Calm

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives. I have been acquainted (mostly online) with a couple of his patients, some very positive and grateful for his work with them even decades later, one who thinks the therapy was highly damaging. There are so many ways this kind of therapy can go wrong and with parents who view homosexuality as a sin, their kid has an uphill battle to come out without a lot of damage. Just think of what it would be like for a kid constantly accused by their parents of being a liar even though they were very truthful, the parents just didn’t like some of what they said, so to protect their own feelings labeled their child a liar. And then they got a therapist to help the child to learn how to be honest…and the therapist accepted the parents were right and when the kid protested, assumed that was just proof they were a liar. Parents are likely to seek out a therapist that agrees with their views. There is way too much negative baggage attached to homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in our culture. Combining those two things means it is way too easy for therapy to help a child decrease homosexual behaviour to go wrong. I am not saying it should never be done, I think when it becomes truly dysfunctional therapy should be an option just as it should be when heterosexual behaviour is damaging. I do believe therapists who do such work should be overseen to ensure their methods are actually helpful (backed by evidence and not just feel good ideas) and not inducing shame, etc. But then I think the counseling field should be more regulated with stronger oversight, including “life coaches” and anyone who puts out themselves as qualified to counsel others for pay. In case anyone thinks I give bishops/clergy a complete free pass here, I do not. I think much more training should take place if we expect our bishops to be counselors given the amount of authority individuals give them. Once a talk moves past a supportive friend helping you talk things through, once authority enters the picture, we should be careful. This is probably the biggest reason I wish we had paid clergy, though it doesn’t weight more for me than the many reasons I appreciate we have unpaid clergy (big ones are more likely avoiding those who are not sincere in their desire to help others, less likely to get those looking for a great career to use for grooming purposes).

My problem is growing up funeral potatoes always had canned green beans in them. Yech!!! The potatoes, soup, and cheese version still ain’t great as generally too much cheese or too much soup (I dislike strongly most cream of canned soups, didn’t have them at home, Mom made almost everything from scratch). Like the potato chip topping.

I agree, but other nonChurch schools were also doing the same sort of research as noted in the Mormonr timeline. One study at BYU that lasted less than a year iirc does not show a pattern of behaviour imo. Now there may have been other studies on changing homosexual attraction not involving aversion therapy, I likely know of one but I can’t remember the exact details, what the dissertation involved. But I also know that particular dissertation referenced studies that were being down at mainstream universities. So while such work aligned with the Church’s goals and that likely helped drive interest, not sure one should conclude the Church was the primary reason those studies (aversion and others) were going on at BYU since it was happening other universities, including aversion therapy studies at the universities of Pittsburgh, Harvard, and Wisconsin-Milwaukee and others iirc.

Yes, I was using aversion therapy in the last paragraph as a broader term used for treatment in a variety of situations while I hope also acknowledging it was used specifically in attempts to decrease homosexual attraction which aspect I include under the larger umbrella of conversion therapy….though now you made me wonder if the sole purpose was to decrease or eliminate and not change to heterosexual attraction if that falls under conversion. It is still change involved or hoped for, so seems likely. Aversion (broad application) therapy has questionable results in almost all areas (short term gains perhaps, lacking in long term and not worth the nontrivial distress). I think the only one there might be some success with is alcohol, but haven’t looked at the research for awhile and don’t remember. Its lack of enduring success and significant harm for some would be a good reason for therapists not to advertised they once used it in their practice even if it was mainstream and quite popular for a time (it was everywhere for weight loss when I was in high school and college).

I was thinking the Church isn’t BYU and somethings that happen at BYU have nothing to do with the Church (you wouldn’t say the Church runs business competitions for students because they occur at BYU….or at least I wouldn’t), but I believe there were bishops that recommended or possibly even required students to undertake whatever happened (heard conflicting stories from those directly involved) as well as references from the BYU Counseling Center, so while I wouldn’t say “the Church practiced conversion therapy” because I don’t believe the individual doing it was hired for that purpose to the best of my knowledge, but maybe “allowed” or “condoned” or at the very least there was no active attempt to stop it from happening. The caveat that what was done according to him was not a fringe treatment at the time, but standard practice can be added for context, but should not be used as an excuse. Though I am only aware of the claims and the defense for aversion therapy at BYU and assume that is what you are talking about. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu https://mormonr.org/qnas/parwO/gay_conversion_therapy_and_byu (Includes a timeline for context, some events I was not aware of) I would be shocked to find out there were not more than 2 LDS psychologists who used aversion therapy in their private practice as well as the semi subset conversion therapy (which involves more than just aversion therapy depending on how it’s defined) and some bishops, maybe many, who advised gay ward members to undergo it, but good to see it’s documented in these.

Which evidences are not necessarily the ones needed for evidence of fraud…such as manuscripts of drafts, for example. These could be easily destroyed. As could any physical evidence of fraud, which is one reason critics often mention Joseph removes the plates completely. The destruction of the plates could easily be achieved by cutting them up enough so they were unrecognizable and dumping them in a lake. For us, any evidence from over 2000 years, 2 hemispheres, etc can be useful. All this “same evidences” available to the critics is useless to them for the most part for a positive narrative. They only have short time period that would be relevant to find positive evidence if the book was a fraud. There is also the problem of documentation of activity. If someone was engaged in fraud would they be likely to intentionally leave records of clandestine meetings, etc as someone not engaged in fraud? The co-conspirators keeping mum is one reason I listed as to why evidence opportunities to prove fraud would likely be limited to very few individuals as opposed to the thousands (millions?) available for defenders to choose from as well as being able to simply depend on made up characters for the narrative. Even if they lacked CCTV in 1830, it would be harder to make a plausible nonexistent player for that time period than for 1500 years before that if only because of expectations (who expects to find birth, marriage, or death records of someone from 400 CE)? Zelph is easier to claim than a scholar who supports the Book of Mormon as true (Anthon didn’t cooperate with it being an authentic text after all, doesn’t prove the text was a fraud, but he’s not the positive proof for Joseph you are requiring from the critics), so it would make sense for Joseph to try to limit engagement with others as much as possible, relying on verbal testimony, providing fewer opportunities for physical evidence to be examined and challenged. Again, none of this should be seen as suggesting the critics are right. I am merely addressing opportunities to create a positive, coherent narrative of a short-term, local fraud involving a few people vs creating a positive narrative being able to shift through thousands of years, practically limitless locations and people looking for plausible connections.

I agree with this, but couldn’t it still occur if an age limit were put on serving. I do think we would miss out on some benefits in some cases, but the losses might be more than compensated for by the gains. I may be wrong here because I am using personal experiences of 80 and older individuals and in all likelihood, the 15 are not typical seniors. There are at the very least significant cognitive benefits to remaining engaged in substantial and meaningful work, both for cognitive and social health and therefore physical health. I do wish for their sake there was a basic health standard though. It must be difficult for these sincere, committed men to struggle with health and on top of that know it’s interfering in your ability to serve. I believe it would be more beneficial to be able to think of it as ‘I have done my best, now it’s time for someone else to have this opportunity’, which needs to happen eventually anyway. Just make it a few years earlier. Inability to serve and support others is the primary regret I have about my health, not the lost opportunities I have had to develop myself and fulfill my dreams—though these hurt deeply—but the sense of loss (and failing when my mind is undisciplined) because I haven’t been able to be in my family and friends’ lives as much as I wanted and expected, especially to give them support and love through their difficulties. These weigh on me and these were optional choices for the most part (by the time it was affecting my family, my kids were adults), not something I see as a full time commitment. I think of Bruce R. McConkie, who even when terminally ill would get dressed in his suit and then lay on his bed too exhausted to do anything else. The drive to serve can be so strong, so much a part of one’s identity permission to rest needs to be something more than just ‘you have done enough, go home and take care of yourself’. Something concrete like a release may be hard on the ego, but if it becomes common the benefit of being able to focus on self care and those immediately around one would be high, imo. https://fontanacomeuntochrist.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie/

I agree with this to a certain extent (not familiar enough with all the critics’ efforts to be draw a definite conclusion), but see it as expected whether or not the text is what it claims to be or a fraud. Therefore, while interesting, it’s not particularly meaningful. While I believe Saints have a good case for plausibility for the text with the evidence gathered so far***, I also think what the critics have to work with is a much more limited set of data even if much closer in time (which helps in ease of collection, but not in margins of error so to speak). That makes their work harder, imo. If one assumes (incorrectly imo) the text is a fraud, they do not have two hemispheres in which they can go looking for potential matches, they have a couple of northeastern states to work with. They don’t have millennia of possibilities to shift through to find parallels, but maybe a decade at most and they have one man and his small entourage as the focus as opposed to the population of the mentioned hemispheres during those millennia. If one assumes the text is a fraud (again I think it an unnecessary and ultimately incorrect assumption, but then I believe in the divine), they have to deal with the intentional hiding or destruction of the very evidence they need by those involved. Just because there is inequality in opportunities to find evidence doesn’t mean we shouldn’t require it of critics for arguments against the text. We shouldn’t give them freebies to balance out the lesser number of opportunities to find plausible evidence and concede they have supplied a solid, plausible, and supported case for the claim of fraud when they haven’t. This search for history is not a game. I am just suggesting acting like the critics have had equal opportunity and therefore it’s highly meaningful and weighs on the scale in favor of the text and the narrative surrounding it being truth because they have failed in collecting substantial and coherent plausible, positive evidence where Saints have been more successful is being unrealistic, imo. The efforts are not that comparable. Smac, while I noticed you added “without heavy speculation” to your criticism (a good call), I haven’t seen you address the issues of the likely comparative difficulty critics would have in finding evidence if the text was a fraud and why they are left to speculate (that would be on Joseph and others trying to hide the alleged fraud to a great extent if they were halfway intelligent, which they were by most credible accounts). Perhaps I missed your rebuttal. ***I, of course, believe the text is revelation though the historicity of the text matters to me in the same way the Bible does, otoh Joseph’s story of finding the plates, etc…I see that as necessary history with the usual caveats of how history is never what actually happened, but perception of events that get altered over time as memories get visited and unintentionally rewritten. I also think examining the text itself and connecting external evidence to it (geographical and other factors) has created a good case for plausibility. When critics resort to relying on traditional interpretations and “plain readings” that require assumptions based on these as their strongest arguments, I find their arguments weak. I also think a conspiracy involving more than a couple of people too likely to be leaked.

Why not found its way on its own later attracted by the plant offerings? Were the beetles carbon dated (I can’t remember if you mentioned this before or not and need to not get too deep into the thread again for now for various reasons).

If so, there is one very large point of historicity that must still stand…there must be a Christ who lived, shed blood, died, and was resurrected for us. I assume you agree with this. If not, can you explain please how our Lord’s shed blood matters if he never actually shed blood?

They need some teacher training on how to choose what to focus on and how to keep it focused.

I do. Is it accurate? Seems like it is to me, especially if one believes God is human. If you want to say that “someone else” is likely confusing to people because most don’t think of God in that terms, I can see that, but to make a blanket statement that use of “someone else” can’t include God as an option…I see that as going too far.

And RLS, lol

But another possible one is these days is fake DNA. Thankfully new tech is helping with that, but if I was a defense lawyer and my client assured me they were innocent, I’d be insisting the more accurate tests be done or the evidence be excluded or at least pull in experts showing the problem. I suspect it’s going to be a chase where new tech makes DNA less reliable, better tech to show synthetic, better fakes…. rinse, repeat. There is also the issue of intentional planting of DNA evidence. And incomplete or forged forensic reports claiming DNA to force confessions or even used in court. https://virginiamercury.com/briefs/ag-virginia-beach-police-forged-dna-evidence-presented-to-court/#:~:text=AG: Virginia Beach,state's Department of Forensic Science. https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-article/colorado-bureau-of-investigation-releases-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into#:~:text=The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is,Affected 652 cases between 2008 and 2023 The person being there is the least complicated scenario and if it’s a smash and grab at a convenience store or other low stakes crime, highest likelihood….but if the stakes were billions in inheritance, fake DNA or planted becomes somewhat more reasonable. Contamination does happen and needs to be considered as a possibility or people will be falsely accused. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/

I think the point that chemical testing was not as precise in the 90s (this was the original test period, yes? Has the testing been replicated with current tech?) and only partial (has there been fuller testing of profiles?) as well needs to be addressed as does lack of replication. Not saying it hasn’t been addressed. (Added looks like chat was inaccurate, I am shocked!!!) Would be interested in seeing documentation that no postmortem chemical decomposition/reactions would produce the same profile as ingestion as given in the rebuttal info I posted as its Chat and I don’t accept its sayso automatically as certain things seem vulnerable to hallucination and this feels like one of them….not that alkaloids break down over time,that is obvious to me, rather that such degraded alkaloids would produce similar enough profiles to ingested nicotine profiles where they wouldn’t if fresh. The ghost plant….I think the fact that the database of African plants is less complete than many places is a valid point. Again, know nothing about this area, so Chat for a guesstimate, which it provided with a disclaimer over lack of precision. If accurate (if 80% to take the smallest number), that is a good amount of plants that haven’t been tested, so could be potential candidates for a “ghost plant”. Not saying every untested plant is a good candidate, but if there are 45-60,000 plants native to Africa, there might be a number of more likely candidates that haven’t been profiled yet. Even just a half dozen is significant. Remember not talking about identical profiles, but cross-reactivity such as with nicotine like structures, Nornicotine or Anabasine or combo or something similar. I wonder how likely false positives are these days and have such more precise tests been done? (Added: if cross reactivity is ruled out due to the more precise test being actually used, then it raises the unlikeliness…but the low rate of tested profiles does seem to still leave open the plausibility windows for me at this point). For me, got to wonder as plants used anciently domestically seem like they would be more likely to have been tested than plants in the wild, so that would drop the percentage of untested plants way down….the claim is use over time, correct, not a one time experiment? Then there are the issues of time and testing…

My apologies for appealing to Chat here, but I know little beyond the basic info here as I never researched this topic since I first encounter it eons ago and that was preinternet and very limited. With this new encounter of your more in depth info, my interest is reawaken. Therefore, I want to know your response to the criticisms I am seeing on this and since I don’t know the details well enough, I would just be repeating someone else’s summary anyway….and I don’t have to time to go looking for a more trustworthy source…so using Chat. If Chat is misrepresenting the info, just say so and I will try and find a human discussing the issues instead later: CHAT: What’s correct… Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine produced by the liver. In modern toxicology, it’s often used as a biomarker of exposure. Where the argument breaks… This assumes a closed biological system, but mummies are anything but: After death, bodies undergo: Microbial activity Chemical degradation Environmental exchange over centuries Studies have shown that: Post-mortem chemical transformations can occur Contaminants can penetrate deeply into tissues (including hair shafts) More importantly: Early 1990s testing (including the work cited) relied on methods like radioimmunoassay, which are: Prone to cross-reactivity (false positives with similar molecules) Less specific than modern GC-MS / LC-MS confirmation protocols 👉 Bottom line: Cotinine suggests exposure, but in ancient remains it is NOT definitive proof of ingestion. ——— Claim: The chemical profile matches American tobacco, not African species like Nicotiana africana. What’s correct… Different Nicotiana species do have different alkaloid profiles. Problems… The claim assumes: The testing fully resolved the alkaloid spectrum (it didn’t, by modern standards) The profile is uniquely diagnostic (it isn’t that clean) Complications: Alkaloid overlap Nicotine is not exclusive to Nicotiana tabacum Other plants (even unrelated ones) contain nicotine or similar alkaloids in small amounts Degradation over time Alkaloids break down and transform over millennia You are not measuring a “fresh plant fingerprint” Incomplete comparative database (especially in the 1990s) African flora was—and still is—under-characterized chemically

Last time I checked, which was years ago l admitt, I couldn’t find a free version online. And I adore my edition that requires a magnifying glass (it even has a little drawer for the glass). It would be like cheating. 😛 I recognized all those issues with Webster’s, but since all I am aiming for is for people to break out of the “plain reading” trap generally speaking, to on occasion think about how Joseph might have understood it reading it with his vocabulary of his century as opposed to ours, not dealing with much else typically, I only need a substantive alternative contemporary to Joseph definition. Webster’s is generally sufficient for my needs. If I need more, it’s Oxford. I am not a linguist and usually leave the technical discussion on the BoM to those with more training except for asking questions, so that need only pops up now and again. Is the link you used the best (only?) source for Oxford online? It would actually be nice to have an alternative since mine is 40 years old. We do get into debates over definitions in my home, so being able to pull out an authoritative up to date source that includes archaic versions is always a plus for me…still a phone lacks the gravitas of a massive text one can barely pick up (it makes a great doorstop when moving as well, much better for the floor and door than a rock). That link was rather confusing at a glance, got to get used to the formatting I guess.

Isn’t the Lord or someone he directed a different “someone” than Joseph?

Why not Mary first and then Peter anticipating he deserved a visit too? I am assuming the theory is contagion and exaggeration (as in multiple people sharing alleged visions).

Webster’s 1828 is full of gaps as should be obvious from the limited number of entries. As I understand it, it was never intended to be comprehensive, but rather to help standardize English, thus giving preference to more educated forms and useful scientific, legal, religious, etc terms. I love Oxford, but dragging out the magnifying glass and typing in the possible entries to post on this board is annoying. I find Webster’s useful enough most of the time for my purpose. I use Webster’s 1828 not to establish definite meaning, but to show plausible alternative meanings, in this case “quarters” possibly referring to “a particular region” of indeterminate size rather than a specified expansive area. Iow, we don’t need to be locked into one so-called “plain reading” (a very, very overused term imo) that is even often based on 20th century usage, not on Joseph’s time period, which one would expect would be the most common source of words if he was the sole author/creator of the text. Webster’s shows even from a naturalistic interpretation of the text, it doesn’t require a hemispheric reading. —— Back to your comments, perhaps I have misunderstood your theory or conflated it with others’, but I understood you see the text covering a range of times, not just a one and done translation from a particular moment when EModE was dominant that is then given to Joseph in some way. You have pointed out words that were prominent and then falling out of usage from different centuries, for example, iirc. So to help clarify your theory for me, could you answer these questions: Do you see Joseph as having no input into word choice, but simply transmitting someone else’s translation? Do you see the language of the dictated text limited to a certain time period? If so, what is the range of that period?

Thank you for answering, normally I would give a rep point, but there’s not really a neutral one and I definitely don’t agree with “too many lies”.

In this I strongly disagree as no one should be required to label oneself as belonging to a faith community when one doesn’t have that faith even if still on the books. It’s just wrong. It’s not a genetic or legal status like citizenship, it’s a voluntary association. If you haven’t resigned because you see that record as meaningless, all the more reason not to use “our”. If you haven’t resigned because of family blowback, I feel bad for you….sincerely. Not being able to be who you are because of others’ expectations, not great. I have had to play that game with my health and stuff at times as I don’t want to be fussed over, given advice that’s irrelevant or worse, or made a project (pretend I am having fun and want to be at a family gathering, for example). I think it would be much harder with a faith because at least I feel decent much of the time and have some extroverted tendencies, so it’s not a complete mask. In addition to the wrongness of it, your use of “our own prophets” makes it appear like you are attempting to position yourself as somehow more credible or somehow having a more substantial status as an insider. I have seen too many people act this way in my life (not just with trying to appear more ‘Mormon’). It’s disconcerting and makes you look deceptive to me. There is no requirement on the board that prevents you from calling yourself an exmormon if that is how you see yourself no matter what anyone else thinks. A name on a paper doesn’t make you LDS in identity. Membership numbers need to be tracked somehow. Decisions need to be made to meet people’s needs, including supporting rectivation efforts, so I don’t see a problem with the Church using those numbers, especially since if someone doesn’t want to be counted, one can contact SL easy enough to get removed, but membership is a different issue than identity. Making claims with absolute numbers as if all are believers is highly problematic though I don’t think there is inherent issues with looking at trends (speed of numbers going up or down).

Considering you think LDS leaders/prophets are consistent liars and have been since the beginning if I remember correctly, why are you identifying with them? Not saying you can’t, just seems very inconsistent with your stated views which come across as condemning and even disdainful of the organization and its leadership.

Being more open doesn’t mean you will actually accept it. Will you ever accept such a claim as truth, really happening?

This seems quite consistent with the ancient Israelite and Jewish practices indicating membership in the community, including converts...though we don’t use circumcision as an indicator of membership for males. There is a ritual immersion which symbolizes rebirth and entry into the faith community. (Obviously Jewish membership would not be seen as accepting the Christian faith in any way…) There is no difference in membership in the community seen between someone born Jewish and those who convert just as there is no difference between those born of a Jewish mother no matter the status of the father as I mention in an above post (that Analytics hasn’t responded to yet and I wish he really would as I am interested in exactly how he views meaningfully and if different from past and current Jewish and LDS practices (seemingly the most relevant cultures we have access to in order to understand Nephite and Lamanite POVs plus doctrinal interpretation of what descent is according to God in the LDS context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.58b.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en