Jump to content

rockpond

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rockpond

  1. I've only watched the first episode. I think @jkwilliams critiques are accurate but it's drawing me in and I'll keep watching. I never read Krakauer's book. Warning: It's Hulu and there is some brief female nudity at the end of episode one. I do wish they'd leave that out -- a different camera angle wouldn't have changed the scene at all. My questions though: In that timeframe, did Utah church members let talk of the church infuse THAT MUCH of their dialogue? I spend most of my time almost entirely with LDS people and nobody talks about the church or God as much as the people in this movie. Was there a time when we (LDS) prayed with our hands clasped and held up in front of our chests? As long as I've been a member, nearly everyone either folds their arms or clasps/rests their hands in their laps. I know this is a small detail but it makes me feel that the director didn't bother to sufficiently observe LDS people. Spend one Sunday at an LDS church and you'd know what we do with our arms/hands while praying.
  2. There are certainly many gay men who "remain true to gospel covenants". I imagine that @MustardSeed's comment was highlighting the observation that those who go public with their situation seem more likely to leave the church then to stay in.
  3. Looking at my little corner of Colorado, I can tell you that all of the "Special Purpose" properties are existing meetinghouses. And if that's true across the board then, according to @JustAnAustralian's pivot table, about half of the market value of the Church's real estate portfolio is church buildings. The only other "dots" in my area are "Vacant Land" and I've been told from a very reliable source in SLC that that particular property has been earmarked for the Temple Department. I don't expect an announcement anytime soon though. We still have seats to fill in our other two temples and the third was announced for the Western part of the state.
  4. I think it's the belief that new pronouncements are indicative of prophetic revelation. And, as a people, we love prophetic revelation. That said, I think we should also be happy when conference is reminder to work on the simple gospel principles that we already have, with nothing new. Side note: Didn't President Nelson (or someone) make a request to *not* cheer when new temples are announced?
  5. I think the right/wrong dichotomy in your statements is where you may be getting tripped up in understanding those who hold positions different than yours. Consider that the prophets may be simply working with the most/best that has been revealed and that continuing revelation will restore additional truths.
  6. Position 3: Continuing revelation. ^ Maybe that overlaps with #2. Or maybe it's just a less cynical version of #2. But it's a fair position for people to hold.
  7. The policy/doctrine/revelation distinction is basically worthless at this point. Teachings throughout the history of the church have been changed whether they were prophetically deemed policy, doctrine, revelation, unchangeable, eternal, etc. Many of the old timers here probably recognize me as I was pretty passionate on this topic some years back. Haven't participated much in recent years. I'm still a very active member but saddened that about half of my extended family have distanced themselves from the church. The leaders' LGBT teachings are a primary reason why. I figure that nothing is going to change as long as Pres. Oaks is alive and I assume he'll continue to beat this same drum in at least one conference every year. I continue to believe that we are a couple decades away from gay marriage being fully accepted in the Church. I suspect, by that time, very few of the rising generation in my extended family (40 nieces/nephews) will still have the church as a significant part of their life. It will be too little, too late.
  8. When I traveled to England (2011), if you visited the Gadfield Elm Chapel when it wasn't staffed, you could access it by a key pad on the door. To get the code, you were given a series of questions with numerical answers designed to test you for a minimal knowledge of LDS teachings. Questions like: How many books with the name of Nephi in the Book of Mormon? And, what is the age of accountability? It was a fun way to access the building with my kids. If anyone is there, I highly recommend visiting - it's worth touring. And, bring a picnic lunch as the grounds are beautiful and peaceful. *All info above is over a decade old so take it for what it's worth.
  9. I guess there's no chance that we'll get a published statement from him to correct the record and state that he wasn't aware that there was at least one study with aversion therapy going on during his tenure as President. Another statement from President Oaks that is getting some criticism is the one where he said that the Church "does not try to make rules for all of society". That seems to be the case over the last few years but it certainly wasn't the case during the Prop 22 and Prop 8 battles. Hopefully his new statement will be a guideline for the way the Church approaches these issues in the future.
  10. What I gather from the posts here and other sources I read is that: Electrical aversion therapy (McBride study) was likely happening at BYU in the 70's We don't have enough info to determine if Pres. Oaks knew about it at the time. Two other interesting points, that seem less in dispute: Pres. Oaks admits that aversion therapy was being done at BYU prior to Oaks' term as university president. When it comes to LGBTQ issues, Pres. Oaks is comfortable giving different messages to different audiences. As I understand it, he now feels that in addresses to the general public, he must be more accepting of the LGBTQ community. What I wish he had said in answer to the question: Aversion therapy was, prior to my time as university president, used to treat lesbian and gay BYU students. While these forms of therapy were also being used elsewhere, we deeply regret the Church and University's support of such practices and apologize to those whose lives were negatively impacted. Such aversion therapies may have continued within the BYU community both during and after my time as president, albeit without the knowledge or approval of the university administration. We are saddened by this but have denounced such practices and done all in our power to end them within the Church community.
  11. Here is the HBLL bibliographic record of the McBride study: https://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/pcnum/387154
  12. Also, the SLTrib has an article on it that, per the title, claims to have records showing Pres. Oaks statement to be false but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone here has access and wants to return and report.
  13. The twitter thread linked by @Tacenda listed their data. They did not provide links but here are what Lambda Law Alliance tweets stated: The first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported in 1972. BYU psychology professor, Allen Bergin, mentioned the practice again in a July 1973 article. In 1976, BYU clinical psychology professor, Max Ford McBride, performed an experiment on 17 gay, male students involving the use of electroshock therapy and vomiting and odor aversion. Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.
×
×
  • Create New...