yjacket

To continue in this vein (I agree with what Carb is saying here)....
Progress cannot be made, nor assistance given by denying truth.  There is something wrong in a person who cannot see.  Their eyes, nerves, and brains should work together to facilitate vision.  When a person cannot see, something is wrong.  This may be due to injury, or genetics, or whatever, but it is clearly wrong.  The same is true of cancer, the flu, a broken arm, a burn, or a cut.  Something is wrong.
To deny that something is wrong in a person who is experiencing same-sex attraction is to deny truth.  God clearly intended us to be attracted to the opposite sex, just as he intended for us to be able to see.  When that doesn't happen, something is wrong.
"Wrong" is not the same as "sinful".  "Something is wrong with me" is not the same as "I did something wrong", nor even "Someone did something wrong."
Perhaps @brotherofJared should have provided his definition of "wrong" as it is either different from the normal understanding of "wrong" (when making a statement like "something is wrong with me"), or he is advocating for things the gospel teaches us are actually sinful.  It's not entirely clear to me which, but I think it's the former.  Whatever the case, continuing this back and forth without expounding on what one means by "wrong" and without switching to different terminology seems pointless.

See.  This is confusing.  I understand what you're trying to do.  You're trying to be compassionate to homosexuals.  But, compassion doesn't have to include normalization.  The more disturbing aspect of your paragraph is the idea that being gay is so normal that it is US who has a problem.  That it is US who has to change.  That is just plain wrong and can lead to conflicts with the gospel.  We need to continue to support homosexuals to help them on the path of Christ.  The path to Christ doesn't change just because you're a homosexual.
I have a mental health issue.  SOMETHING IS WRONG with me.  No, it doesn't make me sinful - it COULD lead to sinfulness if I don't actively control my tendencies.  Therefore, yes... I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT IT.  It's always going to be a part of me - but I have to try to suppress that tendency through psychological training.  So yes, my husband has to live with my problems so he has to adjust his natural tendencies to compensate and support me.  But, he doesn't need to be fixed.    He doesn't need to accept my mental health as normal.  He doesn't even have to understand it.  He simply needs to be compassionate and support me in my efforts to overcome this specific weakness.

lol . . .wow talk about twisting the scriptures to mean whatever you want it to mean.
What a fascinating world we live in today.  Up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black, good is evil and evil is good.
You see b/c you can't say something is evil b/c that means you are judging and how do you know that you are judging right so it's best not to judge at all b/c judging incorrectly is worse than anything else!!
Utterly and completely fascinating. It truly is amazing to see what has occurred in my lifetime with regards to right and wrong. 
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-------------
For the bolded . .. how is it that everyone preaches a form of supposed godliness in the form of tolerance and love-but they deny the Power of God in their lives? For the last bolded, we have more ability to learn and grow than any other point in history; there is the water of knowledge everywhere to drink, but people have lost their moral compass of truth.
If this doesn't describe our day, I don't know what does. What's fascinating is that people don't see it . . .they are so blinded that they either don't see, don't want to see it, or willfully disregard it.  
Amazing . . .and it's gonna get a lot worse of that I'm sure. 
----
In a serious tone, learning the difference between self-righteousness and righteousness is critical.  One can proclaim things are not of God and still recognize that it is only in and through the grace, and mercy of Christ that we can ever hope to obtain salvation.  Self-righteousness is "I have no faults, thank you God b/c I'm so much better than everyone else". Righteousness is "This is wrong, that is wrong; I am not perfect I sin in my own ways, and I'm working on it-thank you God for your Son, help me to be better, help me to be more like Thee, help others around me to be more like Thee."

It goes right along with his other sayings:
"And in that day will the Lord send his angels to pluck out the righteous and cast them into unquenchable fire."
"And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the righteous."
"For he will not suffer that the righteous shall destroy the wicked."
and the ever popular:
"Behold, I say unto you, righteousness never was happiness."
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yeah, those darn righteous! I'm thinking the wicked will have a much easier time of it.

You've got a big chip on your shoulder about this and accordingly set up your semantics and meanings and then use that to judge everyone you deem not in line with your views, all the while proclaiming how we shouldn't judge unrighteously.
How is it that you feel it acceptable to judge others who in your mind are failing to abstain from judging others? Is alienating that group okay with you?

What progress? Please point me to the progress.  Great we give people drugs that make them happy (but that isn't even really verified in double-blind studies).  We still have no idea what the underlying reasons are for it.  That's progress?  Believing in a paradigm that isn't proven (and may never be proven, i.e. chemical imbalances) is progress?  
How is a "professional" going to fix a problem that they don't even know what the problem is?  It's not a matter of "there is no gas in the tank and you have a leaky tank".  It's a "you're car won't start, and we don't know why your car won't start", but we think it's something related to a chemical imbalance in your car (i.e. not having enough gas). "Do you have enough gas in your tank? Oh you filled it up 5 min. ago? Hmm, do you have a leaky tank?  Here take this additive and see if that will make the car start? Oh it didn't, well did you check your spark plugs? Here take these spark plugs and replace them? Oh that didn't work? Maybe you have it in park?  Ah see you mashed the gas when you turned the ignition . . .that was your problem?  Oh well now your car starts, but now when you try to steer it, it wants to veer into brick walls . .. well that's just a side-effect of getting your car started.  Next!" 
Again, they don't have a clue.  Can what they do help? Sure, can therapy, CBT, etc. help . ..absolutely.  Do they know how to fix the broken car . . .not a chance-they are just trying something until it hits.
If that is progress, like I've said before mental health industry is like the 1700s and blood-letting.

The sorts of things she described in her experience of "listening" to the men's rights advocates have lead me to almost entirely abandon commenting on most topics that I feel strongly about. Even if I wait to calm down and re-read the points I was going to respond to and make sure I understood correctly, I'll probably get riled up again when reading the response, which I will probably take at least for a moment as a personal attack, and then I have to try to calm down again. And if the other person is also emotional and taking it all personally and reading things that I'm not typing, we'll have a nice ugly mess on our hands.

I watched this video and I think there is a lot of wisdom in it. Sidenote: I don't advocate for either men's rights or women's rights, I think either one is pretty stupid and pointless, but I appreciate the viewpoint and I think there are a lot of very good points the author makes.
 

That makes no sense. Having something wrong with a person is normal -- so being normal proves that there's nothing wrong?
Look, you can buy into what I consider the lies of homosexuality if you want and therefore you're going to consider it both normal and "nothing wrong". I don't buy into the lies and so I'm not going to agree with either the fact that there is nothing wrong, nor with the fact that it's the best course to buy into the lie that there's nothing wrong.
I don't expect you to agree.

This is a factual falsehood. Period.

In general, when one says there is something wrong with something else, it means that it is not functioning as it should. What happens, of course, is that in this overly sensitive world we live in that people take it as a personal insult. It may even be insulting. That is in the eye of the insulted typically. But whether it's factually true or not doesn't change because it is or isn't insulting, and whether it's wrong or right to speak the truth about any given matter doesn't change because it is or isn't insulting either.
If one believes that homosexuality, transgenderism, or any other proclivity is a person emotionally, mentally, physically and socially functioning as they should be then it would be inaccurate to say that there was something wrong with them by any meaning of the word. If one believes that at some level said persons are not functioning as they should then to say there was nothing wrong with them would be a lie. Declaring that something is wrong with them may or may not be appropriate given the circumstance and setting.
Believing that there is something that functions differently than it should in another person isn't cause to say so to their face. It is, oft times, a good place to hold one's tongue. Explicitly seeking out such a person to declare to them that they are not functioning as they should is, clearly, typically rude on an individual level. Preaching the idea publicly, on the other hand, might be a good idea at the right time and place. Burying one's head in the sand in favor of political correctness creates culpability in those who bury their heads. Publicly and personally stating that everything is functioning as it should when this is not true amounts to significantly more harm than simply shutting up about the matter, and if one actually knows better (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common) becomes an actual lie. And, of course, there are those who's calling, job, or position render it appropriate to say such things individually to another's face, and not doing so renders them culpable in perpetuating falsehoods that are now-a-days considered concrete truths.
 

I'm sorry but that was a really beautiful post @yjacket. I do believe there are psychological disorders, extreme disorders that it would be cruel to expect someone to rely entirely on the Lord for and not seek help and treatment. A lot of those extreme cases show up physically in the brain and can be tested for, like schozophrenia. I do think there is a lack of faith present when you have the mindset, "the Lord cannot help me with this." He created the world and gave Moses the power to part the red sea. But no, your depression or anxiety disorder is too much for Him. 
I think there is value in prayerful study before a therapist even signs a prescription pad. We are told to take charge of our own study before seeking answers from Him, to come to Him with information we have gathered. I think assuming people are too stupid to take charge and responsibility for what goes into their bodies is ludicrous and yjackets counsel to research and find out about proposed drugs is a sound one. I think it is easier to give that power away, to appeal to those who are not actually interested in our well being but only in staying relevant and in control. I also think the emotional responses to yjacket rather than actually addressing what he is saying, is telling about how much some have invested in being told by someone "its not your fault, theres nothing you can do about it, let me take care of you." I
if you have studied the drugs your psychiatrist has suggested, found studies for them, researched the side effects for yourself, and gotten a physical to make sure everything else about you is ok, and you pray and the Holy Ghost prompts you to take that medication, then do it. You have been directed by who really matters. But I definitely think those steps should be taken. About everything, really. 
How many times does yjacket have to repeat that? Prayerful study. Prayerful study. Holy Ghost prompting. Holy Ghost prompting. If the drugs are what you need, why would the being who knows everything about you not tell you to do that? Why is telling people to research and pray about this harmful or patronizing? Hes not assuming those who have posted havent done those things. Hes saying thats what should be happening. 

#1), there is nothing in his talk that I disagree with.  There is nothing in his talk that gives validity to the theory of chemical imbalances. He says "We sense the complexity of such matters when we hear professionals speak of neuroses and psychoses, of genetic predispositions and chromosome defects, of bipolarity, paranoia, and schizophrenia. ".  No where in the talk does he mention drugs or medication.  In fact, in the above sentence, he admits that these things are very complex.  I agree, they are complex. And for most people who have not studied the issues, they will accept whatever the experts say . . .because that's why they are experts, right?
#2)  You are subscribing to me intent to hurt and damage where there is not intent to hurt or damage.  I understand the truth can be very hard to hear; it's like when a kid first learns there is no Santa Claus, they can be devastated.  
Either I'm right or I'm wrong.  If I'm wrong, then I gladly welcome anyone to demonstrate so by the use of statistics, facts, studies, measurable data, etc.  Show me what a chemical imbalance is.  Show me what test I can take to measure my own chemical imbalance (besides my own self-assessment-I need objective, repeatable, verifiable, 3rd party testing-not just based on how I feel that day)?  If I'm wrong, great.  No problem for me.
But what if I'm right?  What if the belief in a chemical imbalance (and the state of it's current knowledge) is no better than just faith.  Why is it that people will put more faith in the modern constructs of psychology, rather than faith in God.
Maybe society as a whole has been lead down a very evil path? I'm supposed to put my trust in psychology, and the grand DSM?  You mean the DSM that at one point classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, that classified transgender as a mental disorder, but then decided it wasn't.  You mean the DSM where the only reason they took out homosexuality as a mental disorder was simply b/c of political winds and culture changed and they voted to take it out . . .no science, no data, just a vote. The profession that would classify Joseph Smith as a psychotic.  Let's see a man who sees visions, hears voices, believes God talks to him? He is either delusional, psychotic, manic-depressent, or a pyscopath.
I'm supposed to put my trust in that profession, that they know how to make me whole?  Nope, I don't think so, not for one second.If someone wants to take pills and it works for them-great.  Some people use talk therapy, some people use a dog, or a hobby, or whatever.  
"If things continue to be debilitating, seek the advice of reputable people with certified training, professional skills, and good values. Be honest with them about your history and your struggles. Prayerfully and responsibly consider the counsel they give and the solutions they prescribe."
Elder Holland said the above.  I'm good with the above; before one should start taking some random drug, one should do the research, find the double-blind studies that show actual results.
Eowyn, you may not know me personally.  But this I can guarantee. I'm not going to tell you how, where or why. I have been through Hell in my life. I have seen what the powers of Hell and Damnation are; I know what an afflicted mind, body and spirit is, I know what it's like to become acquainted with the vastness and the depths of the pits of despair. I also know of the Power of God.  That He is the Master and Ruler over all.  He can heal the broken spirit.  His Power, Majesty and glory are greater than any mental anguish.
"Though we may feel we are “like a broken vessel,” as the Psalmist says,10 we must remember, that vessel is in the hands of the divine potter."  I agree fully with Elder Holland. No where in his talk did he mention drugs, or chemical imbalances.
All I'm saying is that as a society we have set up psychologist and psychology as a god, that it has all the answers, that it knows how to fix our broken spirits.  
And it's false, the emperor has no clothes . . .maybe one day it will get there, but that day is not today. And until that day comes (if it does), my trust, my faith, my heart, my soul, my belief in healing resides in the One who provides True healing.  Jesus Christ.
He has healed me, He has healed those I love. He can heal others.

Precisely my own feelings. Or maybe I'd go even a step further toward yjacket, in that I am not only prepared to accept what you say, but I fully accept it, and think those that consider psychology any sort of mature science are deceived.

I wouldn't phrase things the way @yjacket does; but I'm prepared to accept that mental health science is still in its infancy and that we're dealing with a sort of "Wild West" of treatments at present.
We know that certain endorphins bind to certain receptors, that some of these endorphins can be pharmaceutically supplemented or blocked, and that the result can be to heighten or flatten certain emotions.  The "whys" and the "quantities" of this science are not yet fully understood; and there's a fair amount of guesswork/trial-and-error involved with lots of potentially unforeseen side-effects in any given case.
We know that certain verbal therapy approaches seem to work under various circumstances--CBT, DBT, EMDR--provided they are deployed appropriately; and we know that appropriate use of such techniques seems to coincide with a positive physiological change within the brain itself.  But again, we don't know the "whys"; and as a consumer one has no guarantee that a therapist is actually using the proper approach in a consistent and appropriate way.
We shouldn't be hostile to therapeutic interventions; but we should take active efforts towards being informed consumers.  And we should probably regard caregivers with a bit more skepticism than we would regard an oncologist, or a cardiologist, or an OB/GYN, or some other doctor whose individual treatment techniques are more independently confirmable, more thoroughly understood, and more time-tested.
I know that in my current job (law enforcement, in a roundabout way), we deal with a lot of "therapists" for recovering drug addicts who are certified in all the latest therapies but still wind up validating/enabling the addicts they're supposed to be helping and unquestionably buy in to whatever nonsense sob story the addict chooses to offer.  Then these therapists call me up, on the warpath, wanting to know why we're picking on their client.  
So, yeah--when therapy is bad, it's bad.  Remember, this is a profession that defines and undefines "illness" according to the collective political power of those suffering from the condition; and that supports kicking you out of your job if you help religious gay people to fulfill their aspirations of staying celibate.  We have a lot of good and useful things to learn from them; but we must never, ever mistake them as "friends".  They are not.

Yeap . . .I'm in total agreement on this.  And for what it's worth . . I do wish that crap hadn't happened to you.
I didn't grow up in a "bad stock" family, but I have learned in my life to have empathy for those that did-I really honest to goodness wish it didn't happen; it would make life much easier.

Absolutely, there are going to be successful anecdotes; it's even likely that they wouldn't be Stake Presidents today if they weren't raised like that-b/c there is a lot that one can learn that will help one become more like Christ in those situations.
But go ask them if they had their druthers if they would be raised in a stable two parent household.  I think you know what their answer would be.

I totally get it - not offended at all.  Briefly - my wife's parent's family has splintered apart due to incestuous child sex abusers (which is bad enough) going protected and defended (which is even worse).   I'm the product of a self-absorbed major depressive suicidal mother who actually blamed me in one of her suicide notes.  (If these doesn't qualify as "bad stock", I'd like to see what does. )     
We both bear plenty of scars, some healed well, some remain open raw wounds.  Both of us have a certain level of understanding/appreciation/awareness of the burdens the other bears, something that would be absent in a spouse with a less traumatic upbringing.  
Yjacket took the "equally yoked" notion in scripture and applied it in a nontraditional way I'd never thought about before.  I think I'm going to take it and run with it. 

Nope, I have to disagree with this. There was nothing "broken" about Jesus' home. He was born to a man and a woman who were married to each other. The man was called his father, and he treated that man as such throughout his life. From all external (and, more importantly, internal) appearances, it was very much an intact, nuclear home.

I don't say "good stock" or "bad stock" in a denigrating fashion, I personally just think that more than good stock or bad stock-it is more important to be equally yolked.  
It certainly can work out if one person comes from a horrible childhood and the other doesn't.  But I think it's really, really hard-harder than if both came from different brands of horribleness.
I personally think the yolking in the long run and in higher percentage of cases wins out over stock, i.e. it's not about whether you are good stock or bad stock but if you are equally yolked.  And by coming from a similar background, similar culture you can understand better one another and hopefully better work together.
Being unequally yolked means someone is either going to have to step up or someone is going to have to step down for the marriage to last.  It's why IMO generally for people who have been married for a very long time and have a good marriage if you meet one of the spouses you have in many ways met the other.  They are definitely different, but they have a very similar mindset, outlook on life, life goals, etc.  They have become one through their differences and worked towards something greater.

And I would amend this that there are circumstances where warning would not really be warranted.  Say for example when you were 3 dad left mom and at age 7 mom remarries and from 7 on mom and dad (or step-dad) have a great marriage.  I'm not sure that is a "broken home".  During the formative teenage years, a stable marriage is at the heart of the home.  Mom and dad love each other, demonstrate love, kindness etc and demonstrate what a good marriage looks like. That I'd say is probably not a big deal.
Mom and dad get divorced at age 7, mom goes through 2 other husbands (or never remarries, works outside the home,etc.) that I would run from. 
However the vast majority of broken homes do not proceed like the first paragraph, more likely the second.

To clarify: I never said or even suggested that this is what people *should* do. I said that I agree with yjacket's take on the issue, and that I would caution my child about entering such a relationship. To pretend that children of (what used to be called) a "broken home" are just exactly as likely to form a solid marriage as those from parents married to each other is to stick one's head deep into the sand.

Also known as monozygotic twins.

That's a really interesting notion - I can't say I disagree.  My wife and I both come with our own particular brands of horrible childhood baggage - which would make us "bad stock", but "equally yoked".  We're in year 20 and things are not easy.  Come back in 20 years, and we'll see if the yoking thing wins out over the stock thing.