Not everything is a conspiracy – the part I left out is there for anyone to read in the original, but it has nothing to do with the point. This statement:

Anyone who reads our book will find that we also did not have a predetermined point we were trying to prove.

Is absurd to me after reading the book. While the study may or may not have been reasonably objective, there is no way one can read the book and not see a strong point of view before getting to any data.

You may want to create some verbiage to qualify this statement and make it seem less absurd, but Jones did not.

As far as I know, neither Jones or Yarhouse have made any effort whatsoever to publicly correct Exodus, Focus, etc., when they distorted the Exodus study data to make it appear to prove large degrees of change. So, I find it someone hypocritical that Jones has decided to finally perk up over what the AP has reported.

One cannot honestly deny that everything surrounding this study, particularly the publishing and release, has been a comedy of errors. The authors have been unavailable and silent concerning important issues and requests for clarification, yet when Jones decides to speak he does so at the NARTH convention!

Couldn’t someone close to them have clued them in on how unwise an appearance at NARTH would be? This is not where you speak if truth and science are your priority.

Lets not forget the lovely things Jones has said in the past that may lead some to believe he can’t render an unbiased opinion…Psychologist Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton, Ill., said those who support ordaining homosexuals are trying to “to normalize a pattern which is destructive and abnormal.”

Cornwell, George. “Debate Over Sexuality Fails To Resolve Issue Of Ordaining Homosexuals”. Associated Press. 15 July 1991.

MARK YARHOUSE

Indeed, a devout Christian can decide that “Christ, or God, has a pre-existing claim on their sexuality” that trumps same-sex attractions, Yarhouse said.

Vegh, Steven “Some groups offering gays opportunities for “recovery”. The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)14 September 2004.

Just curious: Has Dr. Jones policed Exodus’ distortion of the study and its results yet?

I agree…the way you put it, it IS almost laughable. I tried reading it both ways. Your way, with the …, did seem to make their statement self-contradictory. Then, there was that other way, the way they said it, where they explained what they meant:

“We had met people who claimed to have changed, but were open to findings that this change was frequent or infrequent, and also that claimed change was transitory and unsatisfyingly complicated for the participants. Our commitment was and is to reporting straightforwardly what our research population reported to us.”

Seems to me that if a religious point of view is the principle motivator for the claimed changes, a study would have to acknowledge this motivator and attempt to address its impact on the results–whatever they may be.

Anyone who reads our book will find that we also did not have a predetermined point we were trying to prove. … Good science can never result when people are trying to create sermon illustrations for pre-determined positions.

While they may or may not have been objective about the study itself (I have my own opinions on that), The Exodus Study book screams a particular point of view, and uses scripture to back it up. I agree with the second statement above, but find the first almost laughable. I doubt any casual reader would be in doubt at all as to Jones’ point of view on the subject.