Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[stemelbow]

41 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. 

Second, he may have gotten the numbers confused. 

Here's one point: 

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

There wasn't much to what he said.  I quoted the point he raised already, but here's more:

Quote

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.”

A link to the recording:

https://soundcloud.com/user-682678908/elder-oaks-frederick-md-9-16-16

It's already been pointed out that the report was not from Johns Hopkins. 

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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

Indeed. 

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

There are thousands of aspects of our daily lives not explicitly stated in scriptures. 

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, CMZ said:

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

Nothing in Moses or the D&C supports the idea that homosexuality is sinful. Paul certainly believed it, but Paul also believed that God made people gay as a punishment for apostasy. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

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

A literalist interpretation of the Bible is not useful to us in any era. But there is enormous depth and spiritual value in all scriptures, if we are willing to seek it out. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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

This is what allowed false doctrines regarding the status of black people to remain in place for so long. And ironically the source of these doctrines in both cases was from outside of the LDS Church. 

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Nothing in Moses or the D&C supports the idea that homosexuality is sinful. Paul certainly believed it, but Paul also believed that God made people gay as a punishment for apostasy. 

The scriptures I quoted clearly point to man/woman marriage. There is no profound need for them to say, "homosexuality is sinful." If a man follows the directive to leave his father and his mother (not his father and his father) and cleave unto his wife (not his husband) then he doesn't need to have it hammered into his head to not enter a same-sex relationship. If the scriptures say, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord," then it gets very hard to imagine that maybe it means, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the man, neither the woman without the woman, in the Lord."

[Gray]

Just now, CMZ said:

The scriptures I quoted clearly point to man/woman marriage. There is no profound need for them to say, "homosexuality is sinful."

There is a need for them to say it if you're going to use those scriptures to support the idea that homosexuality is sinful. To claim that A is good does not imply that B is bad. 

 

Just now, CMZ said:

If a man follows the directive to leave his father and his mother (not his father and his father) and cleave unto his wife (not his husband) then he doesn't need to have it hammered into his head to not enter a same-sex relationship. If the scriptures say, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord," then it gets very hard to imagine that maybe it means, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the man, neither the woman without the woman, in the Lord."

This works equally well as an argument against same-sex missionary companionships. That is to say, it's a non-starter. 

[Curious_About_Everything]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.

Did you join this organization with the hope it would change to your liking?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Did you join this organization with the hope it would change to your liking?

Sure.  Didn't you? 

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Didn't you? 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat...?!

[CMZ]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

This works equally well as an argument against same-sex missionary companionships.

Okay...

 

[Curious_About_Everything]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

A literalist interpretation of the Bible is not useful to us in any era. But there is enormous depth and spiritual value in all scriptures, if we are willing to seek it out. 

If we search the scriptures and achieve personal understanding colored specifically by our life experiences and ultimately arrive at an interpretation shared by some (not all)...

...how will we reconcile the vast number of interpretations with the actual meaning intended by the original authors?

[CMZ]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is a need for them to say it if you're going to use those scriptures to support the idea that homosexuality is sinful. To claim that A is good does not imply that B is bad.

True. But it's stating one path very, very clearly. Why it would not also state other paths just as clearly? The scripture had a great chance to, but didn't? Why would it bother saying anything if everything is up to someone's sex drive?

[Curious_About_Everything]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Didn't you? 

No.

[SteveO]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is what allowed false doctrines regarding the status of black people to remain in place for so long. And ironically the source of these doctrines in both cases was from outside of the LDS Church. 

...okay, it's been a while since I read the essays, and I'll allow that maybe I was watching Netflix at the time and missed it, but where are you getting that there was outside influence?  In particular, that the influence was evangelical?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Religion is a bias towards the right as taught by God. The end.

Question is who's God is right?  Give me some evidence that your God is correct on this issue and I will pay some attention. Your own personal metaphysical experiences don't count here.

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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

This is what allowed false doctrines regarding the status of black people to remain in place for so long. And ironically the source of these doctrines in both cases was from outside of the LDS Church. 

Well, Gee I wish we could look 50 years into the future and see if our prophets today were wrong; but right now it's all we have to go on if we want to remain faithful Later-day Saints. I am willing to bet there will be no change on this subject;
it's something that is too far set in the stone. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not a quid pro quo to induce you to do what honor would require you to do anyway. You made a statement that was flatly and demonstrably false. The only proper course of action was to correct it unconditionally. 

Oh sure I expect such arrogance and nonsense from you Scott.  So how about this.  You suspect that there is an agenda behind these John Hopkins professors position.  I call for a CFR for your so called suspicion.  If you cannot provide it well then keep quiet about it.

[Teancum]

5 hours 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 wouldn't hold your breath if I were you either.

[Teancum]

10 hours 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.  

Oh well Scott never let's his own bias get in the way of facts. I mean nine of the faculty may just be a small minority who are motivated by their own liberal evil agenda......

Edited September 30, 2016 by Teancum

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

If we search the scriptures and achieve personal understanding colored specifically by our life experiences and ultimately arrive at an interpretation shared by some (not all)...

...how will we reconcile the vast number of interpretations with the actual meaning intended by the original authors?

If you're looking to get at the intended meaning of the authors, you need to start by dropping the literalist approach. The closest you will get to authorial intent will be through academic Biblical studies. 

However, the authors were a bunch of human beings, as fallible as you and me. So there is no need to limit the way we interpret scripture to just authorial intent. 

[BlueDreams]

35 minutes ago, SteveO said:

...okay, it's been a while since I read the essays, and I'll allow that maybe I was watching Netflix at the time and missed it, but where are you getting that there was outside influence?  In particular, that the influence was evangelical?

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, CMZ said:

True. But it's stating one path very, very clearly. Why it would not also state other paths just as clearly? The scripture had a great chance to, but didn't? Why would it bother saying anything if everything is up to someone's sex drive?

All scriptures are culturally conditioned, reacting to conditions in the time and place they were written. There's a reason also that scriptures don't talk about getting into doctrinal discussions on internet forums - it's the same reason why scriptures are silent on gay marriage. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, SteveO said:

...okay, it's been a while since I read the essays, and I'll allow that maybe I was watching Netflix at the time and missed it, but where are you getting that there was outside influence?  In particular, that the influence was evangelical?

The evangelicals per se did not come up with the curse of Cain doctrine - as a movement they're relatively young. But their predecessors did.

From the essay:

 

Quote

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.