LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Beats me. I'm not the one who is insisting there's no evidence that the brethren approved of these programs. 

And if they did, were they following accepted and recommended medical and scientific practices?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why are you the only one I've seen who is fussing over it?

It was self-evident and axiomatic from the very first to those of us who were receptive to it that it was prepared and given out under inspiration from God.

Do you declare every restatement of doctrine in new manuals of the church to be a revelation? If not, why not? What's the difference?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

And if they did, were they following accepted and recommended medical and scientific practices?

I think we've already agreed on that. I just find it odd that someone would demand documentary proof that (at least some of) the brethren approved this program. As I said, the alternative is believing that BYU ran a clandestine operation for years without telling the brethren. I find that extremely unlikely. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  And yet when Elder Oaks describes the origins of the Proclamation as "revelatory," critics and gainsayers throw a collective hissy fit.

"Revelation" has now been applied to the Proclamation, and yet faultfinders abide in their position.  

For me, I am persuaded that the Brethren are not declining in their "spiritual gifts" at all.  To the contrary, I think they are doing a very good job.

However, I am also persuaded that there are some other folks in the Church who seem to be demonstrating "declining spiritual gifts."  I will keep such assessments to myself and those within my stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

When we use "revelation" to describe it, we are engaging in presentism, to be clear. That was not how it was described at the time.

However, I'm comfortable using the term for at least selected parts of the proclamation, even though I don't think anyone received a message from God about it. I think what is meant by the term revelation is rapidly broadening in church parlance.

Maybe that's why no one used the term about the proclamation for so long - revelation used to mean something much narrower and more specific.

 

[Exiled]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  Imperfect in what sense?

I mean that the family proclamation is subject to being falsified or changed if further light and knowledge come.  Perhaps it'll change when homosexuality is found, conclusively, to be biological (as seems to be where science is heading if not already there)?  This is what I mean by an imperfect document.

So, do you think the members should take everything the brethren say with a grain of salt? 

How about this issue: How do we know what the commandments really are?  Imperfect men wrote the commandments, so maybe they really aren't commandments but just merely advice like your grandfather would give or maybe mistakes of men?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Exiled

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, but this sounds like you’re describing yourself (“*yawn*”) and others here with that attitude too.  If it’s a topic you’re not comfortable with, that’s fine, but you are not showing “thoughtfulness” or compassion for the people who were deeply hurt by what took place.  It actually came through as “apathy”, to be honest.  Have you read any of the writings of those who were actually involved?  It’s very difficult to read them and not care or feel sorrow and empathy for them.  I agree with others here that these experiments didn’t happen through inspiration from God.

This is a separate issue. The OP provides the context for the actions of the Church and shows it was following accepted and recommended scientific and medical practices. I don't know anyone who would not feel empathy or sorrow for what they experienced. My grandfather had an awful experience with a surgery that today would be considered barbaric. But to blame the doctors (or the Church) for acting on what was considered correct at the time is not helpful. 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wouldn't call it either of those. I would say it's representative of the position of the church at the time...

Yep, that is right.  It was representative of the church's position at the time. Not every position of the church is by revelation.  Any attempt to claim that it was something more, is a straw-man attempt at undercutting the credibility of the prophets. 

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

What do you mean when you say, "members should believe that church leaders are inspired"?  You mean, like...permanently?  Like a super-human continual state of inspiration and revelation and certainty?  Like they don't make any mistakes?  No, I don't believe that we should hold every policy and procedure as "inspired".   I don't believe in blind faith.  I don't believe in spiritual co-dependence.  I believe in spiritual self-reliance.

That's the rub, isn't it?  When are they inspired and when are they not?  They don't explicitly tell us, usually, because they like to have some wiggle room in case of mistakes, in my opinion.  Elder Oaks says the family proclamation was revelatory.  Do you agree?  Could it be subject to change in the future or is it an infallible document?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't have any words to respond to this. 

You better not! LOL

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'll look for my sources (I'll have to dig through some boxes as I did pretty extensive research on this at one time), but general authorities referred students for this electroshock program.  We also have first hand statements from those involved stating they went in to speak with apostles (Spencer W. Kimball is one that is named) and were told by them about this treatment to cure them and then they were referred by the apostle to those at BYU running the treatments.

I believe (iirc) it was Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen who were the two mostly involved (and Dallin Oaks of course...but he wasn't an apostle at that time).  This makes sense because they were the two who were "appointed to assist" over this "important phase of the church work" at that time.

Here's some on this (I do have many of the sources in the footnotes and will try to locate them, if you're interested):

 

Quote

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.[83][38]

Is it possible they were following what at the time were recommended and approved medical procedures? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

You better not! LOL

This is one of those times I need to hold my tongue. Carry on.

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

When we use "revelation" to describe it, we are engaging in presentism, to be clear. That was not how it was described at the time.

However, I'm comfortable using the term for at least selected parts of the proclamation, even though I don't think anyone received a message from God about it. I think what is meant by the term revelation is rapidly broadening in church parlance.

Maybe that's why no one used the term about the proclamation for so long - revelation used to mean something much narrower and more specific.

 

This is what President Hinckley said when he introduced the proclamation in September, 1995:

"With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:"

This sounds like it is merely a restatement of policy, maybe of past revelations, in his opinion, but a policy statement nonetheless.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

For that I'm thankful. I think we can all agree that the experiments with aversion therapy were not successful and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering. As they said, the road to hell ...

Are you saying that those who were involved in common and recommended practices will be condemned to hell? Does that extend to other areas of behavior?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure there has been any change in "how church leaders saw it."  

In any event, we have first-hand testimony from a percipient witness to the origins of the Proclamation.  And yet you seem to be disputing his recitation.  And that dispute does not seem to be based on competent, probative evidence, but on . . . something else.  Am I wrong?

My dispute is based on the fact that despite significant motive for the church to publish this as a revelation if that had been what it was considered to be, they never once referred to it as such. Until quite recently they went so far as to revise a conference talk that used that word, omitting it from the printed version.

In other words, I'm looking at the evidence through the same critical lens that any historical events should be evaluated with. To call it a revelation now is to completely recast it. The term we tend to use for that here is presentism. That's fine, given that our definition of the word revelation has changed. But it's clear at least that the prophet at the time didn't consider it to be a revelation.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (emphasis added):

Let's look at the four listed above:

(1) Proclamation of the First Presidency on January 15, 1841, at Nauvoo, Illinois

From the EOM: "This document, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith, reviews the progress of the Church in spite of hardships and persecution, and speaks at length on the prospects of the settlement of Nauvoo, as the following excerpts illustrate."

You seem to think it is problematic for the Church in 2017 to not give much attention to an 1841 proclamation about, among other things, the settlement of Nauvoo.  But surely you can see that some proclamations are designed to have, proverbially speaking, a "limited shelf life"?

(2) Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles on April 6, 1845, in New York City, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England

From the EOM: "The Proclamation of 1845 was issued by the Twelve only, because at that time there was no First Presidency due to the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, and a new First Presidency was not organized until December 1847. The Proclamation was apparently made in response to a revelation given January 19, 1841 ( D&C 124:1-11). It was first printed in a sixteen-page pamphlet in New York City on April 6, 1845, and again in Liverpool, England, October 22, 1845. It was addressed to the rulers and people of all nations. This document was an announcement that God had spoken from the heavens and had restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. It spoke of blessings and of punishments to come, issued a warning voice, and invited all who were interested to assist in the building of the kingdom of God on the earth in preparation for the Savior's second coming. On October 3, 1975, President Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of this Proclamation and quoted portions of it in his general conference address (Ensign 15 [Oct. 1975]:32-34). Extracts from the 1845 Proclamation follow. "

So I could see how this Proclamation could have a longer shelf life.  However, I can also see reasons why the Brethren presiding today would not give it emphasis.  The day may come when the leaders of the now-worldwide Church may choose to re-publish and emphasize remarks about "blessings and of punishments to come."  But can you accommodate the possibility that  they may have perfectly valid reasons to not emphasize such things now?

(3) Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City, Utah

From the EOM: "This document was issued to members of the Church to correct certain theories about the nature of God that had been published by one of the Twelve in official Church literature, without having those statements cleared and verified by the First Presidency and the Twelve.  An apparent major purpose of this Proclamation was to emphasize the established order of the Church, that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency."

Hmm.  This seems to have been re-stated in various ways over the lifetime of the Church.

And the Proclamation, having been announced by the First Presidency, seems to fit within its intended message.

(4) Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 6, 1980, issued from Fayette, New York

From the EOM: "This document was put forth in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the organization of the Church. On Sunday, April 6, 1980, a portion of the Sunday morning session of General Conference was broadcast from the newly reconstructed Peter Whitmer, Sr., home in Fayette, New York. President Spencer W. Kimball spoke briefly of the organization of the Church that had occurred on that very spot of ground. He then announced that the Church had a proclamation to declare."

This one seems to be more about memorializing an event then propounding a significant point of doctrine.

More information on "proclamations" by the LDS Church is available here.

Well, in a sense.  See, e.g., here:

So if by "political document" you are referring to a message "meant to reach beyond the scope of Church membership ... 'to the world,'" then I quite agree with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Great information, thanks.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you saying that those who were involved in common and recommended practices will be condemned to hell? Does that extend to other areas of behavior?

Not at all. Just saying that sometimes good intentions lead to bad outcomes. I thought most people understood the meaning of that phrase.

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think we've already agreed on that. I just find it odd that someone would demand documentary proof that (at least some of) the brethren approved this program. As I said, the alternative is believing that BYU ran a clandestine operation for years without telling the brethren. I find that extremely unlikely. 

So, if some of the brethren approved the program and they were following current scientific and medical thought, where does that leave us? That they should have known better?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

So, if some of the brethren approved the program and they were following current scientific and medical thought, where does that leave us? That they should have known better?

Why would they have known better? 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/ScientificExamination.pdf

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/GayRightsPatientRights.pdf

http://www.nclrights.org/bornperfect-the-facts-about-conversion-therapy/

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/gay-conversion-therapy

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-scot/shock-the-gay-away-secrets-of-early-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/115/529/1417

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0022913

http://time.com/3705745/history-therapy-hadden/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542019

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/uk-psychiatrists-have-issued-an-historic-admission-of-the?utm_term=.fjlvzeGNN#.wvKMjGLzz

I know the intended narrative of some folks in this thread is to vilify the LDS Church because of this therapeutic method was used at BYU.  I understand such indignation.  

However, neither BYU nor the LDS Church invented this form of therapy.  So headlines like ABC's "Mormon Gay Cures and Reparative Therapies Still Shock Today"  seem fairly misleading (particularly where the article goes on to state that "Psychologists confirm those harsh experiments were used in a variety of medical settings by scientists of all faiths.").

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is the point of the OP....critics ignore the context in their efforts to vilify the Church and its leaders.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This is what President Hinckley said when he introduced the proclamation in September, 1995:

"With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:"

This sounds like it is merely a restatement of policy, maybe of past revelations, in his opinion, but a policy statement nonetheless.

Exactly.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, that is right.  It was representative of the church's position at the time. Not every position of the church is by revelation.  Any attempt to claim that it was something more, is a straw-man attempt at undercutting the credibility of the prophets. 

When you say, "by revelation", what do you mean?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which is the point of the OP....critics ignore the context in their efforts to vilify the Church and its leaders.

It’s part of our job description to vilify. 

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which is the point of the OP....critics ignore the context in their efforts to vilify the Church and its leaders.

Let me ask you this, because this is what eats at me:  Given the context of how this bad policy was given out to the "struggling" member, in a bishop's interview/counseling session, where members are encouraged to believe that the bishop's counsel is from above and inspired, should the member be faulted for believing the advice given was inspired when it was not and should the member be faulted for being upset when he/she finds out that the advice was never meant to be automatically trusted as "inspired" advice?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Exiled

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, you have no idea how many other universities were performing these treatments on their gay students back then?

I'd have to say that I doubt it was happening on many other campuses, but don't know for sure.  In doing a google search for "electroshock therapy for gays university", the top 4 results include 3 about BYU.  I can't find any other references to other Universities who were conducting these at that time.  

I tend to think most of these treatments took place in private with a person's psychiatrist. 

What took place at BYU (especially with how students were encouraged to spy on each other and turn students in who may be gay) wasn't going on anywhere else. 

Could we agree that all those non-LDS psychiatrists, psychologists, board members, hospital administrators, researchers and developers, doctors, counsellors, technicians, social scientists, and anyone else involved got their training and ideas on some campus other than BYU?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

From a secular standpoint, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage.  I see more wrong with the government being the sponsor of what is essentially a religious rite.  Couples, or more than couples, ought to be free to enter into compacts for community property and child rearing rights.  Given DNA science, there is no longer a historical need for marriage to presume paternity.

From a religious standpoint, religions ought to be free from criticism from persons without standing, outsiders and nonbelievers, who say that churches ought to be transparent with their finances, remove homosexuality from the list of sins, ordain women to be priests, remove the requirement that women sit on one side and men on on the other, remove restrictions against women from working and driving (Shephardim) and the like.  I mean, what is fundamentally wrong with Christians and Muslims believing and teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin?   Certainly, the patristic  writers without exception believe so.   If you don't like it, don't pay attention to what others believe  in their religious practices.    Why let it dominate your scholarly  thought?   What's the point?

If I want to work for Amway, I ought to be entitled to do so without constant harping and criticism from the collective you.

I absolutely agree with all that you wrote.  And I think that most people also agree.  I see little effort from those outside the church pushing for transparency with church finance, removal of homosexuality from the list of sins or ordaining women.  Certainly there are some, but there always will be some.  Too bad the church doesn't have those same opinions when they try to push their beliefs on gay couples.  Fortunately most of what they have tried has ultimately failed.

[smac97]

On 12/20/2017 at 12:20 PM, Gray said:

The omission goes against the interests of the church.

So did telling the man healed of leprosy to not tell anyone.  And yet...

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

I have a fairly fundamental level of trust in the Brethren.  I give them the benefit of the doubt.  I generally defer to them as to matters within their stewardship. 

I'm not inclined to secondguess matters that seem to fall squarely within the parameters of their reasonably-exercised authority and discretion.

If they make mistakes here and there, I'm okay with that.  At the end of the day I am persuaded that they are good and decent men who strive to discern and obey the will of God.  I am further persuaded that the priesthood authority and the Gifts of the Spirit remain in the Church.

Quote

Do you have any evidence that anyone was instructed to keep a revelation connected with the proclamation quiet? If not, let's not engage in baseless speculation.

Oh, man.  The irony.

Quote

I certainly haven't accused anyone of lying. But you've accused me of making that accusation more than once. Why, I can't say.

Elder Oaks has declared to the Church that the Proclamation arose from a "revelatory process."  You seem to be disputing that characterization.

Elder Oaks was a percipient, first-hand witness to how the Proclamation came to be.  His testimony is relevant and reliable and probative.  And yet you seem to be casting aspersions on it.

Elder Oaks does not appear to be mentally infirm (and since you are opposed to "baseless speculation," I must conclude that you agree with me on that point).  So either Elder Oaks was telling the truth, or he was not.  You seem to be suggesting, in a roundabout way, that he is not:

Quote

 

Pogi: "I am not aware of any claims of revelation in regards to the topic at hand."

You: "Same goes for things like the Proclamation, right? Is that important or not? Hard to keep track."

___

Scott: "It mystifies me that anyone could think the proclamation was not prepared and issued under revelation."

You: "'Retrospective revelation'"

___

Pogi: "Actually, I am aware of claims with that one.  President Nelson {EDIT: I think he meant Elder Oaks} claimed that it was received by revelation."

You: "Retrospectively. No one involved at the time was making that claim."

___

Pogi: "Californiaboy suggested that the pamphlet was 'revelation' and 'dogma', and because we know now that it was bad practice, we therefore cannot trust the brethren as revelators.  Do you disagree with my reply that, no, it was neither received by revelation or as dogma?  If someone claimed that it was revelation, then we might have reason to distrust that person who made the claim, but there is no claim.  It was nothing more than a mistaken policy.  It was not revelation or dogma.  The Proclamation has already been in circulation longer than the pamphlet was.  If people can build this pamphlet up to the level of revelation, scripture, or dogma, it becomes easy for them to dismiss the prophets as genuine revelators.  That simply is not going to work in this case. "

You: "A lot of doctrines of the church have no one claiming they were received by revelation. That was kind of my point."

___

Smac97: "It seems that you are implicitly accusing Pres. Nelson of dishonesty.  Is that so?"

You: "The significance is it wasn't seen as a revelation until recently. That's what retrospectively means. It's been reinterpreted."

___

You: "But the only references to it being a revelation or 'revelatory' are all recent. That means it has only come to be seen this way recently."

___

Smac97: "I think many (most?) active and observant Latter-day Saints have looked on the Proclamation as an inspired/revelatory document.  Pres. Oaks simply confirmed and clarified what most/many of us already believed."

You: "It's significant that no one was using that kind of language at the time."

___

Smac97: "I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the leaders of the Church?  How do you account for..."

You: "Thanks for the timeline - I appreciate the effort. Note that not one of your examples applies the word 'revelation' to the proclamation."

___

Scott: "This is the first I've heard of this notion that it was not regarded as revelatory until later."

You: "It obviously wasn't. If it had been regarded that way, they would have said something about it. It's a significant omission that tells us the talk about revelation is applied retroactively."

 

Elder Oaks has asserted that the Proclamation arose from a "revelatory process" in 1994-1995.  You are asserting that "it obviously wasn't {regarded as revelatory in 1994-1995}" because "they {the Brethren} would have said something about it."

So Elder Oaks is asserting X, and you are asserting Not X.

An assertion of Not X, in the absence of mental illness, is an implicit accusation that Elder Oaks is lying in his characterization of the origins of the Proclamation.

The assertion that "it's significant that no one was using that kind of language at the time" is predicated on an implicit accusation of dishonesty (since that is really the only way the absence of "that kind of language at the time" would be "significant").

The assertion that the revelatory origins of the Proclamation are of recent derivation ("the only references to it being a revelation or 'revelatory' are all recent ... that means it has only come to be seen this way recently") is predicated on an implicit accusation that Elder Oaks is revising history.  That he is lying in his explanation as to the origins of the Proclamation.

The scare quotes you put around "'Retrospective revelation'" denote cynicism.  Disbelief.  In what Elder Oaks has stated.  In other words, they denote that he was lying.

This doesn't even seem like a close call.  Of course you are implicitly accusing Elder Oaks of lying.  There is no other way to read your various remarks on this point.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2017 by smac97