Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray

Mormon church won’t oppose gay conversion therapy ban

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This link came across my social media feed again this morning in conjunction with this latest news about the church. It strikes me as worthy and relevant to re-post it for any who missed it previously:

https://affirmation.org/science-vs-dogma-biology-challenges-the-lds-paradigm/

Thanks for posting this, Daniel.  I agree with him:

Quote

 

Perhaps the most potent force is the maturation of millennials who simply reject this status quo. As these church members, assuming they hang around long enough, move up through the hierarchical pyramid, they are likely to bring along their worldview and challenge not only policies but doctrines. They will be emboldened by an increasingly informative body of scientific knowledge about homosexuality, by the fact that doctrinal change has been a fact of life for Mormonism since its founding, and by a profound sense of social justice that will no longer allow injury or death to one of the church’s most vulnerable constituencies. If they take the time to read their own history, they will understand that not a single significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged through the entire history of the church. And when they come to that understanding, they will look forward instead of backward, embrace fully the foundational concept of continuing revelation, line upon line, and institute change at the most fundamental level.

Science matters. If we embrace the findings of science, that sexual orientation and gender identity are biologically indelibly imprinted during fetal development and that they are varieties of normal, then we become a more just society as well as recipients of the enormous gifts that LGBT people bring to the table. But if we reject the findings of science and insist that homosexuality is just a bad choice that can be unchosen, all of society suffers. The extent and timing of any changes in LDS policy or doctrine cannot be predicted with any accuracy. What can be predicted, and with substantial confidence, is that because LGBT issues are the civil rights issues of our time as well as the moral issues of our time for millennials, the composition and vitality of the future church will be reflective of its ability to project moral authority on these issues.

 

As we have discussed on this thread what Dallin Oaks once believed or approved of when he was President of BYU, we are reminded of the mindset of his generation and those who are at the head of the church setting policies, etc.  I firmly believe as younger generations become leaders, they will do away with this fairly recent policy regarding SSM and the children involved in those homes.  I think there will be other changes as well.

Have you had the chance to read Prince's new book yet?

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Rights-Mormon-Church-Consequences/dp/1607816636/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?keywords=greg+prince+gay+mormon&qid=1550793625&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Just reading about it now and it looks very interesting!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Is this surprising? Why would we support something that doesn’t work and is harmful?

the only known way to change human nature is Jesus Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Were the participants consenting adults? 

I do think making it a requirement with getting expelled if refused was inappropriate if that occurred ( anecdotal info may be incorrect as memory/perception may rewrite strong suggestions into requirements, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that was the choice given).  Given that people do worse ( in the sense of causing pain) to themselves even these days for purely cosmetic purposes (think liposuction, gastric bypass, plastic surgery) or even to resolve deeper concerns (like sex reassignment surgery) I don't see it as inherently barbaric.  If it was a therapy that worked for weight loss, for example, I can imagine a lot of people being willing to put themselves through it and being very grateful for it.

The problem for me arises with high pressure tactics to 'consent' to the treatment, especially if results were more assumed than demonstrated as apparently happened.  And that is in my view a very significant issue.

There is also the inherent assumption at the time for those pushing the use of the therapy that homosexual feelings were something that need to be altered, but that is a different type of discussion.  I am focusing on whether when people want to change for whatever reason, is a treatment appropriate if they are given a free choice?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

would never send a child to one of those camps or schools.  One only needs to look up the large amount of lawsuits against these for sexual and physical abuse to youth who were sent there

I imagine myself as unlikely to either, but parents can be desperate at times.  Perhaps I might if I thought there were no other options to saving my child's life, though with my knowledge I know there are better ones.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Calm, first I agreed that the use of ECT was wrong. I am not conflating two different treatments. The Mayo clinic link was simply to show it is and has been an approved practice now and in the past (even though the manner has been changed drastically). It was a scientifically accepted practice back during the times the church leaders allowed it to happen at BYU. I completely, 100%, totally, absolutely think it was a terrible thing. My post (and they have not been edited) clearly shows I am agreed with ALarson that the use of EST was wrong, but I disagreed with him for criticism of the church leaders, saying they should have known it was wrong.

ECT or electroshock therapy, now called electroconvulsive therapy, is causing a small, short term seizure (iirc it had to be at least 30 seconds as less was generally ineffective). in the brain by attaching electrotrodes to one's head.  This was not what happened at BYU.

What happened at BYU was to apply a small shock to another part of the body (iirc it was the arm or the penis) similar to getting a static shock (which can be quite painful), but in no way did it trigger a seizure or otherwise affect consciousness.  The correct name for it is electric shock aversion therapy (or some variation not using the one word terms like electroshock).  Using the abbreviation ECT will confuse it with the well know, documented and researched Electroconvulsive Therapy...which was also used in the past to treat homosexuality, but it would not have had that kind of effect).

I have been present for multiple treatments of Electroconvulsive Therapy.  I have watched videos of Electric Shock Aversion therapy.  They are worlds apart in what is happening.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Gray said:

https://apnews.com/16fcb4731bbf4935a1aa1e9642ed1b29

A really positive step for the church. Not only are these "therapies" total bunk, but they have the potential to do lasting damage.

I appreciate that the paramount importance of religious freedom is recognized in these proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

 I believe the Church is guided by God and never said or implied otherwise. This does not mean people in the church are infallible (even prophets). 

                     --Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

                 ~D&C 1:24-28

 

I believe this (above) to be your mistake. Just because there is no recordable revelation for this practice (EST), definitely does NOT mean we all have to throw out claims of being led by God, nor that we have to embrace the philosophies of men. People do not always make the best decisions. Sometimes the decisions they make are terribly harmful, but that argument does not take God or his inspirations out of the church.

 

So a decade of strapping electros to a young men's penis and showing porn to them just wasn't important enough to ask God's will? Telling gay men to marry someone of the opposite sex that if they did, they would be cured and become straight just not important enough to seek the counsel of God?  Despite the devastation on these families for decades to follow?  Even when they were claiming that such marriage therapy came from God?  

It is really hard to fit in all the pieces that you ask me to do to accept the claims you are upholding.

I want to remind you that there is no recordable claim of revelation is attached to ANY of the policies and practices the church dishes out to its gay members.  Yet once again members are lead to believe that church policies towards gays comes from God.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes!  If the Prophets were truly the Lord's mouthpiece.  

Were any other universities performing these aversion treatments on their homosexual students at that time?   Any other universities threatening to expel gay students if they did not agree to undergo these treatments?

Jesus miraculously fed people bread and fish, not exactly a wise or healthy diet. And nothing to drink? And what about the vegans and gluten intolerant?

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this, Daniel.  I agree with him:

As we have discussed on this thread what Dallin Oaks once believed or approved of when he was President of BYU, we are reminded of the mindset of his generation and those who are at the head of the church setting policies, etc.  I firmly believe as younger generations become leaders, they will do away with this fairly recent policy regarding SSM and the children involved in those homes.  I think there will be other changes as well.

Have you had the chance to read Prince's new book yet?

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Rights-Mormon-Church-Consequences/dp/1607816636/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?keywords=greg+prince+gay+mormon&qid=1550793625&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Just reading about it now and it looks very interesting!!!

I haven’t yet read his book (it’s set to release the end of this month), but have it on pre-order via Amazon. 

Did you have a chance to listen to his talk in full in the video? It’s truly spectacular.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Jesus miraculously fed people bread and fish, not exactly a wise or healthy diet. And nothing to drink? And what about the vegans and gluten intolerant?

Are you seriously comparing not being offered more than just bread and fish to eat to boys being forced to watch porn and then having their penis shocked if they're aroused?  

I don't know if I've seen a more ridiculous comparison made by anyone on here!!!

It's not too difficult to see which one God would not approve of or not want done to one of his sons.  This one is a no brainer.  It was a mistake....a tragic mistake and a wrong decision made by our church leaders.  

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I haven’t yet read his book (it’s set to release the end of this month), but have it on pre-order via Amazon. 

Did you have a chance to listen to his talk in full in the video? It’s truly spectacular.

I have not, but I will try to listen this weekend.  He's amazing.

I may pre-order his book too (didn't realize it wasn't released yet).  Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is the point of this thread to discuss the current legislation or rehash discussion and controversy about historic practices? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you seriously comparing not being offered more than just bread and fish to eat to boys being forced to watch porn and then having their penis shocked if they're aroused?  

I don't know if I've seen a more ridiculous comparison made by anyone on here!!!

It's not too difficult to see which one God would not approve of or not want done to one of his sons.  This one is a no brainer.  It was a mistake....a tragic mistake and a wrong decision made by our church leaders.  

I'm showing that the Son of God and His servants employ the secular understanding of the day no matter how uninspired they may seem to future generations. No comparison necessary; the principle is the same. I'm sure Jesus did other things (I can think of a few, can you?) that would be frowned upon today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm showing that the Son of God and His servants employ the secular understanding of the day no matter how uninspired they may seem to future generations. No comparison necessary; the principle is the same. I'm sure Jesus did other things (I can think of a few, can you?) that would be frowned upon today.

I'd say what was done to these young men is not just "frowned upon today".  Maybe just drop this line of reasoning as it's about as ineffective as you can be.  Christ would have never physically harmed the youth of the church.....never....no matter what year it was.

But I agree with kllindley.  Time to move on as this has been discussed and from what I can tell, no one condones what was done.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so glad this law was passed in Utah today and the church was in favor of it as well!! No more conversion therapy allowed for underage people. And Utah is the 16th state to pass it!

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad this law was passed in Utah today and the church was in favor of it as well!! No more conversion therapy allowed for underage people. And Utah is the 16th state to pass it!

Yeah.  A step forward for the State of Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Is the point of this thread to discuss the current legislation or rehash discussion and controversy about historic practices? 

Two inter-related sides of the same coin, no? In fact, one is the natural result of the other, so they’re obviously aspects of the same topic. Is one impeding conversation about the other?

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Two inter-related sides of the same coin, no? In fact, one is the natural result of the other, so they’re obviously aspects of the same topic. Is one impeding conversation about the other?

The current legislation prohibiting conversion therapy for minors is the natural result of whether Church Leaders specifically endorsed specific aversive treatment modalities for adults at BYU 40 years ago?  That doesn't seem to follow logically to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A good article from Deseret News. Looks like a lot of effort was given to be fair in this legislation. Kudos to Utah!:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/900056882/we-dont-want-to-lose-any-of-you-utah-legislators-unveil-bill-banning-conversion-therapy-for-gay-teens-hoping-to-prevent-suicides-hb399.amp

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The current legislation prohibiting conversion therapy for minors is the natural result of whether Church Leaders specifically endorsed specific aversive treatment modalities for adults at BYU 40 years ago?  That doesn't seem to follow logically to me. 

Not everything must follow any given individual’s logic. What is important and relevant to some may not be important or relevant to others. The board discourages, even prohibits, nannying; we’re all entirely free to skip over posts that we may find irrelevant.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Not everything must follow any given individual’s logic. What is important and relevant to some may not be important or relevant to others. The board discourages, even prohibits, nannying; we’re all entirely free to skip over posts that we may find irrelevant.

I simply asked a question about what people were intending to discuss. Obviously Church bashing was the correct answer. Go ahead. I have no interest in participating further. 

Share this post


Link to post

One other thought, KLindley:... 40 years ago is NOT that long ago, for some of us, and is well within my own lifetime and the lifetimes of friends and acquaintances I personally know who experienced some of the things that’ve been discussed here. To dismiss or downplay the traumatic experiences they endured, or to try to suggest they are unrelated to the gains we’ve made as a society in the last few decades is to ignore our own history. As the saying goes, those who ignore history do so at their own peril and may be doomed to repeat it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I simply asked a question about what people were intending to discuss. Obviously Church bashing was the correct answer. Go ahead. I have no interest in participating further. 

I think I started it by asking if this was the therapy that was once done on students at BYU.  The resulting discussion was interesting to follow and clarified some things.  

I understand that you may know the history of what took place, but not all of us do.  

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, kllindley said:

I simply asked a question about what people were intending to discuss. Obviously Church bashing was the correct answer. Go ahead. I have no interest in participating further. 

Once again, your reactive response strikes me as uncalled for over-sensitivity.  I have not called for “Church bashing.” Nor do I believe my conduct displays such.

I hope you’ll continue participating in the discussion without resorting to mischaracterizing the context of what I’ve said.  Your voice and perspective are important and add value and the balance of additional viewpoints. In particular, now that some of the verbiage has been released,  I’m hoping to hear if you feel the wording of this legislation mitigates any of the concerns you expressed previously, and any other thoughts you have on it. 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...