“I simply cannot believe that my Saviour would inspire anyone to treat another person unkindly.” – AMEN!

Big deal! For I know that all those who support Elder Hafen and his efforts will prevail. For, if comments expressed in #223 like ["I simply cannot believe that my Saviour would inspire anyone [Elder Hafen] to treat another person unkindly”], are considered the normal perception of Elder Hafen’s remarks – then there is no way that the critics of Elder hafen will prevail.

The sad thing is that, as Christians, it is not enough that we simply stop harming our brothers and sisters. That is the lower law. It is our calling to uplift, love, support, and nurture all of God’s children.

What’s the difference between what you have suffered and the Apostle Paul, with his “thorn” in his side [11 Cor. 12:7] that he prayed 3 times [to no avail] to have removed? We don’t know what that “thorn” was and it’s possible that it was worse than yours. If others can suffer in agony to the end, why can’t you, or anyone for that matter. The essence of Elder Hafen’s remarks are to show that the suffering and agony of those with this affliction does not have to be as bad as many think. What fouls things up more is all this “wordly” reinforcement that this state of being is not an affliction at all.

I agree that his comments were not based on scientific evidence. I support the rights of SSA to marry and have all the same benefits as heterosexual couples. I have contributed money to organizations who work toward that goal. I do not support the stance that my church has taken on this issue or the way it has treated(and continuesto treat) SSA individuals.

That said, I do think its possible to engage in CIVIL debate. I do believe its possible to disagree with someone in a KIND way. Your views are not foreign here, BUT your perceived hostility is raising some eyebrows.

So what if the people who he was talking “wanted” to be there – that doesnt make his comments any less offensive to those of us that were able to get beyond the ignorant (and untrained) rhetoric of the LDS leadership regarding SSA…ON TOP OF THAT, he misrepresented the actual information he was quoting to suit his own ill-informed opinion – that, in my mind, is unforgivable – at least be honest and make it clear that you are expressing your own opinions instead of trying to pretend like the scientific community supports your beliefs…So, again, i see NO reason why his position deserves “compassion” (BTW – I “understand” his position and i am violently opposed to his methods and rhetoric). I feel like some of you are going to great lengths to be compassionate toward hafen (even though i saw no “compassion” in what he said or did) while not considering what someone like myself has been through because of people like him….

To all:
Most people who have been on a mission, been a manager, taken a cognitive behavior class, been to college, or otherwise matured, know how to carry on a civilized discussion. Part of that is using “I” statements, and seeking for understanding people rather than right vs. wrong. Part of that is not being defensive. Part of it is a willingness to concede reasonable points. Part of it is admitting when we’re wrong. The biggest key is disagreeing without being disagreeable.

In any CBT class, people spend hours discussing these techniques with regard to conflict resolution. Why? Because research shows that this is what helps people communicate and solve problems. It respects people while seeking for improvement in the conclusion.

My personal rules for engagement follow these lines (although I may not always perfectly do them). In return I expect this same sort of treatment. If I feel someone is unwilling to engage in this sort of compassionate understanding discussion then I will simply cease to discuss. This doesn’t mean the person is a troll, but I will simply not engage in a dead end discussion. I don’t feel any need to be right or to have people agree with me or see my point.

What’s wrong with confronting “vitiol and bile?”

If you feel that way, engage in what you feel is civil discourse with him and see how far it goes. But from what I’ve seen that’s exactly what he’s doing. It may be from his passion about the issue or for some other reason but he’s not contributing anything to the discussion other that vitriol and bile.

“You may find this a small citing error. Yet Hafen’s citation to the WSJ article instead of to an actual APA resolution misleads the reader into believing that the APA stated in a resolution that it is ethical and beneficial to help clients reject same sex attractions. Even worse, Hafen’s selective quoting seems to indicate that the APA endorses reparative therapy, or at least doesn’t oppose it.In the second major error, Elder Hafen claims* that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. He then says that the A.P.A removed homosexuality from the official list of psychological disorders under pressure from political activists and not due to any scientific research:”

“Elder Hafen misrepresents the APA’s position on reparative therapy, and he claims* that homosexuality is a psychological disorder despite the absence of any scientific evidence. LDS Church leaders must be careful and provide accurate information instead of relying upon their own opinions regarding homosexuality. If Elder Hafen had read the A.P.A report – not just the WSJ article – he would hopefully have corrected his misconceptions regarding homosexuality. The A.P.A. directly addresses some of Elder Hafen’s misconceptions here:”- http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2657

Feel free to read up on how he tried to dishonestly support other opinions through selective quoting and misrepresentation of the information. It looks like i was right on by saying he dishonestly supported his ignorant opinion…I have yet to see a retraction. Again, why would i need to show “compassion” or understanding for someone who dishonestly told a room full of people that God gave them with a psychological disorder and that there is data to support that position? It funny to me that you guys think i am spewing “bile” because i cant stand to see someone dishonestly misrepresent information to suit their own agenda…

Labeling one as a “troll” is intellectual cowardness.

[huh?] re #208

Your comments on #192 – please [it's an answer to your #191]

“If you want to despise, belittle, and label those with whom you disagree that is your prerogative. If you cannot see the need for compassion in a world whose trend is spewing vitriol at those with another point of view then I have nothing to offer you. I seek what I consider to be a higher, nobler method of human discourse and discussion. I know there are those who do not agree with my method. That is fine. In my experience, compassion, love, and understanding go further to solve problems, influence people, and elevate my fellows than anything else I have seen.” – Again, what exactly are you trying to understand??? why he would falsify information? why he would continue to push the hurtful and ignorant position that homosexuality is a psychological disorder? what is there to understand??? Its sad that you equate pointing out dishonesty and bigotry with “spewing vitriol”…

“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

“an ignorant and dishonest agenda”

“Hafen made blatantly false statements”

“he blatantly misrepresented information on the topic”

“resort to dishonesty to support my position unlike Hafen and LDS church.”

Not agreeing with him is one thing. Calling him a liar is another. I’d suggest that you provide some evidence if you feel he’s a liar. People in their responses to you have tried to be reasonable in their comments but you only seem to be interested in turning up the bile to the point that a discussion isn’t really possible. We get your point so my humble request is to either dial it down and if that’s not possible, turn it off and move on. I cede you the last word if you wish because you’re acting like a troll and as you know a well fed troll is never satisfied.

It doesn’t.

“and why would i need to have compassion for someone who chose to speak as a representative of the LDS church on a controversial topic AND THEN choose to support the most ignorant and divisive position he could.”

You don’t.

There, piece of cake. But you could understand and have compassion in spite of that. That might be nice. Do you really only give compassion and understanding to those who “deserve” it? I personally don’t find that to be in harmony with what Christ taught. But to each his/her own.

I am very confident in my own position and feel that my beliefs are much more in line with what Christ taught. I also dont feel like i need to resort to dishonesty to support my position unlike Hafen and LDS church.

How much longer would the priesthood ban have lasted if people tried to “understand” or have compassion for the LDS leaders who supported that racist “doctrine”. If it werent for people taking them to task and calling them on their narrow minded teachings and racist views, they would not have been forced into allowing blacks to hold the priesthood…

I respect your point of view, and you as a person. If you want to despise, belittle, and label those with whom you disagree that is your prerogative. If you cannot see the need for compassion in a world whose trend is spewing vitriol at those with another point of view then I have nothing to offer you. I seek what I consider to be a higher, nobler method of human discourse and discussion. I know there are those who do not agree with my method. That is fine. In my experience, compassion, love, and understanding go further to solve problems, influence people, and elevate my fellows than anything else I have seen.

Please notice again that you’re conflating these elements with “a pass.” Not me, nor Hawkgrrrl is giving E Hafen “a pass.” I have separated, in my mind, E Hafen the person from his comments. I liken this to Christ’s message with the adultress. Surely Christ was not giving that woman “a pass” by telling her He did not condemn her and to go “sin no more.” Of course not. Rather, He had separated her from the sin, and loved her for her, not for her actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1742/64/ (in regards to APA change of position that Homosexuality is genetic)

In case my comments don’t make it out of moderation. The claim I made is not ignorant or uninformed.

Didn’t #167 answer, somewhat, your question #165?