Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said: What scriptures are you referring to? What verses in which books support your conclusion? John 7:17 If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. Math 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. The fundamentalist view toward gays bears very bad fruit indeed. Death and misery and ruin. Gay marriage seems to be bearing good fruit. 2
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: If your interpretation leads you to be more loving as a human being, then you did something right. One scripture. Multiple different interpretations. Are they all correct?
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 3 hours ago, JAHS said: So you are saying our Church prophets do not understand the sciptures properly? OK. Yes, of course. Ironically it is the scriptures themselves that warn against literalism.
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 56 minutes ago, CMZ said: Okay, so truth is relative and it's whatever any individual wants it to be. Morality is subjective, but even so I think in the long run we all end up moving toward the same moral values. Perhaps there is an inevitability about true spiritual principles.
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: John 7:17 If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. Math 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. The fundamentalist view toward gays bears very bad fruit indeed. Death and misery and ruin. Gay marriage seems to be bearing good fruit. Where do these verses speak about homosexuals?
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Judd said: I'm understanding you to say that scriptures spoke to a day and age that has since passed on. Does that leave us, here, today, left simply with their words, written in their weakness and within their culture, trying to align them with our current cultural climate? Yes, exactly. 1
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said: One scripture. Multiple different interpretations. Are they all correct? They can be, certainly.
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said: Where do these verses speak about homosexuals? They don't. They give us the spiritual grounding and generally applicable principles we need to determine right from wrong for ourselves. That is the mature spiritual path.
CMZ Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Morality is subjective, but even so I think in the long run we all end up moving toward the same moral values. Perhaps there is an inevitability about true spiritual principles. Then there's no real discussion to be had. Individuals just make up however they want to believe.
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Gray said: They can be, certainly. How does one verse support contrasting interpretations? If multiple different interpretations are simultaneously correct, why do you quote scripture to validate your beliefs? When an opposing interpretation of the scripture you reference is as correct as your own interpretation, where is the room to differ.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2016 Author Posted September 30, 2016 5 hours ago, SteveO said: I almost hesitate to ask...so what is the definitive authority for you then? Science? Who is the definitive authority for you? There are many views of God. Is it Allah,. The God of historic orthodox Christianity wh I call saying the God or Mormonism as well as the Jesus of Mormonism heretical.. How about the God of the Old Testament? Is it the nirvana of Buddha? Or the many Gods of Hinduism? i don't know who God is. I hope there is a God that resembles the God of the New Testament. But I don't know. So my definitive authority is love one another, be kinds, do no harm and don't deny others rights I have simply because my or someone else's religious dogma demands it. 1
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 16 minutes ago, Gray said: They don't. They give us the spiritual grounding and generally applicable principles we need to determine right from wrong for ourselves. That is the mature spiritual path. There is no direct reference to homosexuals in these verses. One person interprets these verses to mean that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. You interpret them to mean that homosexual behavior is acceptable. Do you postulate that both interpretations are simultaneously correct?
Teancum Posted September 30, 2016 Author Posted September 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Danzo said: I am sorry, but this statement is where the authors of the study lose their credibility. They try and lump everything in to one group. when they are separate conditions. To me this shows that this article is not at all interested in educating or clarifying, or adding to our knowledge. Gender dysphoria (the "T" in LGBTQ) apears to be listed as a diagnosis for the APA. http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet.pdf For another expert's view on this see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/ of course no doubt Sister Hefler Parker's views wil be derided as liberal, suspect of some sort of evil agenda, not toeing the line in following the brethren and other such evil intentions. The fact that she actually my have an expertise, education and knowledge about the subject at hand will be ignored by many because of such suspicions.... 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Teancum said: 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. A suspicion, by definition, is not something that can at present be documented. It is an expression of opinion, a conjecture, a hypothesis, if you will, that has not yet been documented. So for you to issue a CFR on an expression of opinion is absurd. I am the reference for my own opinion. But I can tell you why I have the suspicion I do. One of the three authors of this opinion piece (and that's all it is, not a scholarly paper) is a "professor of public health and human rights." Another served on something called "the Institute of Medicine Committee on LGBT Health Issues." This tells me that their strident opposition to the published report just might have as much or more to do with political agenda as anything else. They of course have a right to their political opinion, but let's not confuse that opinion with medical science when there is no justification for doing so. And as I pointed out earlier, there is the approving reference to the threat made against the university by the Human Rights Campaign, a strident gay activist pressure group. Furthermore, I'm fairly confident the heart's desire of these authors would be to foster a groundswell of opposition from the Johns Hopkins faculty as well as institutionally from the Johns Hopkins administration. After the study has been in the public eye for several weeks now, I don't see such a groundswell coming forth. I see instead a newspaper opinion piece by three disgruntled "authors" from the faculty with a half-dozen "contributors" (whatever that's supposed to mean). This lack of groundswell strikes me as remarkable. Hence, I have my suspicion. And by the way, insisting people "keep quiet" because some don't like the opinions they express could silence a lot of contributors here, not the least of which is you. Edited September 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) 14 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. I invite you to re-read my posts. I took cognizance of the half-dozen "contributors." The note at the end of the piece states: Quote The views expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Johns Hopkins University. (Emphasis mine.) So the views in this opinion piece are "those of the authors." Had they been the views of the authors and the contributors, the note could easily have been written to reflect that. But it wasn't. So I have to wonder what is meant here by the term "contributor"? This is, after all, an opinion piece written for the editorial pages of a newspaper, not a scholarly paper. It seems to me the contributors could have been credited as authors if they desired it and were fully on board with the piece. Was that offer made to them? What was their response? Were they fully supportive of the expressed views? Indifferent to them? Something in between? And what was the extent and nature of their contribution? Checking facts and references? Editing for spelling and grammar? What? We don't know, because the authors don't tell us. I just consulted the on-line faculty directory of the school of medicine at Johns Hopkins, and I counted 580 faculty members. Why didn't more of them sign on to this op-ed piece, as authors, "contributors" or signatories? How pervasive among the faculty at large is the opposition to the published report expressed in this piece? Let's keep some perspective here. Edited September 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Danzo Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: For another expert's view on this see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/ of course no doubt Sister Hefler Parker's views wil be derided as liberal, suspect of some sort of evil agenda, not toeing the line in following the brethren and other such evil intentions. The fact that she actually my have an expertise, education and knowledge about the subject at hand will be ignored by many because of such suspicions.... I'm not sure what your point is. I read the article you linked to and it doesn't mention gender dysphoria in it at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 8 hours ago, BlueDreams said: Kay, I read the op-ed. My first sense that this isn't actually addressing the report seems accurate. There are a number of points that the report doesn't necessarily disagrees with. Mainly: - LGBT are not in and of themself dysfunctions or diagnosable problems in and of themselves and can be consistent with being healthy and well. - LGBT are subject to discrimination - Importance of serving the health needs of LGBT communities - The need for scientific debate. I softly disagree with calling psychology and psychiatry a science in the way that they do...because it sounds like it's putting it in the same area as medical science. Psychiatry somewhat is. But psychology is a social science. And it's very much susceptible to social trends, personal biases, etc in our interpretations and data. At one point it feels like they're more concerned about being reviewed by the HRC more so than they are the report. The title to the article itself is slightly sensational, in the sense that it's really some of the faculty, not all and probably not even close to a majority....though I'm sure there are others there that also would agree with the Op-ed. Lastly, I really really wish there was even a minimal indicator as to how the report chose its studies to review. I think it's a fair point that the Op-ed gives about missing research. But I'm not an expert in the research available and I have no clue how they chose the research. It's the one thing about the report that's really starting to bother me. Beyond that, I've said my piece about the report early. With luv, BD I went to the on-line directory. There are, by my count, 580 faculty in the school of medicine alone.
maklelan Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 I have to say I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the engagement with this editorial has pretty much unilaterally ignored the actual substance of the editorial in favor of attempting to support or undermine its contribution purely on the grounds of affiliations, assumed biases, proportions of faculty represented, and the specific nature of that representation. 2
stemelbow Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 16 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said: No. So as it's changed to people's liking, how have you responded?
stemelbow Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 15 hours ago, BlueDreams said: Thanks. One quick clarification on the recording. I don't think it's "lurk through" that he said, but "work through." I'm not super worried about getting a couple of details wrong. Since it's off the cuff, I'm assuming he didn't have the study right in front of him and if he hadn't read it recently (read, the day before) a lot of the details are bound to get fuzzy. I'm more curious about the 500 studies assertion. I didn't know while reading the report how many studies they were covering, how they chose them, etc. So if it were 500 studies or 50 or any form of methodology I would love to know. That said, the basic gist of what Elder Oaks said isn't all that bad. Still awkward (As I think Christofferson said, they still need more study in this and their dialogue can sometimes show that). For one, when people/leaders have used comparisons, they've often used ones that are negative in context. Such as comparing drinking, addictions, random sins, etc to SSA. When he used a comparison he used one that was actually positively innocuous: Texans. Ok, maybe some find that negative, but I'm glad to see people move away from a negative association to a more neutral one that assumes general diversity in experience instead of very negative associations. The other is that he started with iterating that no matter what path one went down, whatever differences are there, etc one shouldn't interact in a way that allienates or divides others from their lives. The first chunk is that we all have challenges (again his examples were diverse and not innately a critique/assumption of challenges that have a great deal of personal choice), that whatever these are, they're not meant to divide us but to make agentic decisions (I think he specifically said, make choices in the light of the circumstances that we're in). He also stated that anything that separates us from loving one another is not pleasing to our heavenly father. He also stated "Don't stop loving, helping, and associating (?) with one another, whatever the nature of the challenge." And that for all of us, our primary identity is child of God and that another identity shouldn't take precedence over that...at least that's what I got from it. Much of the general stuff he stated, I agree with. But this is probably off topic for the actual point of the thread. With luv, BD Ok. I felt it important to point out that what he said was from the report was not in the report. Anyone can justify it or give him a pass. That's not really the point I raised. And it's true the point he raised was without much point at all. As I said, I'm not sure why he made it an issue that the media didn't report on something. It certainly wasn't the credible study he had thought, though. It seemed from many vantage points to be a very political report. And to me it came off as a rather prepared portion of what he said. But it failed because he got everything about it wrong, basically.
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So as it's changed to people's liking, how have you responded? I have not responded.
stemelbow Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said: I have not responded. reacted?
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 11 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said: How does one verse support contrasting interpretations? If multiple different interpretations are simultaneously correct, why do you quote scripture to validate your beliefs? When an opposing interpretation of the scripture you reference is as correct as your own interpretation, where is the room to differ. The way to judge any interpretation is by it's fruits. The original meaning behind Isaiah's suffering servant was probably in reference to Israel, but it can certainly be reinterpreted to point to Jesus as well. Both interpretations can bear good fruit.
Gray Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 11 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said: There is no direct reference to homosexuals in these verses. One person interprets these verses to mean that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. You interpret them to mean that homosexual behavior is acceptable. Do you postulate that both interpretations are simultaneously correct? No, I don't in this case. The belief that homosexuality per se is sinful has caused a lot of evil in the world.
Curious_About_Everything Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: reacted? I have not responded or reacted. I have voiced no thoughts. I have written no letters. If I join an organization of my own free will, if I willingly consent to abide by the current and future policies set forth by the governing body of said organization, should I respond or react to the changes made by the leadership in any other way except what I agreed to do? If I ask you to allow me into your home and you agree. If you ask me to follow the current and futute rules of your home and I agree. What response can I make to you when you change the rules? How can I react in any other way besides compliance based on my agreement to do exactly that?
Recommended Posts