"Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rix
Posts: 562
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 14:29
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by Rix » 22 Sep 2009, 19:16

MadamCurie wrote:I was so angered by this that I finally did a point-point refutation of the talk on my blog. It felt good, in a cathartic, fight -ignorance-with-fact sort of way. I was up all night last night working on it, but now my head feels a lot better (the frustrations stopped swirling around with no where to go).
I would love to read it...do you have a link?
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. -- Joseph Campbell

swimordie
Posts: 755
Joined: 02 Jun 2009, 21:50

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by swimordie » 22 Sep 2009, 19:18

That was great MadamCurie, I just finished it!

Rix:
the link is that tiny bot on the bottom of her post.
Perfectionism hasn't served me. I think I am done with it. -Poppyseed

MadamCurie
Posts: 41
Joined: 20 Aug 2009, 17:35
Location: Hinterlands
Contact:

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by MadamCurie » 22 Sep 2009, 19:23

The link is through the "What I believe" button. There are two refutation posts there, parts 1 and 2.

George
Posts: 268
Joined: 19 Jul 2009, 15:51

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by George » 22 Sep 2009, 19:36

MadamCurie,

A masterful article. Thank you tenderly for your well-thought out dissertation regarding civil and social justice.

MWallace57
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 03:12

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by MWallace57 » 23 Sep 2009, 00:52

Thank you MadamCurie, for all of your thoughts.

At this point, I am a little overwhelmed. I work in the Science field, performing laboratory testing. The FDA requires that all methodologies undergo stringent validation. The validation process is complex and strictly statistical - religion and emotions do not come into play.

This same, rigorous validation process is also used when evaluating medications, treatment protocols and psycho therapeutic regimes.

I am simply at a loss for finding proper clinical validation of methodologies employed by Evergreen International or taught at BYU.

I work in Research Park, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Most of my friends work in Research, Genetics, Proteomics, Genetic Counseling, Analytical Biochemistry etc. Many of them are LDS. Personally, I refuse to use an experimental treatment unless it is part of a qualified study and follows all of the medical ethics protocols.

"First do not harm" is the basic foundation in Medical Science. There are also legal implications for promising cures when no scientifically valid studies are provided to back up the claim. Elder Hafen was a Dean of BYU School of Law, so he should know this.

I want to give Elder Hafen the reverence and respect he desires. He is likely a devoted, kind, sincere servant of the Lord. His speech, however, totally lacked legal, moral, ethical and scientific clarity.
Sadly, I suspect that Elder Hafen is just suffering from the onset of mental decline that so often comes with age.

Poppyseed
Posts: 389
Joined: 19 Jul 2009, 15:44

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by Poppyseed » 23 Sep 2009, 08:12

What about our spirits? What about SSA with regards to that? If gender was assigned before we got here, what about sexual feelings and righteous preferences? And if my understanding is correct and I am more than my biology, then doesn't that mean I have some capcity to change? if not my biology, then my thinking? And doesn't Christ help us heal biology sometimes? And when He doesn't, isn't that the times where he increases our capacities and strengths or makes it so we can't feel the weight of certain burdens? He says he makes a way for us to obey.


I don't want to deny the science. I don't know how I feel about Hafen yet. But I do struggle against the idea that things can't change and that the only solution is the changing of church doctrine -- something that for me would make the question of staying Lds completely mute.
Last edited by Poppyseed on 23 Sep 2009, 08:37, edited 3 times in total.
“Be not afraid of growing slowly; be afraid only of standing still.” --old Chinese proverb

Poppyseed
Posts: 389
Joined: 19 Jul 2009, 15:44

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by Poppyseed » 23 Sep 2009, 08:30

I am simply at a loss for finding proper clinical validation of methodologies employed by Evergreen International or taught at BYU.
I am not a scientist but could you explain what clinical validations are missing with regards to Evergreen? And when you say taught at BYU, do you mean taught to future therapists? I heard both good and bad stories of Evergreen's effectiveness.....mostly they sound as effective as other less effective stuff out there. My brother went there and didn't feel so great about it, but I think he only went once or twice. Could it be that these therapies are like other behavioral/emotional therapies? That they are good for some and not others. I found that working with our sexual addiction stuff. Some stuff just didn't work for us, so we had to find what did work and even costum fit our therapy for our situation as there are limits to all this stuff.
"First do not harm" is the basic foundation in Medical Science. There are also legal implications for promising cures when no scientifically valid studies are provided to back up the claim. Elder Hafen was a Dean of BYU School of Law, so he should know this.
Yes "do no harm" is the basic idea, but lets tell the truth. They do harm all the time....stuff they don't always have to take responsibility for. And many of these drugs that were supposedly cleared as "safe" have caused lots of people damage. So, I think its a little unfair to hold Evergreen to a standard that nobody can meet. Not that it shouldn't be evaluted for effectiveness and not that it shouldn't stay as cutting edge as everything else. Just wanna keep some perspective here.
“Be not afraid of growing slowly; be afraid only of standing still.” --old Chinese proverb

User avatar
Rix
Posts: 562
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 14:29
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by Rix » 23 Sep 2009, 09:52

Poppyseed wrote: ...Christ...says he makes a way for us to obey.
I can appreciate these sentiments. So I guess it goes back one step to what really is to "obey?" My take on this is that yes, there have been many men that have said that acting on homosexual feelings is wrong. That it is a sin. I know it is written in scripture.

But so are many other rules that we choose not to give credence to today: at least as far as the Bible goes, we shouldn't be eating pork or shrimp either! And when you defer to "modern revelation," earlier LDS prophets taught many things that we don't live today...so my logical, trying to be consistent mind, tells me that this very well could be one of those areas that with further light and knowledge, we are (eventually) going to see a change in what the commandment is.

To me it is clear that God made (or allowed) variations in biology...so I can't imagine that He would consider His creation wicked and sinful. BUt like the other rules that have changed, it takes time and prayer to affect change that is consistent with love.

:)
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. -- Joseph Campbell

User avatar
Rix
Posts: 562
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 14:29
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by Rix » 23 Sep 2009, 10:04

Poppyseed wrote:Yes "do no harm" is the basic idea, but lets tell the truth. They do harm all the time....stuff they don't always have to take responsibility for. And many of these drugs that were supposedly cleared as "safe" have caused lots of people damage. So, I think its a little unfair to hold Evergreen to a standard that nobody can meet. Not that it shouldn't be evaluted for effectiveness and not that it shouldn't stay as cutting edge as everything else. Just wanna keep some perspective here.
It is certainly true that we learn things in medicine that we did not suspect previously. That is the nature of science. But when peer-reviewed, extensively researched results show something to be wrong, the standard is changed and medicine corrects itself. That is what is happening today wrt homosexuality. The evidence is strong that it IS biological, not a choice for the majority of homosexuals. (I explained earlier how it is a spectrum, rather than black and white)...so the medical and psychology fields are coming out with the statements that it is NOT a disorder, but is a variation that should be accepted.

That is a HUGE positive statement for the 3-5% of humanity (homosexuals) that have been told they are broken somehow. I don't know how often you read the obits...almost everyday you see one or more suicides that have been a direct result of the deep depression they felt from being told they were not okay.

And now Evergreen is going against the new science and continues to give false hope to many who are believers...but fail, so the tragedies will continue. Truly a shame.

:cry:
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. -- Joseph Campbell

wordsleuth23
Posts: 110
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 21:57

Re: "Homesexuals CAN Change..," A giant step backwards for the

Post by wordsleuth23 » 23 Sep 2009, 10:22

Poppyseed wrote:What about our spirits? What about SSA with regards to that? If gender was assigned before we got here, what about sexual feelings and righteous preferences? And if my understanding is correct and I am more than my biology, then doesn't that mean I have some capcity to change? if not my biology, then my thinking? And doesn't Christ help us heal biology sometimes? And when He doesn't, isn't that the times where he increases our capacities and strengths or makes it so we can't feel the weight of certain burdens? He says he makes a way for us to obey.


I don't want to deny the science. I don't know how I feel about Hafen yet. But I do struggle against the idea that things can't change and that the only solution is the changing of church doctrine -- something that for me would make the question of staying Lds completely mute.
Poppyseed, I understand your confusion. In my opinion, this apparent contradiction is just one more reason I don't believe we have spirits, or if we do, they aren't anything like we are taught by LDS theology. Hermaphrodite/intersexual people have been around for a long time. How does that fit in with the Proclamation of the Family? I know I'm exercising no faith and relying on science and evidence, but hermaphrodites and SSA have biological explanations that make some sense--when the soul/spirit comes into play, it muddles the picture.

If these intersexual bodies have souls, which sex are they? If brain chemistry is driving sexual attraction, then what role would a soul/spirit play, even for heterosexual people? LDS theology teaches that animals have spirits too; what about animals that have sex with other animals of the same gender? They obviously don't have "accountability" so their behavior isn't considered perverse. It seems like that is a good example of how SSA works--that's it's biologically driven, and at the end of the day, humans are highly evolved animals, so turning to the animal kingdom for evidence isn't a bad idea.

If we accept the accumulating evidence that SSA is biological, then why should we expect gay people to refrain from sexual relationships? Why is it bad? The Church expects heterosexual people to wait until marriage to have sex, but they are denying gay people this form of commitment. Why? Why deny gay people the most stabilizing form of commitment society has come up with for relationships? People that are "born" gay can't control their feelings, and they shouldn't be expected to. The gay community is considered promiscuous, but until we grant them opportunities to legally marry/unite, then how can we expect that to change much? On that note, the promiscuity of the gay community has improved significantly in areas of our country and around the world where they are given the option of marriage. I'm not sure that the gay community is more promiscuous than the unmarried heterosexual segment of society, but imagine how much more promiscuous our society would be if heterosexuals weren't allowed to legally commit to each other? Marriage creates a level of commitment that really isn't achievable any other way, and it is the most symbolically powerful statement a couple can make about their love for each other. We should allow gay people the same opportunity.

Post Reply