LDS SSA Policies in Context

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Members aren't entitled to know "the details?"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Our ward's bishop knows "details" about all sorts of things that nobody else knows (morality/worthiness issues, fast offerings expenditures, disciplinary issues, family disputes, etc.).  He does sometimes share some details on some issues with his counselors, but then asks that they not share those details with anyone else.  Other times he will share information with the ward council, or with a specific leader in the ward, or with a specific individual in the ward, but then ask that those details be kept in confidence.

Again, Jesus sometimes instructed His followers to not publish information.  That seems axiomatically sensible.

And sometimes publication is delayed.  Again, not a problem for me.

And sometimes things are intended to be published.  To the Church.  To the world.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

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?

I'm not sure anyone here is faulting people for being upset. I will ask you a question that pertains. Would you ever again trust a doctor, psychiatrist, social worker or counsellor (other than a religious leader) who gave you advice in good faith that  at the time was approved and recommended by his peers, but later turned out to be flawed? One would have to decide for oneself and act accordingly.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

There could also be "significant motive{s}" for the Church to not specifically characterize the Proclamation "as a revelation."  And since you are opposed to "baseless speculation," we just have to accept that, right?

So your dispute falls rather flat.

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Until quite recently they went so far as to revise a conference talk that used that word, omitting it from the printed version.

"They went so far" sounds an awful lot like "baseless speculation."

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

In other words, I'm looking at the evidence through the same critical lens that any historical events should be evaluated with.

Not really.  You appear to not be lending any probative weight to the published-to-the-world statement by a first-hand percipient witness as to the origins of the Proclamation.  You are instead implicitly accusing him of lying.  And given what we know of Elder Oaks and his character, those implicit accusations do not seem to be well-founded at all.

What Elder Oaks has to say is competent evidence.  Relevant.  Percipient.  Probative.  And yet you are lending it no weight, or else are disputing it with - to use one fellow's phrase - "baseless speculation."

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

To call it a revelation now is to completely recast it.

And there it is.  Again.  An accusation that Elder Oaks is lying.

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

It's not "clear" in the least.  To the contrary, we have a public statement from a  first-hand percipient witness as to the origins of the Proclamation being a "revelatory process."

And you are disputing that testimony with "baseless speculation."

Thanks,

-SMac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And to add one more thing, did the church end up causing gay marriage to become legal, in their fight against it, bringing it up to the forefront. I've read that it inadvertently did. 

Absolutely.  Prop 8 became known not only throughout the nation but throughout the world.  People got the chance to hear BOTH sides of the argument.  And when either side distorted information, the other side got to answer those distorted beliefs.  In the end, not only did the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage, but the. majority of Americans also sided with gay marriage.  Those numbers continue to grow even amongst church members despite the continued maligning of gay marriage by church leaders as people actually see the good fruit of gay marriage.  Gay couples are just like other couples.  The very human want and need to share a life with someone you love doesn't go away just because some religous leaders think you are sinful.  

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assume that having engaged in homosexual behavior was grounds enough all by itself for expulsion.

That was not the case at least with some of them involved.  I'd recommend you read some of the case histories and personally recorded writings of those involved.

[california boy]

2 hours 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.

Oh please.  He is hardly the only one who has noticed that it took a couple of decades before a general authority called the proclamation a revelation.  He is just the only one that wants to argue against people who aren't really known for accepting reality.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

When we use "revelation" to describe it, we are engaging in presentism, to be clear.

"Presentism": "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts."

Nope, not seeing it here.

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was not how it was described at the time.

Elder Oaks statement to the contrary notwithstanding, eh?

What "we" call it is not really the point.  What a percipient first-hand witness calls it matters.  A lot.

And your response to that witness' testimony is to cast aspersions on it.  To implicitly accuse the witness of lying.

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Elder Oaks, a percipient witness to the origins of the Proclamation, has stated that the Proclamation came through a "revelatory process."  I'm going to go with that, rather than with "baseless speculation."

I have been listening to Elder Oaks for many years.  I have a measure of the man.  I trust him.

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think what is meant by the term revelation is rapidly broadening in church parlance.

I don't.  Joseph Smith used "revelation" to describe a broad spectrum of efforts and methods to communicate with God and discern His will.

This is just another implicit accusation against Elder Oaks.  That he is dishonestly stretching the meaning and usage of "revelation" to cover events and experiences that are not revelatory.

We get it.  

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Huh.  For someone supposedly averse to "baseless speculation," you sure do seem to trot it out quite a bit yourself.

And I disagree with your characterization about what "revelation used to mean."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

I don't know without looking into that.  I know a few of the psychiatrist's names of those involved at BYU who were some of the driving forces behind doing these trials with the students (Payne was one of the names, iirc....).  I don't have time to pull out all my references, but will try if you're interested in knowing more about that.

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure anyone here is faulting people for being upset. I will ask you a question that pertains. Would you ever again trust a doctor, psychiatrist, social worker or counsellor (other than a religious leader) who gave you advice in good faith that that at the time was approved and recommended by his peers, but later turned out to be flawed? One would have to decide for oneself and act accordingly.

Going to a bishop and going to a doctor are not portrayed as being the same thing for the member. One is supposed to have keys to receive revelation on behalf of the member.

Nevertheless, I think your point of view is correct, if I state it properly, that the bishop is doing the best he can with the very human, fallible materials he receives from the brethren.

Members shouldn't blindly trust their leaders, ever, and perhaps should avoid counseling with local leaders because the member can't expect any inspiration any more than they can expect it from any outsider.  Is this the lesson members should take away from this?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  He is hardly the only one who has noticed that it took a couple of decades before a general authority called the proclamation a revelation.  He is just the only one that wants to argue against people who aren't really known for accepting reality.

Wow.  So much for efforts at civility, eh?

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours 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.

More than just a restatement....a reaffirmation that brought all the doctrines on the family and sexual activity and focuseed them on on the current world situation, with a prophetic warning, call to repentance, and unambiguous declaration of doctrine. All within the scope and calling of the Apostolic (Priesthood) office and well within our concept of what modern prophets are supposed to be doing.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Oh, I agree that was part of it....of course.  But there was so much more involved here that it really can't be simplified down to just this.  I can't stress enough how important it would be for you to do some more reading and research regarding what really took place here.  Of course, I can't force anyone to do that and I acknowledge not everyone is interested enough to do that.  However, I think it's wrong to do what you're trying to do here.

We can just agree to disagree if that's the simplest or if you don't want to look into this or devote the time to it.  I have a lot of sources, if you are interested.  It's just with the holidays (company coming into town today), it would take me awhile to pull out my files and find them all for you.  Let me know....

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In fact, I would declare that a dichotomony between "inspired" and "revelatory" is contrived in any context. If anything, inspiration is sub genre under the broader heading of revelation.

Good to know that you think an inspiring pep talk to the football team right before the game is about par with a revelation declared by church leaders.  Or a speech given in Washington by MLK is a revelation from God.  I tend to agree.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Members shouldn't blindly trust their leaders, ever,

Quite so.  The Church has repeatedly taught against the notion of "blind trust."

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and perhaps should avoid counseling with local leaders because the member can't expect any inspiration any more than they can expect it from any outsider.  

Oh, brother.  

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Is this the lesson members should take away from this?

If this question was being asked in good faith, I would respond in kind.  But it's not, so I can't.

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Well, I'm not most people, so apologies for taking you literally. Does God hold us responsible for acting with good will, but having a bad outcome?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I'm not most people, so apologies for taking you literally. Does God hold us responsible for acting with good will, but having a bad outcome?

I certainly hope so. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Going to a bishop and going to a doctor are not portrayed as being the same thing for the member. One is supposed to have keys to receive revelation on behalf of the member.

Nevertheless, I think your point of view is correct, if I state it properly, that the bishop is doing the best he can with the very human, fallible materials he receives from the brethren.

Members shouldn't blindly trust their leaders, ever, and perhaps should avoid counseling with local leaders because the member can't expect any inspiration any more than they can expect it from any outsider.  Is this the lesson members should take away from this?

Well, yes. There is implicit trust that a doctor will "do no harm" and act in the best interested of the patient by following approved practices and procedures.  Of course mistakes are made, and if negligence of ill-will can be proven, the doctor will pay a price. If a bishop is acting on approved medical practices in dealing with

a member's issues, was he negligent? Is he to be condemned? If I as a bishop recommended a member seek medical help for a certain issues, based on current and approved medical practice, for example, cancer treatment, and the treatment fails and the patient suffers and dies, am I as the bishop remiss in my advice? Should I be held to accountable? Should I have had inspiration to know that the treatment would fail or cause more harm? 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I'm not most people, so apologies for taking you literally. Does God hold us responsible for acting with good will, but having a bad outcome?

"A bad outcome"?  Two of the students involved in these electroshock treatments ended up committing suicide soon afterwards.  Once again, you continue to way over simplify what took place here, Bernard.  I'm not saying that these experiments or trials were the only reason they killed themselves, but if you'd take the time to read their histories, you'd see they greatly contributed and caused tremendous harm to many of these young boys.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, yes. There is implicit trust that a doctor will "do no harm" and act in the best interested of the patient by following approved practices and procedures.  Of course mistakes are made, and if negligence of ill-will can be proven, the doctor will pay a price. If a bishop is acting on approved medical practices in dealing with

a member's issues, was he negligent? Is he to be condemned? If I as a bishop recommended a member seek medical help for a certain issues, based on current and approved medical practice, for example, cancer treatment, and the treatment fails and the patient suffers and dies, am I as the bishop remiss in my advice? Should I be held to accountable? Should I have had inspiration to know that the treatment would fail or cause more harm? 

Should the member ever seek advice from a fallible bishop? If so, in what areas? Members went to see their bishops in the 80's and were given the wrong advice based on the outdated pamphlet. Given these mistakes, shouldn't the member be leary of asking a bishop advice, especially since E. Ballard admitted the obvious that leaders aren't experts?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

"A bad outcome"?  Two of the students involved in these electroshock treatments ended up committing suicide.  Once again, you continue to way over simplify what took place here, Bernard.  I'm not saying that these experiments or trials were the only reason they killed themselves, but if you'd take the time to read their histories, you'd see they greatly contributed.

About 25 years ago, a friend of mine went to see his bishop about my friend’s struggling with same-sex attraction. The bishop, who was a therapist, told this young man that the church would counsel him to try to overcome his desires. But, the bishop said, he could predict with certainty that such efforts would be unsuccessful. In that case, the church would counsel him to remain celibate and avoid close relationships with other men. He then said, “But you will be unhappy and put yourself through unimaginable suffering.” Instead, he advised him to be true to himself and find someone to love and share his life with. The church might change eventually, but he couldn’t in good conscience ask him to wait for that day. My friend said his bishop saved his life. 

Sometimes good people are able to rise above the current societal consensus and make a difference. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know without looking into that.  I know a few of the psychiatrist's names of those involved at BYU who were some of the driving forces behind doing these trials with the students (Payne was one of the names, iirc....).  I don't have time to pull out all my references, but will try if you're interested in knowing more about that.

Would not common sense dictate that approved medical practices and therapies, though later found to be faulty, were part of the required university training, licensing, and certifying that was by  prescribed and conducted by regular faculties, boards, regents, agencies, and that the legitimate practitioners and staff got their training in prestigious and certified medical schools, hospitals, clinics, residencies, etc? Or did the BYU folks just invent this out of thin air in opposition to what the training schools were teaching in order to torment homosexual students?  In the OP, one of the reviews discusses the relative history of such people (non-LDS) believing homosexuality was a moral failing, a sin, a weakness, a curable mental condition, and acting in good faith on what was thought to be effective remedies? Should BYU practitioners be singled out and vilified because they followed the mainstream, while everyone else gets a pass, or shall we assert that they were the only ones who engaged in what we now consider faulty and harmful practices? Surgeons removed part of my knee structure in 1966 that eventually resulted in some pretty severe difficulties for me, ending in knee-replacement surgery....which all could been avoided had they known modern techniques that would have fixed things easily are relatively painlessly. Should I be angry at them?

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I certainly hope so. 

Then there is no hope for any of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That was not the case at least with some of them involved.  I'd recommend you read some of the case histories and personally recorded writings of those involved.

Well, I'm probably not going to go on that fishing expedition, so if you're interested in showing "that was not the case at least with some of them," you'll have to document it.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Then there is no hope for any of us.

I misread you. I thought you meant he would forgive us when we acted in good faith.