Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church opposes ban of conversion therapy


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

This is the amended bill that was nerfed by Equality Utah and the sponsoring legislator. I could have fully supported this one. 

Maybe you could explain why this amended bill was so terrible that the LGBT lobby preferred not to even vote on it. 

That is what came up on the Google search.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to link to the actual bill if this is not it so we can see what the problem is

 

Edit.  Sorry, I didn't read far enough.  I will take a look at what you linked to.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It is the same question for medical treatment like blood transfusions.

Except blood transfusion has a pretty specific definition and is known to work to do what is claimed.  One can point to a definite harm if withheld.

The principle is the same, but if precision is lacking in defining laws for conversion therapy (what has been shown by research to be harmful or abusive practices), the wrong people will benefit (be protected, etc) while those using care to find or provide decent therapy in the areas wanted by clients may get shorted.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Fox13 Report: https://tinyurl.com/y5x7bl9g

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY -- The head of Utah's Department of Commerce told FOX 13 she will not halt the process for a pair of rules that effectively ban conversion therapy on LGBTQ children.
"The process right now is in my office," Commerce Executive Director Francine Giani told FOX 13's Ben Winslow on Wednesday. "It will not go back to the boards."

That means the rules are not likely to be pulled back despite comments from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints late Tuesday objecting to the rule. If no substantive changes are made, the administrative rules for psychologists and marriage and family therapists in Utah would go into place Oct. 22.

An except from the bio of Francine Giani:

Quote

Giani obtained her Bachelors of Arts Degree {in "Communications"} from Hunter College in New York City where she launched her career working for ABC Television. She later received a Masters of Public Administration from the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University.

Kinda weird that important and state-wide mental health therapy options are being decided by a mid-level state employee with no training whatsoever in mental health.

I don't blame Ms. Giani.  I just think this issue is not one that should be determined by a "licensing rule."  A legislated approach would, I think, be better (one can hope...).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, from the Church's letter: "'"Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'"

California Boy (in this very thread): "So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause."

If California Boy (!) is under the false impression that the Church is interested in defending "reparative therapy," imagine what many even less informed folks are likely to be thinking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Before we get too rebukie on CB, let's remember our own recent history.  Maybe if there would have been some safeguards in place (like what the church is opposing now) in the 1970's and 1980's there would have been much less damage done in the name of religious freedom.

Quote

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin Oaks[36]:32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[89] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history

 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Before we get too rebukie on CB, let's remember our own recent history.  Maybe if there would have been some safeguards in place (like what the church is opposing now) in the 1970's and 1980's there would have been much less damage done in the name of religious freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history

 

 

The Church doesn't have a very good track record in what it has been pushing to "cure the gays".  To all the sudden put trust that Church leaders know what they are doing at this point is difficult for some of us to do.  We have been burned before and more than once.  And I honestly believe they have an agenda that is more important to them than listening to professional licensing boards who actually know what they are doing.  

I also think it is important to remember that the Church does not get a vote in the legislative process in Utah.  Well, it shouldn't get a vote.  Whether it does or not gets a little blurry at times.  Their input should be treated the same as any other group.  It seems like the legislature is relying on professionals rather than laymen on how the bill should be worded.  I would expect the same in running the Church.  Apostles should have more weight in how to run the Church than the Psychologist Licensing Board.

 

Quote

Governor Herbert directed Francine Giani, the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce (Department) who oversees the Division, to have the Psychologist Licensing Board provide guidance, based on the best available science, for rules on the ethical and professional practice of psychology concerning interventions for minor children regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity. To avoid duplication of efforts and confusion, Governor Herbert directed the Psychologist Licensing Board to take the lead, after which the three other boards that advise the licensing of the mental health professions in Utah -- the Social Worker Licensing Board, the Clinical Mental Health Counselor Licensing Board, and the Marriage and Family Therapist Licensing Board -- were to take up this issue.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Before we get too rebukie on CB, let's remember our own recent history.  Maybe if there would have been some safeguards in place (like what the church is opposing now) in the 1970's and 1980's there would have been much less damage done in the name of religious freedom.

Quote

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin Oaks[36]:32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[89] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history

"Our own recent history?"

From FAIR:

Quote

Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.
...
{A} a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.
...
In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.
...
Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.
...
A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 hours ago, toon said:

What's their definition of "longstanding?"

How long has it been since the Church recommended , or in some cases required, such practices?

I question your premise ("How long has it been since...").

Per FAIR:

Quote

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

So if you have information about the Church "recommend{ing}, or in some cases requir{ing}" aversion therapies, please consider this a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause.

And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth?

From the Church's letter: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'"

What part of this statement, if any, do you find problematic?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just bumping this so California Boy can respond.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Is it significant that the Church's objections came on the final day for public comment on the rule?

Also, is there a link to the entire letter that Family Services wrote?

Its embedded as a PDF in this article (https://fox13now.com/2019/10/16/utah-commerce-chief-wont-hit-the-brakes-on-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-ban-despite-lds-church-objections/), though they omit page 4.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I question your premise ("How long has it been since...").

Per FAIR:

So if you have information about the Church "recommend{ing}, or in some cases requir{ing}" aversion therapies, please consider this a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, it's so obvious! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history

Take the time, if you still have some, to read through. Below is a small snippet of the lengthy wiki article all about the church doing what you CFR'd someone. Mixed in are the suicides stemming from all the flack gays have received by the church. Blood is on these leaders' hands for sure. ETA: So I reread your comment to toon, and I think it laughable how Fair approached this. So the church didn't do it, but BYU did?!?! BYU is the church, lol!!

 

"Shortly after the 21 May 1959 meeting of BYU president Ernest Wilkinson and apostles on the executive committee of the Church Board of Education discussing the "growing problem in our society of homosexuality" BYU began administering "aversion therapy" to "cure," "repair," or "reorient" homosexual feelings among Mormon males.[2]:377,379 The on-campus program lasted through the 60s and 70s, and faded out around 1983.[87]:64–65[44]:155 BYU mental health counselors, LDS bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, general authorities, and the BYU Standards Office (equivalent to today's Honor Code Office) all referred young men to the BYU program.[2]:377,379 Because of religious considerations, on 22 September 1969 BYU administration decided to reduce the amount of the on-campus "electrical aversive therapy" used to treat (among other things) "sexual deviancy", though, the program continued.[88][36]:82

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin Oaks[36]:32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[89] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies."[44]:155

In an independent BYU newspaper article two men describe their experience with the BYU Aversion therapy program during the early 1970s.[90]:162 After confessing to homosexual feelings they were referred to the BYU Counseling Center where the electroshock aversion therapy took place using pornographic pictures of males and females. Jon, one of the individuals, implied that the treatment was completely ineffective.[91] The experiences match most reports which state that shock therapy was ineffective in changing sexual orientation.[92]

From 1975 to 1976 Max Ford McBride, a student at BYU, conducted electroshock aversion therapy on 17 men (with 14 completing the treatment) using a male arousal measuring device placed around the penis and electrodes on the bicep. He published a dissertation on the use of electrical aversive techniques to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality.[93] The thesis documents the use of "Electrical Aversion Therapy" on 14 homosexual men using a "phallometric" apparatus, "barely tolerable" shocks, and "nude male visual-cue stimuli."[94][95] Although it is not publicly published whether all top LDS Church leaders were aware of the electroshock aversion therapy program,[96] it is known that apostles Spencer Kimball, Mark Peterson, and now apostle Dallin Oaks were,[2]:379 and leaders involved in LDS Social Services thought the therapy was effective.[97][43]:164–165 At the time, homosexuality was considered by the medical community as a psychiatric condition,[98] and aversion therapy was one of the more common methods used to try to cure it.[99] In 1966, Martin Seligman had conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania that demonstrated positive results, which led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community."[100] After flaws were demonstrated in Seligman's experiments, aversion therapy fell out of popularity, and in 1994 the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."[101]

Participant in the 1975-76 BYU study Don Harryman wrote that he experienced "burns on [his] arms and ... emotional trauma."[102][103] Another participant, John Clarence Cameron, who wrote a play called "14" about his experiences, said "it didn’t change anything except increase my self-loathing. I didn’t know the ramifications of the experiment until years later."[104] Cameron stated that he "would like everyone to tell the truth, admit the mistakes that took place, and stop trying to act like it didn't happen"[105] Another one of the test subjects described his experiences, stating "No one wanted to change more than I did. I did everything within my power to change, and it didn't alter my homosexuality one whit. All I had learned to do was suppress much of my personality ... I was shutting down, turning off.... I was making my life miserable by a pervasive denial of who I am."[106]

Additionally, Connell O'Donovan describes the attempts by the University to 'cure' his homosexuality through vomit-inducing aversion therapy as well as electroshock aversion therapy. Val Mansfield and Drew Staffanson also describe undergoing aversion therapy and Raymond King describes his involvement as an intern with the BYU psychology department's electroshock aversion therapy program in the 1996 short documentary Legacies.[107] The documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition also contains an interview wherein Bruce Barton states that BYU coerced him into vomit aversion therapy, as well as electroshock therapy, which later precipitated his suicide attempt.[108] Jayce Cox also reported his experience with BYU shock therapy[109] and suicidal ideation in articles and an MTV documentary.[110][111][112] Scott Burton discusses the burn marks on his wrists he developed when undergoing electroshock therapy from ages 13 to 15 at the hands of a Mormon therapist by request from his Mormon parents.[113]

In 2011 BYU admitted to the past use of electroshock therapy but denies that it had ever used vomit-inducing therapy "in the BYU Counseling Center"[94](which has been in the Wilkinson Student Center since 1964). However, the students that underwent the treatment have stated that the vomit therapy took place in the basement of the Psychology department's Joseph F. Smith Family Living Center (built in 1957, demolished in 2002).[107][114]"

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Even if they push those "goods and services" on their children?  Do you support JW parents refusal to authorize life saving blood transfusions to their children because it goes against their religious freedoms?

To the second question, "No." To the first question, it seems too polemic to warrant a response. But I'm all for the laws in place against parents pushing their children to commit suicide.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I question your premise ("How long has it been since...").

Per FAIR:

So if you have information about the Church "recommend{ing}, or in some cases requir{ing}" aversion therapies, please consider this a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR has been met by Sunstoned above.

The FAIR statement you posted is a laughable dodge.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, toon said:
Quote

I question your premise ("How long has it been since...").

Per FAIR:

So if you have information about the Church "recommend{ing}, or in some cases requir{ing}" aversion therapies, please consider this a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR has been met by Sunstoned above.

Yes.  Apparently the actual source is on page 379 of D. Michael Quinn's "Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example."

I tried to look up the page online, but it's not available.  I'll try to get to the library and sort it out.

15 minutes ago, toon said:

The FAIR statement you posted is a laughable dodge.

How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Im typically just an observer on this site, but I figured it would be a good time to speak up as the media headlines speak nothing of what was actaully said.
 

To Summerize the church's opposition to the rule as found in the LDSFS letter:

1)

The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter:

"Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their
identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... "

2)

The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS.

3)

The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here.

4)

The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter."

5)

Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be:

"If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts":
* Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria)
* Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions)
* Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices.
* Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality)
* Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way)
* Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease.
* Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria.
* Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and
development."

Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule.

If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it.

To say the church is for conversion therapy is groundless and is steeped in personal prejudace against the church or religion in general. If you think this is just a smoke screen and that the church really does love electric shock therapy and demanding homosexuals stop being gay, than at least be honest and tell us that instead of spreading a false harrative that suggests the church is "against bannign conversion therapy".

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Fether said:

Im typically just an observer on this site, but I figured it would be a good time to speak up as the media headlines speak nothing of what was actaully said.
 

To Summerize the church's opposition to the rule as found in the LDSFS letter:

1)

The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter:

"Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their
identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... "

2)

The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS.

3)

The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here.

4)

The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter."

5)

Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be:

"If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts":
* Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria)
* Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions)
* Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices.
* Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality)
* Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way)
* Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease.
* Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria.
* Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and
development."

Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule.

If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it.

To say the church is for conversion therapy is groundless and is steeped in personal prejudace against the church or religion in general. If you think this is just a smoke screen and that the church really does love electric shock therapy and demanding homosexuals stop being gay, than at least be honest and tell us that instead of spreading a false harrative that suggests the church is "against bannign conversion therapy".

Thank you for a very clear explanation of the situation!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fether said:

Im typically just an observer on this site, but I figured it would be a good time to speak up as the media headlines speak nothing of what was actaully said.
 

To Summerize the church's opposition to the rule as found in the LDSFS letter:

1)

The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter:

"Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their
identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... "

2)

The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS.

3)

The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here.

4)

The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter."

5)

Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be:

"If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts":
* Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria)
* Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions)
* Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices.
* Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality)
* Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way)
* Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease.
* Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria.
* Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and
development."

Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule.

If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it.

To say the church is for conversion therapy is groundless and is steeped in personal prejudace against the church or religion in general. If you think this is just a smoke screen and that the church really does love electric shock therapy and demanding homosexuals stop being gay, than at least be honest and tell us that instead of spreading a false harrative that suggests the church is "against bannign conversion therapy".

To the bold:

It's not a choice. The church can't grasp this notion apparently. I don't mind if they want to hold to their religious beliefs, but conversion therapy needs to be wiped off of this planet. Nothing is stopping the church or someone who is gay to get help in lots of different ways. Conversion therapy has proven to cause suicide. Let's just let it go. Therapy to help an individual is great, but therapy to change someone's inclinations or convert them back, is a huge problem because it's proven that it can't be done. The church needs to just back away. They aren't really being held down when it comes to helping in other ways. The law or the ban is specific enough not to tread on the church's toes elsewhere, so I don't know what their problem is, or I do know, but can't understand their inhumane treatment of these human beings, their past quotes are horrendous. Like Elder Bednar once said...and I know the context he said it in, but still think it's wrong of him...to say there aren't gays in the church and a whole slew of other quotes from Pres. Kimball, Pres. Oaks, Pres. Packer to name a few. These leaders quotes and actions are the scourge of a gay individual.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold:

It's not a choice. The church can't grasp this notion apparently. I don't mind if they want to hold to their religious beliefs, but conversion therapy needs to be wiped off of this planet. Nothing is stopping the church or someone who is gay to get help in lots of different ways. Conversion therapy has proven to cause suicide. Let's just let it go. Therapy to help an individual is great, but therapy to change someone's inclinations or convert them back, is a huge problem because it's proven that it can't be done. The church needs to just back away. They aren't really being held down when it comes to helping in other ways. The law or the ban is specific enough not to tread on the church's toes elsewhere, so I don't know what their problem is, or I do know, but can't understand their inhumane treatment of these human beings, their past quotes are horrendous. Like Elder Bednar once said...and I know the context he said it in, but still think it's wrong of him...to say there aren't gays in the church and a whole slew of other quotes from Pres. Kimball, Pres. Oaks, Pres. Packer to name a few. These leaders quotes and actions are the scourge of a gay individual.

Tacenda, as an LGBT member and mental health professional myself, I can say that you are wrong here.  How I live my life is a choice. And if is my choice. It should not be up to a government body to make that choice for me. The Church is not promoting or protecting abusive or harmful practices.  You are parroting popular talking points while completely failing to address the concerns that actually have been raised. 

I agree with your desire to protect against abusive and harmful practices.  Let's actually target those rather than the current proposed language. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Tacenda, as an LGBT member and mental health professional myself, I can say that you are wrong here.  How I live my life is a choice. And if is my choice. It should not be up to a government body to make that choice for me. The Church is not promoting or protecting abusive or harmful practices.  You are parroting popular talking points while completely failing to address the concerns that actually have been raised. 

I agree with your desire to protect against abusive and harmful practices.  Let's actually target those rather than the current proposed language. 

They appear to say that they want to give you a choice on conversion therapy. Kllindley, do you think you could convert back to being non gay? That's my only beef basically. I'm not for taking your right away, just the notion that you can be changed back. I like that you are living openly about it. Not saying you are acting out on that though. And if you were I've no problem. My very active brother in law, who serves in the bishopric has a gay son and his son has a boyfriend. BIL told my husband, his brother, he doesn't expect his son to live a loveless life without a companion, which shocked me, since he is so very true believing in the LDS church. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They appear to say that they want to give you a choice on conversion therapy. Kllindley, do you think you could convert back to being non gay? That's my only beef basically. I'm not for taking your right away, just the notion that you can be changed back. I like that you are living openly about it. Not saying you are acting out on that though. And if you were I've no problem. My very active brother in law, who serves in the bishopric has a gay son and his son has a boyfriend. BIL told my husband, his brother, he doesn't expect his son to live a loveless life without a companion, which shocked me, since he is so very true believing in the LDS church. 

That is the problem for me. I don't know of any licensed mental health professional who performs anything called "conversion therapy.".  The proposed rules would prohibit any licensed mental health professional from working with a client to change any "behaviors" associated with sexual orientation. Should a bisexual person who has dated both men and women be allowed to seek any help from a therapist if they decide they want to settle down with a partner of the opposite sex?  What do you personally believe? 

Because the proposed rule would not allow that.  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They appear to say that they want to give you a choice on conversion therapy.

That is not what their actual comments say. That is only way via media are reporting. The Church clearly explained that they don't want the law to falsely label actual beneficial help "conversion therapy" and then ban it. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They appear to say that they want to give you a choice on conversion therapy. Kllindley, do you think you could convert back to being non gay? That's my only beef basically. I'm not for taking your right away, just the notion that you can be changed back. I like that you are living openly about it. Not saying you are acting out on that though. And if you were I've no problem. My very active brother in law, who serves in the bishopric has a gay son and his son has a boyfriend. BIL told my husband, his brother, he doesn't expect his son to live a loveless life without a companion, which shocked me, since he is so very true believing in the LDS church. 

I don't think the proposed regulation even prohibits conversion therapy. It just prohibits a health professional (therapist) licensed by the state from engaging in the practice. There are all kinds of scientifically unsound practices that health professionals are prohibited from engaging in, by virtue of their license. As much as a patient might choose bloodletting as a treatment to help cure some disease, a doctor's license would likely be in jeopardy if she or he indulged that patient's choice.

I don't see this as about choice. Rather, it's about what the state will allow licensed individuals to do and not due under the auspices of that license.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, toon said:

I don't think the proposed regulation even prohibits conversion therapy. It just prohibits a health professional (therapist) licensed by the state from engaging in the practice. There are all kinds of scientifically unsound practices that health professionals are prohibited from engaging in, b ity virtue of their license. As much as a patient might choose bloodletting as a treatment to help cure some disease, a doctor's license would likely be in jeopardy if she or he indulged that patient's choice.

I don't see this as about choice. Rather, it's about what the state will allow licensed individuals to do and not due under the auspices of that license.

Right. My concern is that they are prohibiting more than the harmful practices. Did you read the matrial from the Reconciliation and Growth Project? That is a group that includes very pro LGBT therapists. They discourage the use of politically charged, inaccurate terms like "conversion therapy."

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They appear to say that they want to give you a choice on conversion therapy. Kllindley, do you think you could convert back to being non gay? That's my only beef basically. I'm not for taking your right away, just the notion that you can be changed back. I like that you are living openly about it. Not saying you are acting out on that though. And if you were I've no problem. My very active brother in law, who serves in the bishopric has a gay son and his son has a boyfriend. BIL told my husband, his brother, he doesn't expect his son to live a loveless life without a companion, which shocked me, since he is so very true believing in the LDS church. 

Keep bashing in the head of that straw man.

MPbX6OD.jpg

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...