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

By: Fg68at

Fg68at — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:40:40 +0000

The same misinterpretation (especially about “behavioral risk factors”) in a testemony from the “German NARTH” (it translates many textes of NARTH to German) DIJG against more rights in civil partnerships in front of the juridical comission of the parlament.

http://www.dijg.de/fileadmin/pdf/statement_anhoerung_rechtsausschuss_2005.pdf

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: 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: 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.