However, I find myself mostly in agreement with Hafen’s statement in the paragraph you quoted. I base my conclusion not on Hafen’s address or sources, but an article I read a few years ago that I have unfortunately been unable to locate. (It was not one of the sources Hafen quotes.) It seems to me that the 1973 decision was primarily political in motivation, but that it has at least in part been validated by statistical data after the fact. Essentially, I agree with Hafen’s conclusion that the change is more political than medical or legal, but I disagree with his interpretations and conclusions about current medical data. That is where I see the largest stretching of facts to fit his arguments.

Incidentally, he makes a valid point about the legal rationale used by the Supreme Court—they have all been based on individual liberties rather sociological or cultural factors. It’s not surprising, given the supremacy of the individual rights model over the systemic model in the past few decades, but I think it’s a good point.

You say: “My perception of the APA is a highly politicized body dabbling in the fuzziest of social sciences.”

While I generally agree with your perception of the APA, that doesn’t excuse misquoting an APA resolution that says the exact opposite of what Elder Hafen represents it to say. Politicized organization or not, misrepresentation is misrepresentation, and the APA’s position can’t be fairly characterized as recommending that some clients “reject their gay or lesbian attractions”. The WSJ article misrepresented the APA resolution, and Elder Hafen quotes this misrepresentation to be a passage in the actual APA resolution.

As for homosexuality being removed from the DSM, again, I agree with you that de-listing homosexuality as a psychological disorder was in part politically motivated. Elder Hafen, however, says that the APA removed homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders only because political activists intimidated the APA, and not because of any scientific research demonstrating the APA’s error in the initial classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. No matter how political and “fuzzy” the APA, it’s a clear misrepresentation of the facts to say that there was not “any change in medical findings” (Elder Hafen’s words) that warranted the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. If Elder Hafen had simply recognized that the APA was in part motivated by political activists in de-classifying homosexuality as a psychological disease, no one could reasonably argue with him. But since he uses the APA’s de-classification as an example of political activism, it undermines his credibility and perpetuates ugly stereotypes of homosexuals.

These are Elder Hafen’s own words, so other people can judge for themselves what he meant:

“So what’s been going on during the last few years to cause the cultural earthquake we’re now feeling on this subject? We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than we’ve witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence. In 1973, in response to increasing disruptions and protests by gay activists, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations removed homosexuality from their official lists of disorders. Significantly, they took this action by simply putting the issue to an open vote in their professional meetings–not because of any change in actual medical findings. As LDS psychologist Dean Byrd writes, “This was the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence.” [xii][xii] Dean Byrd, Mormons & Homosexuality (2008), p. 22 ”

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction

I don’t believe I disagree with you much (if at all) with respect to Hafen’s honest use of sources. After a cursory reading of his remarks and sources, I tend to agree that Hafen either intentionally or inadvertently represented the statements of some of his sources. I see that sort of “stretch citation” in advocacy pieces from time to time, and it’s not impressive. I don’t necessarily impute malicious intentions, but I generally disapprove.

As to the “fodder for his inevitable critics” comment, I believe you may have misunderstood my statement. Since the LDS Church and Elder Hafen counsel against homosexual activity, his remarks were destined to be heavily criticized. In all debates, I think it’s best to do your homework and get it right so your critics can find as little fault with your arguments as possible. I would have preferred to hear less sweeping, more cautious statements that matched the sources.

A final word about the APA: if this is your primary concern, then we may have some disagreement. My perception of the APA is a highly politicized body dabbling in the fuzziest of social sciences. Its policies seem inconsistent and occasionally hostile towards various demographics. I agree with the 1973 APA decision to declasify homosexuality as a disorder, but I have little confidence in an organization that makes decisions not based on good data that affect individual patients. However, my opinion has little bearing on the accuracy of Hafen’s citation.

You said:

This doesn’t necessarily invalidate his arguments, but incomplete citation can call into question the authorities upon which Hafen relied, and it has provided fodder for the inevitable critics of his position on same-sex attraction.

I agree that incomplete citation doesn’t invalidate an argument. I’m not so concerned that Elder Hafen forgot to include the volume and page number of the U.S. Reports, for example. I am, however, concerned that Elder Hafen misrepresents a resolution enacted by the APA and, worse, that he claims there was no scientific evidence that warranted the removal of homosexuality from the official list of psychological disorders, and that the APA caved to political pressure to remove it.

I’m also concerned that you say Elder Hafen’s citation errors have provided “fodder” for his “inevitable critics” – as if his critics were quibbling over misplaced commas and minor discrepancies. To the contrary. I would hope that Elder Hafen’s supporters would expect him to be just as accurate and scrupulous as his “inevitable critics” believe him not to be.

Elder Hafen said some nice things in his talk, but he made some dangerous, substantive errors that need to be corrected. I’d be happy to cite check his talk for him so the LDS Newsroom can repost it.