KScience

I have just started on a Physiotherapy degree course as part of a career change plan. I have been very excited to be a student again, but have had some irritating minor conflict with the University with regard to the clothing (or rather lack of) requirements for the practical sessions. Not sure why it didn't occur to me before starting the course, but I have had some difficulty explaining that due to religious beliefs I will not be wearing shorts which barely cover my buttock creases and will not be taking off my t-shirt. 
This was not a good enough reason and I was being pressured to participate until I noticed a final year student who is a muslim and wears a hijab and asked the program lead to allow me the same concessions that she had been allowed on religious grounds. Suddenly, I am no longer "a problem". I managed to speak with the girl yesterday and asked her about her experience and she told me  about the options they had given her and what had worked for her and I now have a plan that I feel comfortable with. It was nice to at last speak with someone who understood the discomfort of immodesty, rather than heavily implying that I have  body image issues  
I am grateful for that woman of faith who lives her principles.
I am less amused that I had to use "the muslim card" to get some tutors to take me seriously.
I guess I am already marked out as the awkward and annoying first year student....... well best they knew early on  

I have just started on a Physiotherapy degree course as part of a career change plan. I have been very excited to be a student again, but have had some irritating minor conflict with the University with regard to the clothing (or rather lack of) requirements for the practical sessions. Not sure why it didn't occur to me before starting the course, but I have had some difficulty explaining that due to religious beliefs I will not be wearing shorts which barely cover my buttock creases and will not be taking off my t-shirt. 
This was not a good enough reason and I was being pressured to participate until I noticed a final year student who is a muslim and wears a hijab and asked the program lead to allow me the same concessions that she had been allowed on religious grounds. Suddenly, I am no longer "a problem". I managed to speak with the girl yesterday and asked her about her experience and she told me  about the options they had given her and what had worked for her and I now have a plan that I feel comfortable with. It was nice to at last speak with someone who understood the discomfort of immodesty, rather than heavily implying that I have  body image issues  
I am grateful for that woman of faith who lives her principles.
I am less amused that I had to use "the muslim card" to get some tutors to take me seriously.
I guess I am already marked out as the awkward and annoying first year student....... well best they knew early on  

Is that what we're doing here? Thinking up "love-oriented solutions"? Then what, PP? Do we instruct God on the brilliant conclusions we've reached, and inform him that lesbian couples should be allowed in celestial glory by marrying them both to some guy? "Okay, God, we've decided how reality should be structured, so we expect you to now change the very nature of reality and existence to accomodate our brilliant ideas." Is that what we're supposed to do?
Truth exists independent of what you may believe. God teaches truth. He shows us the way. It is not our place to instruct God (or his chosen leaders) in what they are supposed to do. It is our place to learn from them and implement their teachings in our lives.
The author quoted by the OP is just another voice urging the Saints toward apostasy. He should be summarily ignored.

Sigh...  Per the quote in the OP I have a heterosexual identity and a church identity.  And they need to live in harmony with each other for my mental health... that seems reasonable.
However my church identity puts real limits on my heterosexual identity.  Many aspects it does not care about but two it very much does.  The first is the Law of Chasity and the second is Priesthood or Relief Society.  Both those force my expression of sexual identity into certain channels.  For example my church identity does not allow me to have sex with multiple partners. Yet one does not have to look far to see many people seeing that as part of their sexual identity.
If I were to do so I would experience mental trauma as various aspects of my church identity came into conflict with this expression of my sexual identity.  This trauma would lead to me deciding which was the most important part of my identity, which part I wanted more.  This test is exactly why we are here to determine if we will follow God or if we will follow something else.
Now for me my sexual identity and my church identity aren't in that much conflict... that just means that my testing is going to be in another area.  For those of the LETTER Soup group their sexual identity (whatever it is) is going to be in more conflict.  And that conflict is going to cause trauma, which we can and should be sensitive to.  But in that sensitivity and desire to help we should not try to undo the test they have to face.  They to have to make a choice on what is most important, on whom they will follow just like we do.

So, @Anddenex, here are some observations in response to your post which apparently originates with one Laura Skaggs Dulin, a gay (nominally) LDS therapist from Southern California:
A growing body of research indicated that sexual orientation had a biological origin . . .
This is half-true.  It is well known that when you have identical twins with (theoretically) identical DNA, they will not necessarily have the same sexual orientation.  Ongoing research suggests that “epigenetics” has a role, and environmental factors have some influence here.  Dulin seems stuck in the decades-old “born-this-way” paradigm that ongoing research renders increasingly outdated. 
. . . and that decades of trying to change people’s orientation or gender identity via reparative therapies not only didn’t work, in countless cases it caused considerable harm.
When we identify “reparative therapies” as “trying to change what class of people a given patient is sexually attracted to”, that is accurate.  
But I’d be interested to hear Dulin believes that counseling and ministering intended to help a gay person live celibately, in accordance with the Law of Chastity, falls under the umbrella of “reparative therapies”. 
Research had also begun to point to the incredible power of Family Acceptance of their LGBTQ children -- that accepting families reduced risk of LGBTQ suicide attempts by 8 times.
I think most of us will agree with the proposition that when people are nice to us, we feel more valued and less inclined to end our own existence.  The question, of course, is what “acceptance” means in this particular context. 
Perhaps one of the most moving studies I learned about was MRI brain scans of people falling in love: Whether someone falls in love with someone of the opposite gender, or falls in love with someone of the same gender, the same parts of the brain bursting with dopamine light up. Recently, brain scans of transgender people have also shown their brains to be more similar to the gender identity they feel within themselves than their biological sex. Science is fantastically eye opening and these are all things we didn’t know a generation ago.
That feelings of love and affection are associated with dopamine, and that we’ll see surges of dopamine in the brain any time it is aroused by a person for whom we feel love and affection (or who elicits similar feelings of relaxation, contentment, and general well-being), is hardly surprising.   But is Dulin suggesting that *every* association, relationship, or activity that results in a dopamine release, should be accommodated and promoted?  Are we automatons, to act and be acted upon only as a result of the chemical compounds in our brains?  Or are we something more? 
Dulin is just plain lying regarding brain scans of transgender people.  It is true that scans show that some regions of transgender peoples’ brains are closer to the gender to which they identify with.  Other regions of the brains of transgender persons are more similar to the same brain regions in people of their own native sex, and still other characteristics of a transgender person’s brain seem to be more similar to other transgender folk than either to so-called “cisgender” males or females.  See, e.g.,  https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027.  More to the point—I’m sure that brain scans of my Down’s Syndrome cousin, or my autistic nephews, would show their brains to be much more like those of other autistic or Down’s Syndrome children.  I’ll even extend that to the bipolar personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder parents with whom I routinely work—I daresay their brains in certain ways are more physiologically and chemically similar to those of other persons with the same disorder, than to “normal” brains (whatever that means); and the origins of those differences may well lie more in nature than in nurture. 
But--so, what?  The fact that someone’s brain just IS a certain way, doesn’t mean that that’s the way Mother Nature (or, God) intended for the brain to work—any more than the fact that a child is born blind or deaf or without a leg or a foot, means that the child shouldn’t still aspire to do the things that sighted, hearing, or ambulatory children are able to do.
Two studies specific to LGBTQ Mormons also had a significant impact on my learning. One found that LGBTQ Mormons who took a single celibate or mixed orientation marriage path frequently had poor mental health while those who dated a same sex partner had significantly better mental health. The most eye opening part though was this: that LGBTQ Mormons who were able to integrate and live into both their queer identities and their spiritual identities as Latter Day Saints had the best mental health outcomes of all!
Quite  bluntly, it is not possible to integrate a (non-celibate) queer identity and a spiritual identity as a Latter-day Saint.  So what, are we defining as “mental health”, here?  Are we falling into the trap of accepting an active sex life as a sine qua non for mental health?  What ramifications does that have for people who are asexual?  Or the hated right-wing "incels"?  Or pedophiles?
In the second study ( a study that took place in the year following the implementation of the November 2015 policy) it was found that stunningly, 73.4% of LGBTQ Mormons participants had symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in connection to their religious experiences. The same symptoms most often associated with soldiers returning from war, refugees fleeing persecution or victims escaping domestic violence or sexual assault, were showing up in both post and still practicing LGBTQ Mormons at a rate 10 times the general population. That was mind blowing. In simplified summary, research was indicating that LGBTQ Mormons did best when they were able to healthily live into both their queer and religious identities at the same time, however this outcome was quite rare, and instead, an astronomical amount were suffering with symptoms of PTSD.
This is probably referring to the Simmons study.  Notably, the most troubling manifestations of PTSD (having seen actual death/maiming/sexual violence, flashbacks, memory gaps, destructive behavior, hypervigilant “fight-or-flight” aggression, nightmares, dissociativeness) as outlined in the DSM-V (see, e.g.,  https://www.brainline.org/article/dsm-5-criteria-ptsd), either weren’t asked about at all, or were among the least-reported symptoms.  The symptoms that Simmons’ survey asked about that got responses in the double-digit percentiles included:
--“I felt emotionally numb”
--“I felt discouraged about the future”
--“I had little interest in being around others, particularly from the LDS community”
--“I was less active than usual”
--“I felt discouraged about the future”
--“I avoided people, places, or things that reminded me of my religious beliefs or experiences”
--“I wanted to avoid aspects of my religious beliefs or experiences”
--“My heart started pounding when I thought about my religious beliefs or experiences”
--“Reminders of my religious beliefs or experiences upset me”
--“I thought about my religious beliefs or experiences when I didn’t intend to”
--“I had trouble sleeping”
--“I felt jumpy”
--“I had trouble concentrating”
--“I was easily annoyed”
--“I expected something bad to happen”.
In other words:  The respondents' trials/sins made them sad, and the survey’s author gave them a means to re-characterize that sadness as Church-inflicted PTSD.
It’s also worth noting that there are also some aspects of the sample that make the survey pool . . . suspicious (the pool generally claimed to have received more ecclesiastical warnings about homosexual orientation than homosexual behavior, a distinction the Church has been making openly for over thirty years now).
As I sit with LGBTQ Mormons and post Mormons whose hearts are suicidal as an outgrowth of spiritual trauma, they get better as they are able to shed the negative messages they’ve internalized about being LGBTQ from both religion and society. They get better . . .
I think we’ve established already that Ms. Dulin (and her allies) has crafted a peculiar definition of “trauma” that is deliberately crafted in such a way as to prescribe a particular method of “getting better”, to the exclusion of the method our Lord worked out in Gethsemane and on the cross.
If it’s suicide Ms. Dulin seeks to prevent, maybe she can focus on convincing her clients that they can have worth and meaning and joy in their lives even if they aren’t having regular sexual experiences.  That was an idea that was pretty much taken for granted up until the last two or three decades . . . which coincidentally, is when ALL suicides (not just Mormon ones) reached epidemic levels. 
Like doctors and pilots, I didn’t make up the principles that govern LGBTQ mental health -- we have merely discovered them and now use it daily to safegaurd lives.
Except that Ms. Dulin isn't safeguarding lives.  The people who have come to her and her "allies" for your help are still killing themselves, in droves.  So are LGBTQ folk who were never Mormons.  So, in point of fact, are people across pretty much every stratum of American society (though statistically, it seems, middle- and upper-class whites more than most—which is interesting, since they’re the ones most able to afford the therapeutic interventions Ms. Dulin and her colleagues are peddling). 
Quite bluntly, the statistical evidence indicates that Ms. Dulin's pet principles *GAVE* us the suicide epidemic.  They will not heal it.  And when it comes to taking advice about how to deal with these issues, I think I'll take advice from the folks who don't make more money if the suicide epidemic gets worse; thank you very much.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've felt more at peace the past couple of days. Also took advantage of the prayer request board on a teacher forum. Will try to get to the temple in the next few days. I also had Husband give me a blessing of comfort.
We still have not reached an agreement, so there is that underwhelming update. Facts, feelings, and testimonies have been shared.
 

Fixing someone's suicidal thoughts with premarital sex?  Yeah, no, not the best idea.
"I tried everything else but nothing worked" - her problems are not yours to fix.  They are hers to fix.  
If I were you, I'd postpone the wedding, read a bunch of books on suicide, attend some premarital counseling sessions.  I would not marry someone with unresolved suicidal issues - it's not fair to either of you.

The patriarchal order is the order of the heavens. It is eternal. It can no more be dead than God can be dead. But if we reject the patriarchal order, then we are dead.
Feminism is a virulent cancer, and will inevitably kill those who do not root it out of their minds, hearts, and souls.

I didn't read the article because I just roll my eyes at the statement that is being made and have very little patience for the point of view that women are somehow being demeaned by the church weather due to dress standards or any of the other perceived slights.  Was just going for a little humour with the pants comment as we generally do not discuss our underwear in public.
 

Perfect use of the vernacular!!!!  

There are lots of comments on this post about people feeling the need to protect themselves and their families. Do you anticipate dealing with violent crime on a regular basis?
The general feeling in the UK is that there is infrequent violent crime, so there is no need to carry guns.  It is safe to walk the streets, even as a woman on my own I have walked through central London late at night. There is a concern with rising knife crime in some cities, and how we can target the youth involved in this but it is not an everyday occurrence; indeed most people would not know anyone involved in violent crime. And I worked in inner city schools and areas of deprivation for 15 years before changing career.
My gut feeling and a little research shows that the UK has FAR lower violent crime than the US

 UNODC homicide rate:

Interesting analysis here:  Discussing the different reporting methodologies, differences in definitions of crimes and affect of estimated under reporting of crimes
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/


Just want to point out that I am not against using firearms. I shoot and hunt and own a Browning 12 Bore. However the difference between owning a shotgun and a handgun; let alone carrying one in public are culturally vast.
 
 

I totally agree that its apples and oranges.   I have no desire to see the US disarmed, makes no difference to me as I don't live there, but it does put me off visiting my pals.  Its understanding why it's apples an oranges that interests me
 

I am put off that so many people consider just day to day living requires a firearm to feel safe.
 
I have plenty of examples of language mix ups and we tease each other about using "English"  but at least we can all agree on dismissing the metric system and measure distance and speeds in miles
 

Just didn't want anyone to think I am anti firearms as that would bias my comments.  I am just curious about what drives the reactions to the changes in the handbook

KScience's post be like

 
Just about every time the US is compared to the UK in this issue, the invalid comparison is an invalid attempt to support the notion that "In order to lower the US violent crime rate, we just have to change our laws to match the UK".  And that's invalid, because, again, you're comparing apples to oranges. 
(Hoping KScience takes this in the lighthearted manner it's meant)

There are lots of comments on this post about people feeling the need to protect themselves and their families. Do you anticipate dealing with violent crime on a regular basis?
The general feeling in the UK is that there is infrequent violent crime, so there is no need to carry guns.  It is safe to walk the streets, even as a woman on my own I have walked through central London late at night. There is a concern with rising knife crime in some cities, and how we can target the youth involved in this but it is not an everyday occurrence; indeed most people would not know anyone involved in violent crime. And I worked in inner city schools and areas of deprivation for 15 years before changing career.
My gut feeling and a little research shows that the UK has FAR lower violent crime than the US

 UNODC homicide rate:

Interesting analysis here:  Discussing the different reporting methodologies, differences in definitions of crimes and affect of estimated under reporting of crimes
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/


Just want to point out that I am not against using firearms. I shoot and hunt and own a Browning 12 Bore. However the difference between owning a shotgun and a handgun; let alone carrying one in public are culturally vast.
 
 

Hope that your knickers are not in a twist! (Only uk expression that I know! So proud to summon this up!)

I think Occam’s Razor is the simplest explanation here.  The Church has long suggested that guns and church are inappropriate; whereupon a number of folks—including participants in this forum—have suggested “well, yeah, but they don’t really mean that” or “surely, that doesn’t apply to ME!!!”  
Here’s the Church saying unequivocally “yes, we do; and yes, it does”.  
I think the legal ramifications are negligible.  The Church is just as likely to be sued after a mass-shooting in which its congregants were denied an opportunity to defend themselves with a gun, as to be sued by the victim of a mishap involving a fellow member who was packing heat at Church.  @mirkwood is probably more up on Utah gun laws than I am; but I think Utah requires that a “no guns” policy at a house of worship has to be clearly posted at the entrance(s).
Moreover—and I know I’ve been guilty of this myself in the past—but vis a vis the quotation that @NeuroTypical brings in from his friend Amulek; it’s probably not the best practice for us to start assuming that any policy in the CHI that we don’t like is merely the result of the Church’s liability attorneys having won an argument against the First Presidency.  We’ve known what the First Presidency thought about this, for a long time.

I didn't read the article because I just roll my eyes at the statement that is being made and have very little patience for the point of view that women are somehow being demeaned by the church weather due to dress standards or any of the other perceived slights.  Was just going for a little humour with the pants comment as we generally do not discuss our underwear in public.
 

I would point out in passing that minor changes in wording designed to cater to current hypersensitive sensibilities do not invalidate the doctrine taught consistently over the past 150 years. Things that were once eternal truths have not suddenly become false.

This sentence just made me feel rather OLD..........  It does not feel THAT long ago!!!!
 
And of course he was right.... and nice to be reminded of an old talk.  

My lovely wife enjoys watching a long-running British TV series about a small fictitious British county with an astronomically high murder rate, far outstripping even places like Beirut or Liberia. I believe it's called Midsomer. I have watched several episodes with her, and have been dismayed to see that atheism is held in high regard (the principle character proudly characterizes himself an atheist) while religiosity is uniformly dismissed as evil and hypocritical, or at best something for the foolish and weak-minded. Given how many of the Church's converts came from the British Isles in the early years of the Restoration, it's a sad thing to see.

Honesty.  Follow Christ.  Be the person you know you should be.

Wait... is this a  psychologist’s forum? I swore this was a forum for normal people to talk about the gospel.

Are there that many LDS dating sites that customers have a choice and can chose a rival with a better reputation?
As a single sister I feel I should be more in the know.... I am obviously limiting my dating opportunities