MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[ALarson]

 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God defines marriage:
Genesis 2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Any definition outside of this is not marriage.

And where does it state that in scripture?  (Bold sentence)

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Requirements for baptism
D&C 20: 37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

And the children of gay couples can't meet those requirements? 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Now, wrest away so that these scriptures don't mean what they say.

They mean what they say.  They just don't mean what YOU say.  You'll note that with each example you provided you needed to add text to provide your intended (wrested) meaning.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

  To any extent that Dr. Robinson may have shifted away from "reparative/converstion" therapy to a more realistic method (without promoting unrealistic and unhealthy promises of "changing" attractions or "becoming" heterosexual for any who are exclusively homosexual) in order to help such men learn to control their existing attractions in accordance with their religious beliefs, I would find that to be far more acceptable.

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

Some might also be interested to know that David Matheson was one of three people who wrote the Evergreen manual for the church.

 

 

Daniel,

I want to say first that I really appreciate your responses yesterday and will get back to that conversation. Unfortunately that may not happen very soon, as this happens to be a very busy and stressful week at work and home.  

However, I did want to briefly address the discussion about these individuals and their therapy in particular.  I acknowledge your stories as real and don't question them in the slightest.  Please accept that in good faith as I try to provide a little context, that may not may not make any difference at all.  

1) Regarding records, unless there was an IRB approved long-term longitudinal study in place with specific protocols for follow-up and consent, Dr. Robison may have been following standard therapy ethics, which require us to store records for 5-7 years, depending on the state/professional organization, and then require us to destroy them.  Therefore, if your request was outside of that 7 year period, he may have been perfectly factual in stating that he doesn't keep records and therefore had nothing to provide to you.  1a) Additionally, I know from a presentation Dr Robinson made in 2008, that he had recently been receiving a significant amount of particularly nasty hate mail, including at least one death threat and one against his family.  That context may have been at play in his response to you, despite what I fully believe to be a genuinely benign request on your part.   

2) Having followed the SOCE (more or less from the inside over the last 9 years (And reading extensively material from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and earlier in the 2000s,  I have to say that there have been significant changes to the theory and treatment modality as well as more subtle shifts in the language and tone, especially in the past 10-15 years.  Honestly, I would hope that people today would not judge me based on things I did, said, or believed 15 years ago.  My observation is that Robinson, Matheson, (and honestly, even Nicolosi) have changed a lot even since 2008 when I really joined.  The difference in approach and tone between Nicolosi's two books (Which I have and have actually read) is night and day.  In his most recent (Shame and Attachment Loss) he really describes mainstream therapy techniques and emphasizing not focusing on trying to change attraction.  In fact, he even makes an admission that a significant portion of gay men are not capable of any orientation change and that trying in those cases is unethical.  

Matheson wrote the Evergreen Workbook in the early 90s with the late Dean Byrd.  He has since moved dramatically away from those theories and approaches and he recent book and workbook (Becoming a Whole Man) actually states " I haven't found anything that "cures" homosexuality. Cure implies getting rid of a disease.  Homosexuality is not a disease.  Nor is it, in my experience, something one simply gets rid of.  But it is something that one can diminish, give different meaning to, or move to the sidelines in one's life.  This is why I use "resolve" when I speak of journeying with unwanted same-sex attraction.  "Resolve" can imply clearing up, reaching a decision, or creating consonance out of dissonance.  That's a good way to think about the kind of changes that wholeness [his approach] can bring to your journey."  And reading Robinson's most recent paper and his dissertation; significant changes.  

In summary, I believe that there were ineffective and potentially harmful therapies performed and that many LDS members felt pressured into them.  I also believe that they were preformed in "good faith" and that as time has passed, these therapists really have made significant changes to the way they treat people today.  Again, I know how much I have changed and am not the same person I was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago.  

3) One significant sign of change is the work and progress of the Reconciliation and Growth Project .  Of which Dave Matheson is a part.  This project alone is enough to make me kind of wish I lived closer to the Salt Lake/Provo area (only kind of).  It has given me a lot of hope regarding the power of authentic dialogue and mutual respect.  Not to mention the outcomes they are achieving in agreement regarding the areas of treating spirituality and sexual orientation ethically and appropriately. 

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Any definition outside of this is not marriage.

And where does it state that in scripture?  (Bold sentence)

I don't know.  Where does it state that sand is not water?

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And the children of gay couples can't meet those requirements? 

Not if they embrace a sinful union.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They mean what they say.  They just don't mean what YOU say.  You'll note that with each example you provided you needed to add text to provide your intended (wrested) meaning.

If you mean that clear scriptures now need to be clarified, you are correct.

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I don't know.  Where does it state that sand is not water?

That's not relevant to this topic, but nice diversion tactic when you've been put in the corner  

 

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not if they embrace a sinful union.

Meaning their parents?  Your reasoning just keeps getting worse and further away from what I believe God would want for His children and His church.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't know.  Where does it state that sand is not water?

Not if they embrace a sinful union.

"Embrace a sinful union"... meaning they embrace their parents.  Ok.

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If you mean that clear scriptures now need to be clarified, you are correct.

Not even close to what I wrote.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Meaning their parents?  Your reasoning just keeps getting worse and further away from what I believe God would want for His children and His church.

 

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Embrace a sinful union"... meaning they embrace their parents.  Ok.

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Seriously - does anybody even read their scriptures any more?
Don't know why I bother.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Still wresting away I see  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Still wresting away I see  

Fine, you tell me what that scripture means with no wresting.

[Daniel2]

28 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

 

Daniel,

I want to say first that I really appreciate your responses yesterday and will get back to that conversation. Unfortunately that may not happen very soon, as this happens to be a very busy and stressful week at work and home.  

However, I did want to briefly address the discussion about these individuals and their therapy in particular.  I acknowledge your stories as real and don't question them in the slightest.  Please accept that in good faith as I try to provide a little context, that may not may not make any difference at all.  

1) Regarding records, unless there was an IRB approved long-term longitudinal study in place with specific protocols for follow-up and consent, Dr. Robison may have been following standard therapy ethics, which require us to store records for 5-7 years, depending on the state/professional organization, and then require us to destroy them.  Therefore, if your request was outside of that 7 year period, he may have been perfectly factual in stating that he doesn't keep records and therefore had nothing to provide to you.  1a) Additionally, I know from a presentation Dr Robinson made in 2008, that he had recently been receiving a significant amount of particularly nasty hate mail, including at least one death threat and one against his family.  That context may have been at play in his response to you, despite what I fully believe to be a genuinely benign request on your part.   

2) Having followed the SOCE (more or less from the inside over the last 9 years (And reading extensively material from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and earlier in the 2000s,  I have to say that there have been significant changes to the theory and treatment modality as well as more subtle shifts in the language and tone, especially in the past 10-15 years.  Honestly, I would hope that people today would not judge me based on things I did, said, or believed 15 years ago.  My observation is that Robinson, Matheson, (and honestly, even Nicolosi) have changed a lot even since 2008 when I really joined.  The difference in approach and tone between Nicolosi's two books (Which I have and have actually read) is night and day.  In his most recent (Shame and Attachment Loss) he really describes mainstream therapy techniques and emphasizing not focusing on trying to change attraction.  In fact, he even makes an admission that a significant portion of gay men are not capable of any orientation change and that trying in those cases is unethical.  

Matheson wrote the Evergreen Workbook in the early 90s with the late Dean Byrd.  He has since moved dramatically away from those theories and approaches and he recent book and workbook (Becoming a Whole Man) actually states " I haven't found anything that "cures" homosexuality. Cure implies getting rid of a disease.  Homosexuality is not a disease.  Nor is it, in my experience, something one simply gets rid of.  But it is something that one can diminish, give different meaning to, or move to the sidelines in one's life.  This is why I use "resolve" when I speak of journeying with unwanted same-sex attraction.  "Resolve" can imply clearing up, reaching a decision, or creating consonance out of dissonance.  That's a good way to think about the kind of changes that wholeness [his approach] can bring to your journey."  And reading Robinson's most recent paper and his dissertation; significant changes.  

In summary, I believe that there were ineffective and potentially harmful therapies performed and that many LDS members felt pressured into them.  I also believe that they were preformed in "good faith" and that as time has passed, these therapists really have made significant changes to the way they treat people today.  Again, I know how much I have changed and am not the same person I was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago.  

3) One significant sign of change is the work and progress of the Reconciliation and Growth Project .  Of which Dave Matheson is a part.  This project alone is enough to make me kind of wish I lived closer to the Salt Lake/Provo area (only kind of).  It has given me a lot of hope regarding the power of authentic dialogue and mutual respect.  Not to mention the outcomes they are achieving in agreement regarding the areas of treating spirituality and sexual orientation ethically and appropriately. 

Hi, Kllindley,

I appreciate the additional info and context you've provided.  I have only briefly followed some of the changes you describe, and my awareness of them is what prompted me to write the particular paragraph you quoted from me in which I acknowledged that my experiences were 20-something years old and I acknowledged that I would welcome changes if/when therapeutic approaches have shifted and changed to more realistic (non-reparative/conversion) approaches that encourage more realistic outcomes, and which avoid false/empty promises of change.  I have heard that Matheson has made some significant changes as well, and what you describe is in keeping with an actual outcome of my final therapy session with him in which he flat out told me, after having met for several sessions with him, that he "couldn't find anything wrong" with me that would account for my same-sex attractions, and acknowledged (to my surprise) that I may be (in his words) someone that "is simply gay."  I never went back after that session.

Regarding Dr. Robinson: it's certainly possible that he doesn't keep records and destroys them in accordance with a regulation with which I am unfamiliar.  Even in giving him the benefit of that doubt, I wonder why he didn't offer that matter-of-fact explanation with the additional context you provided.  Certainly, I had concerns with his avoidance of having any more discussion with me about my concerns about how he knew his therapies were effective if he didn't keep records.  In case it isn't clear: I was not aggressive in my questions; they were sincere and earnest, and I was polite and respectful in my tone and conversation (and certainly had nothing to do with death threats!).

The above being said, here's something I often tell people about my time in the church:  I "came out" and had various levels of counsel and/or therapy with regards to my "SSA" to a handful of LDS individuals: a well-known 'LDS celebrity' speaker when I attended Especially for Youth when I was 14 (John Bytheway), two BYU bishops during my time at the university (once before, and once after my mission), three therapists (Jeff Robinson at BYU before marriage, David Matheson in New Jersey the last year of my marriage, and one unnamed local counselor through LDS Social Servicies on the East Coast), and our Family Ward Bishop the last year of my marriage.  Although I feel that none of them gave me sound advice (meaning, I think all of their advice was misguided and rested on false assumptions, due to their religious beliefs, about my ability to diminish my attractions to men and cultivate and grow an attraction to women/a woman), I do not doubt that they were all acting with the best of intentions.  I believe they genuinely believed that what they were advocating was not only possible, but also what God wanted me to do------because I, with the best of intentions, believed the same.  As I look back, I am not angry or bitter--especially towards the ecclesiastical leaders who were quite unfamiliar with the issues.  I DO hold converstion/reparative therapists to a somewhat higher standard, to whatever degree that they fail (or refuse) to look back upon the results of their past and ignore self-introspective patterns as a therapist of what's healthy/possible/realistic vs. what's counterproductive/unhealthy/unrealistic.  I think their ethtical responsibility as therapists is to adapt their therapies to what is therapeutically realistic, rather than being purely driven by religious belief or ideology.  And, as I said before, I welcome changes to therapeutic approaches that seek self-refinement to encourage healthy choices, instead of promoting unhealthy and unrealistic options.  I am glad, Kllindley, to hear of the changes that continue to be made.  Efforts by those types of therapists, I believe, is the mark of someone who is a seeker of truth, rather than someone who merely seeks to continue to profit from self-loathing populations wishing to become something they cannot and never will.

Evidence that these therapies continue to adapt, change, evolve, or die out is seen in several key changes in the reparative therapy movement in the last few years:

• LDS-affiliated Evergreen International closed it's doors for good a few years back,
• Catholic-based Exodus International (as well as Alan Chambers very public repudiation and apology for the false reparative therapies that had been offered over the years),
• The apology of one of the original founders of Exodus International,
• The forced closure of the Jewish-related JONAH after it was found to have violated consumer fraud laws for offering therapy it said would turn gays to heterosexuals,
• LDS church's spokesperson's statement that it doesn't condone abusive conversion/reparative therapy practices

At the end of the day, we all now "see through a glass darkly"... We all have limited knowledge and are left with our own faculties to try to find "the best way" for each of us.  Holding on to anger, bitterness, or blame for well-intentioned people who played a part in my life isn't work the effort.  There is far more value and beauty offered through the healing nature of forgiveness and embracing that which can lead us to ongoing peace, joy, and happiness as we work together to make the best world possible for ourselves, our spouses, children, and families.

Regards,

Daniel

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Fine, you tell me what that scripture means with no wresting.

Well, I can tell you what it doesn't mean.  It does not say that God wants to exclude young, innocent children from the church or ask them to turn against parents who love them and love each other.  But then, I'm sure you know that (or I hope you do).  Do you believe that children in a home of a SSM are "foes" of their parents?

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Seriously - does anybody even read their scriptures any more?
Don't know why I bother.

I don't think he was referring to 8 year old children.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I can tell you what it doesn't mean.  It does not say that God wants to exclude young, innocent children from the church or ask them to turn against parents who love them and love each other.  But then, I'm sure you know that (or I hope you do).  Do you believe that children in a home of a SSM are "foes" of their parents?

 

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think he was referring to 8 year old children.

So you have no answer?
The scripture makes a clear statement by our Lord.  I accept that statement as given.  You provide no alternate interpretation.  But I'm the one misinterpreting and wresting scripture? 

Edited November 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

And since the Church operates by Common Consent AND these youth will be the Bishops and Stake Presidents (and GA's) in not so many years, the culture of the Church could easily embrace SSM eventually.
But that would have zero relationship to what God commands.

For most, we get the Church we want and make.  For the very few, we want only what God wants, no matter how society views it.
And that will be the end result.
 

• "Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith, and will be led away by the allurements of sin into by and forbidden paths, yet the kingdom will not be taken from this people and given to another, but a people will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works, willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways, and who will walk in His paths."   President Daniel H. Wells (2nd counselor in the First Presidency).

That core group of members seems to be getting smaller every day.

Or millennials will simply walk away from the church just like 70% of those that are gay do.  The church is not for everyone.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So you have no answer?
The scripture makes a clear statement by our Lord.  I accept that statement as given.  You provide no alternate interpretation.  But I'm the one misinterpreting and wresting scripture? 

I answered your question.  Those scriptures do not state what you're attempting to use them for (that God desires to keep innocent children from being baptized or expects young children to turn their backs on parents who love them).   No wresting needed in order to see that.  However, for those scriptures to be interpreted to mean what you are stating, there's a lot of wresting involved.

This definition of wrest perfectly describes what you're doing here:

"distort the meaning or interpretation of (something) to suit one's own interests or views."

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I answered your question.  Those scriptures do not state what you're attempting to use them for (that God desires to keep innocent children from being baptized or expects young children to turn their backs on parents who love them).   No wresting needed in order to see that.  However, for those scriptures to be interpreted to mean what you are stating, there's a lot of wresting involved.

This definition of wrest perfectly describes what you're doing here:

"distort the meaning or interpretation of (something) to suit one's own interests or views."

.

So you have no idea what that scripture means?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or millennials will simply walk away from the church just like 70% of those that are gay do.  The church is not for everyone.

Agreed.

"I do not feel as I used to when I see a man going away from the society of the Church of God. I used to be filled with sympathy and plead with them hours and hours, importuning with them until my head would ache and my heart sicken; and I never had the satisfaction in even converting one such character in my life. If I should happen to get one converted he would not stay converted, so I have concluded, and I think wisely, to let them go, and not suffer myself to have any more feelings about it than I would about any of the common occurrences of life." - Heber C. Kimball.

Maybe I need to learn this lesson.

Edited November 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

So you have no answer?
The scripture makes a clear statement by our Lord.  I accept that statement as given.  You provide no alternate interpretation.  But I'm the one misinterpreting and wresting scripture? 

What was I supposed to answer.  I believe in Matthew 10:35-37.  It just has no applicability to what we were discussing.  Regardless of what an 8 year old child of gay parents does, he/she cannot be baptized.  I'm not sure what your point was.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What was I supposed to answer.  I believe in Matthew 10:35-37.  It just has no applicability to what we were discussing.  Regardless of what an 8 year old child of gay parents does, he/she cannot be baptized.  I'm not sure what your point was.

So what does it mean?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

"Embrace a sinful union"... meaning they embrace their parents.  Ok.

 

One should never....NEVER..be asked to turn their backs against people who have loved and cared about them.  It is so fundamental and essential that love of a child is received as a gift.  It is what love is.  It is what Jesus would want most for a child to learn.  No exceptions. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So what does it mean?

I think you and I agree on the meaning.

You cited D&C 20:37 as the requirements for baptism.  ALarson made the point that children of gay couples can meet those requirements but still aren't allowed to be baptized.  You then cited Matt 10.  My response is that Matt 10 is not applicable because an 8 year old child of gay parents cannot be baptized per church policy.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I think you and I agree on the meaning.

You cited D&C 20:37 as the requirements for baptism.  ALarson made the point that children of gay couples can meet those requirements but still aren't allowed to be baptized.  You then cited Matt 10.  My response is that Matt 10 is not applicable because an 8 year old child of gay parents cannot be baptized per church policy.

Because they are not legally able to make the choice as outlined in Matthew 10.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because they are not legally able to make the choice as outlined in Matthew 10.

So your interpretation of that scripture leads you to believe that a child of gay parents must forsake his parents in order to be worthy of baptism, and that since he/she can't, it's right for the church to deny baptism to the child?