Comments on: Michael Bailey reacts to “blatant misquotation” on LDS website by Byrd, Cox and Robinson

By: Did Bachmann Try to Pass a Law Protecting Ex-Gay Counselling? | Care2 Causes

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:03:14 +0000

[...] from the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) which has been slammed several times for distorting research to fit an anti-gay [...]

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:33:35 +0000

I attended evergreen, and know Ty Mansfield. It is blatant hypocrisy that he wrote what he did in this book, being hailed as an “expert” on same-gender attraction and how to overcome it, and giving people false hope… since he was actually having a homosexual relationship.

SHAME!

By: Spontaneous change compared to therapeutically mediated change — Warren Throckmorton

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:30 +0000

[...] I did the brief series of posts on Dean Byrd’s review of LDS book, In Quiet Desperation (here, here and [...]

By: LDS scholars critique Byrd, Cox & Robinson review — Warren Throckmorton

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:13:32 +0000

[...] Byrd, Cox & Robinson review Posted on September 2nd, 2009 by Warren Monday, I posted a statement from J. Michael Bailey, prolific sexual orientation researcher at Northwestern University, regarding what he called a [...]

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:53:13 +0000

Just trying to be fair…

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:32:44 +0000

Lynn – I brought all of this to Byrd’s attention and he had no desire to alter his review.

By: In Quiet Desperation: Rebuttal to Byrd, Cox & Robinson — Warren Throckmorton

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:32:44 +0000

[...] Desperation: Rebuttal to Byrd, Cox & Robinson Posted on September 1st, 2009 by Warren I posted yesterday that Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey Robinson misrepresented the views of Northwestern [...]

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:00:59 +0000

So have you ever wondered why so many gays do not trust people such as Byrd, et.al. or fundamenetalist churches like many evangelicals or the LDS?
.
However, in Byrd and the other’s favor might be when this was written. Is that the revision/copyright date at the end of their article – 29 May 2009, or does the URL of the article state a date – 200505.html meaning May 2005? I cannot even get a handle on Ty R. Mansfields rebuttal to Byrd et.al.
.
The Byrd et.al. response to Mansfield at: http://www.accordingtome.com/documents/response.pdf
- seems to indicate that all of this happened in 2004 or so, as they quote the LDS first presidency from that year. Might their ideas have changed? Of course if they had, they should surely have changed their article. So I guess they have doggedly stuck to the gnosis that they extract from the Bible/Book of Mormon. Afterall they lament that another LDS member has said, “Finally, Olaiz notes that “with a simple stroke of a pen,” 50 years of LDS statements about homosexuality are challenged.” Indeeed they say further:

From our perspective, the overarching problem of In Quiet Desperation is the context in which it was published, that is, the story of two young men both of whom have struggled with homosexual attraction: one committed suicide and the other’s feelings and understandings are still evolving. Noticeably absent are the stories of many men and women who have had far more positive outcomes than Stuart Matis and Ty Mansfield. Standing alone, In Quiet Desperation leaves the reader exactly where the book’s title suggests: in quiet desperation.

What I think Byrd forgets is that there are so many more people without his most hoped for outcome, unless he’s talking about those positive outcomes concerning those who accepted their sexuality and sought to forge relationships therein.

By: Michael Bailey reacts to “blatant misquotation” on LDS website by Byrd, Cox and Robinson

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:29:09 +0000

[...] Original post Share and Enjoy: [...]

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:01:20 +0000

I haven’t read the book, and I’m not Mormon, but I read both Byrd’s review and Mansfield’s rebuttal, and I must say that Mansfield effectively annihilates his critics. That is how you make a rebuttal, for sure.