is saying as well. It reads more as a statement against what some conservative talking-heads are using it to say v. what the actual report is saying.

 

With luv,

BD

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

Of course this is based on their personal opinion. What else could it be?

Mormonism is uniquely situated to be accepting of gay marriage and gay relationships. Our unique scriptures are totally silent on this issue. Unfortunately, just as was the case with our old doctrines about black folks, we have adopted the superstitious notions of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors. It was they who first came to believe that Africans were under a divine curse, either through Cain or through Ham. We believed what they told us, uncritically. The same has happened with the issue of gay people. Again we lean to the understanding of the ignorant fundamentalists. We are not living up to our potential. 

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course this is based on their personal opinion. What else could it be?

Mormonism is uniquely situated to be accepting of gay marriage and gay relationships. Our unique scriptures are totally silent on this issue.

Not too sure about that. I keep quoting scriptures that are extremely clear on this.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

Not too sure about that. I keep quoting scriptures that are extremely clear on this.

You'll find nothing in the BOM, POGP or D&C that discusses it. Anything in the Bible that gets quoted doesn't work either. Totally different historical context, none of the Biblical writers were responding to what we're seeing today. 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course this is based on their personal opinion. What else could it be?

Mormonism is uniquely situated to be accepting of gay marriage and gay relationships. Our unique scriptures are totally silent on this issue. Unfortunately, just as was the case with our old doctrines about black folks, we have adopted the superstitious notions of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors. It was they who first came to believe that Africans were under a divine curse, either through Cain or through Ham. We believed what they told us, uncritically. The same has happened with the issue of gay people. Again we lean to the understanding of the ignorant fundamentalists. We are not living up to our potential. 

Applause.

[SteveO]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

What would your theological views have to do with the science under discussion here? The science is what it is, right? The bretheren could go on record saying it is their religious view that the world is flat. In its physical dimensions, however, the world would continue to be roughly spherical. 

 

The science under consideration is not as conclusive as the Earth being round...

[SteveO]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course this is based on their personal opinion. What else could it be?

Mormonism is uniquely situated to be accepting of gay marriage and gay relationships. Our unique scriptures are totally silent on this issue. Unfortunately, just as was the case with our old doctrines about black folks, we have adopted the superstitious notions of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors. It was they who first came to believe that Africans were under a divine curse, either through Cain or through Ham. We believed what they told us, uncritically. The same has happened with the issue of gay people. Again we lean to the understanding of the ignorant fundamentalists. We are not living up to our potential. 

You're making entirely too many assumptions here.  

I don't think you want to go down the road of accepting something that is not explicitly stated in the scriptures.  One could justify more than you'd like with that logic.

Edited September 29, 2016 by SteveO

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

You'll find nothing in the BOM, POGP or D&C that discusses it. Anything in the Bible that gets quoted doesn't work either. Totally different historical context, none of the Biblical writers were responding to what we're seeing today. 

We can ignore the truth if we want to and throw out the scriptures and say they don't matter. God gives us the agency to do that. Or we can choose to use them for enlightenment on what may otherwise be difficult issues.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3?lang=eng#24

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/11.11?lang=eng#10

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#19

Edited September 29, 2016 by CMZ

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

First can someone please link the Oaks comment. It's probably somewhere obvious. But I don't know what everyone is talking about and I'd love to read it myself.

Posted 1 hour ago (edited)

I copied and pasted it from a Google Search ("Rational Faith" website site)

[Curious_About_Everything]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Anything in the Bible that gets quoted doesn't work either. Totally different historical context, none of the Biblical writers were responding to what we're seeing today. 

Does this imply that the Bible is not useful to us in 2016?

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

You'll find nothing in the BOM, POGP or D&C that discusses it. Anything in the Bible that gets quoted doesn't work either. Totally different historical context, none of the Biblical writers were responding to what we're seeing today. 

Yes, but our prophtes today are responding to it, which really should be sufficient for Latter-day saints.

[CMZ]

11 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Does this imply that the Bible is not useful to us in 2016?

Apparently it's only useful to some insofar as it agrees with them. I get that there are people who have an issue with same-sex attraction, but I think they tend to make their issue more important than eternal gospel principles. Sticking to eternal gospel principles will always help someone in the end, even though it may be hard before getting to the end. Wait, we all have to deal with that in some way or another. Hold to the iron rod and it will safely guide you through.

Edited September 29, 2016 by CMZ

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So if the brethren never change their approach, you'll keep continuing in the church?  If yes, I would see that as an expression of faith on your part.  

 

I'm painfully hoping for change.  If it never comes then I don't know what I'll ever do, I guess.  But changes come in the Church.  Things will change to some extent or another.  We'll see what that change brings.