LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well that is fine and certainly your choice.  But don't pretend that Gray is the only one who highly doubts claims of revelation 20 years after the event.  

Never said he was. Only that he is wrong.

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My first roommate at BYU was homosexual. There were some uncomfortable experiences the first few months, but I didn't think I had to report him to anyone. We traded roommates after a couple of months and were both much more comfortable.

 

About 45 years ago Sister Gui and I participated in the miraculous conversion of a remarkable young man we picked up hitchhiking in Wyoming. Several years later he served a mission, during which time he had some very bad experiences because he was secretly gay. On his return, he left the Church in bitterness and fully embraced the lifestyle. He contracted HIV and experienced severe debilitating consequences that persist today. He is blessed to still be alive after seeing a number of friends perish. After a number of years, he came to himself, returned the Church passing through the repentance process, became an active participant in Evergreen and North Star, has served and is serving in a number of very responsible priesthood callings, is supportive of the Church position regarding his orientation, places his trust in the Atonement of Jesus Christ and that God will heal all wounds, spends every day when he is physically able in working with the missionaries and giving service to his branch members and neighbors. He lives a celibate lifestyle. He attributes all this to saving his life and he says it gives him great joy. His mottos are, "If it is good enough for the Prophet, it is good enough for me," and "I am a Latter-day Saint and Child of God first. My identity is not wrapped in my sexuality." 

Here is part of his testimony that he bore to us in 2016:

Sometimes good people choose to follow the prophet and rise above the current societal consensus and make a difference.  

I’m glad he’s found peace and happiness in the church. Is the choice really one between absolute celibacy and a life of promiscuity? My friend’s bishop did not advocate the latter. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s interesting that my friend believes the bishop’s counsel was inspired, even though it went against what the church teaches. 

Enjoy your company and Christmas. My sons are all home, so with my daughter we have 4 of the 6 with us. 

It's also interesting that my friend believes his bishops' counsels were inspired, even when they supported what the church teaches.

Congrats on having the kids around. Enjoy!

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's circular.

Duh!  An old guy says old guys are always right.   If you don't have an ANSWER FROM GOD that that old guy is correct and a prophet, why on earth would you accept that as a revelation?

Do you know how many claimed revelations there have been?   Have you studied ANY history of religion or comparative religions at all???

Religion is about finding your own path not about trusting old guys who tell you they are right unless God tells you they are.  Who would do that?

Here- send me 10% of your income- because I am and old guy and i say I am right.

Here's my address..... 

 

I don't think you responded to my question and that is obviously your right.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

It's also interesting that my friend believes his bishops' counsels were inspired, even when they supported what the church teaches.

Congrats on having the kids around. Enjoy!

My middle daughter (the one in Houston) had an embryo transfer today, so with luck we’ll have 2 more grandchildren this year. My daughter in Rexburg is expecting in July. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Prior to 1973, a student could be expelled from BYU just for being gay whether or not they were actively gay (just admitting attraction to the same sex or that they were gay).  

Ernest Wilkinson stated that people with homosexual tendancies will not be allowed to enroll or remain as students since they contaminate the campus.

This aversion therapy began in 1959 (when you could be expelled for just having homosexual tendencies).  If you read from some of the links earlier, several students write they were threatened with being expelled unless they agreed to the treatments even though they’d never openly been gay (in a relationship, etc.).

At least two fellows on my floor in Helaman Halls in the mid-sixties were not expelled for being gay. Had they violated the law of chastity, their enrollment might have been put in jeopardy, just as would any heterosexual student under similar circumstance. It's important to remember that at that time, medical and scientific practices treated homosexuality as a mental illness, and churches regarded it's practices as sinful.

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

As far as I know, neither one of them ever spoke publicly about these treatments (no one did for years).  It wasn't until 2011 that BYU admitted to their past usage of electroshock therapy on gay students and both of these men had passed away years prior to that.  

There are simply too many eye witness statements naming both Kimball and Petersen to disregard them, IMO.  These 2 had been assigned by those higher up to be over the gay issue in the church as well. 

But if it was not them, then someone from above the stake presidents were also referring students for the treatment and had informed SPs and Bishops to do the same.  Of course each person should do their own research here.  I think it's naive to believe these treatments would have been done without the approval of at least some of the leaders.

Is it true that the treatments that were used for those who wanted them were actually in the mainstream of medical practices at the time? Do you know if they were informed as to what the treatments entailed and that they were approved medical practices, not some quirky BYU clandestine trick?

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe this is where that letter to Nancy Rigdon comes in. If the bishop was inspired to give that counsel, then it is right, end of story. 

Big "if" there. On the other hand, one could argue that the bishop gave erroneous counsel, but those who accepted it would be held blameless....unless they had been warned by the Spirit not to follow it because it violated the Law of Chastity. Lots of ifs involved.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

At least two fellows on my floor in Helaman Halls in the mid-sixties were not expelled for being gay. 

Oh I’m sure there were exceptions made. I don’t think I claimed otherwise. (My post was a response to one of Scott’s with some info he asked about.)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

From the Pamphlet

This section appears in the pamphlet right after the part that says it is the father and mothers fault that their child is gay and all the things the parents did to cause their child to be gay.  Pretty clear that the pamphlet is claiming that these beliefs are consistent with what the Lord has revealed.

More accurately, the bolded part (copied below) appears after acknowledging that "Professionals do not agree..." and "most professional research supports..." Scientific conclusions that support the aims of the Lord's revealed doctrine should not be conflated with or misperceived / misrepresented as the doctrine that the Lord revealed. This has been pointed out more than once, but your observation cannot be supported by the facts.

Do you really think the secular psychoanalysts of the day were trying to add to LDS revelation?

"Professionals do not agree on the causes of homosexual behavior. How- ever, most professional research supports the view that homosexual behavior is learned, and is influenced by unhealthy emotional development in early childhood. This explanation is most consistent with what the Lord has revealed concerning the eternal nature of man as the offspring of divine parents."

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don’t know Calm.  I think many men would prefer that over having their penis shocked to the extent that it left burns and permanent scars.   

I understand the outrage over this when you learn how young some of these guys were and that they hadn’t ever been actively gay, but just expressed an attraction.  

It would be interesting to know what other college campuses these trials or treatments went on.  But it seems no records show up if they were done anywhere else at a university.  

How about the campuses where such treatments were taught as part of legitimate and recommended medical treatment? You don't think those places had clinical trials and training labs? People obtained degrees in fields that not only prescribed but also administered said practices.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don’t know Calm.  I think many men would prefer that over having their penis shocked to the extent that it left burns and permanent scars.   

I understand the outrage over this when you learn how young some of these guys were and that they hadn’t ever been actively gay, but just expressed an attraction.  

It would be interesting to know what other college campuses these trials or treatments went on.  But it seems no records show up if they were done anywhere else at a university.  

You are confusing the issue by focusing on the "outrage" as if I am in any way downplaying the severity of the emotional effect of aversion electric therapy.  I am not in any way intending on doing that.

However, when people use shocks to "the brain" instead of elsewhere (thigh, genitals, arm) when reporting, it indicates to me they weren't really paying attention to the victim's story as most I have read or heard are rather precise on where they got shocked and it wasn't the brain....if you hear that, you can count on the alleged victim being a liar.

What I am focused on is when people are careless in using "electroshock therapy" inappropriately and then endless others unknowingly repeat the error, which leads to all sorts of claims of inappropriate diagnosis and useless or dangerous outcomes getting attached to the wrongly claimed ECT when they should have been strictly attached to aversion electric therapy.

ECT is a valuable, life saving imo technique and it is very unfortunate that it gets confused with a likely useless (when it used for the complexity of homosexual desire) and often traumatic aversion electric therapy.  This may turn off people who could benefit greatly from ECT from investigating it when they hear words like "torture" associated with the label.  ECT has enough negative press to overcome in its own right without having to deal with being wrongly saddled with the negativity that belongs to a totally different treatment.

I am not condemning anyone for being outraged over aversion shock treatment, though I have to wonder how significant the outrage is when they don't take the time to read the accounts so they understand what it is and is not (it is not torture by volts of electricity to the brain).

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m glad he’s found peace and happiness in the church. Is the choice really one between absolute celibacy and a life of promiscuity? My friend’s bishop did not advocate the latter. 

Even then the bishop was out of line, no matter what his intentions were. What would you suggest as another alternative?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

You are confusing the issue by focusing on the "outrage" as if I am in any way downplaying the severity of the emotional effect of aversion electric therapy.  I am not in any way intending on doing that.

However, when people use shocks to "the brain" instead of elsewhere (thigh, genitals, arm) when reporting, it indicates to me they weren't really paying attention to the victim's story as most I have read or heard are rather precise on where they got shocked and it wasn't the brain....if you hear that, you can count on them being liars.

What I am focused on is when people are careless in using "electroshock therapy" inappropriately and then endless others unknowingly repeat the error, which leads to all sorts of claims of inappropriate diagnosis and useless or dangerous outcomes gets attached to the wrongly claimed ECT when they should have been strictly attached to aversion electric therapy.

ECT is a valuable, life saving imo technique and it is very unfortunate that it gets confused with a likely useless and often traumatic aversion electric therapy.  This may turn off people who could benefit greatly from ECT from investigating it when they hear words like "torture" associated with the label.  ECT has enough negative press to overcome in its own right without having to deal with being wrongly saddled with the negativity that belongs to a totally different treatment.

I am not condemning anyone for being outraged over aversion shock treatment, though I have to wonder how significant the outrage is when they don't take the time to read the accounts so they understand what it is and is not (it is not torture by volts of electricity to the brain).

I think most men would consider electric shock to their nether regions pretty close to torture. Reading that the “treatment” left scars is horrifying. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh I’m sure there were exceptions made. I don’t think I claimed otherwise. (My post was a response to one of Scott’s with some info he asked about.)

So maybe there's more to the story than we are being led to believe here.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Big "if" there. On the other hand, one could argue that the bishop gave erroneous counsel, but those who accepted it would be held blameless....unless they had been warned by the Spirit not to follow it because it violated the Law of Chastity. Lots of ifs involved.

Does this excuse people who do not listen to the Spirit, or who follow their bishop blindly contrary to what they have been taught and which prompted their seeking counsel in the first place? I'm hearing a barrage of criticism that TBM / LDS people acting this way; does that go for those with ssa as well as those without?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well that is fine and certainly your choice.  But don't pretend that Gray is the only one who highly doubts claims of revelation 20 years after the event.  

I do not understand this line of thinking. Claims of revelation are, in the main, untestable in any empirical sense.  So I really wouldn't matter if they claim of Revelation came 20 years after the event or 20 minutes. It's still untestable at either point in time. It still comes down to the credibility and authority of the person making the claim of revelation.

In this case, we have Elder Oaks. His statement and declaration carries a lot of probative weight for us, so the passage of time is not really an issue.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think most men would consider electric shock to their nether regions pretty close to torture. Reading that the “treatment” left scars is horrifying. 

Again irrelevant to my comments.

But please feel free to be so focused on the need to express horror,  you too misread what I have been saying.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then the bishop was out of line, no matter what his intentions were. What would you suggest as another alternative?

The bishop suggested monogamy was the  course of action most likely to give my friend a happy life. I think he was right. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Again irrelevant to my comments.

But please feel free to be so focused on expressing horror,  you too misread what I have been saying.

I recognize that we are not talking about ECT. It sounded like you were minimizing the experience, but perhaps I misread you. But suggesting I’m focused on expressing horror is an exaggeration. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

D&C 46

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

You are not getting this at all.  Who wrote that?  Joseph, a very human being.

Nevertheless it seems to be true doesn't it.   Yet of course that does not say or even get close to saying that "prophets are infallible" does it??

It says some believe on the words of those with those who have testimonies but it does not say that those who allegedly have testimonies are infallible does it?

Think logically, look at the sentence and analyze what it actually says, and then evaluate it to see if it is true or just vacuous.    This scripture makes an important point but says nothing about what you think it says.

Think about how inconsistent is is for you to ignore all the bible says about homosexuality and then quote scriptures to make your point.

It makes no sense.  On one hand you are still looking at scripture as infallible (the problem) and quote it against others yet ignore the portions of scripture, allegedly infallible, which you don't like

Contradictory.

Yes I am politically incorrect, but I am still able to reason.

Edited December 21, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How about the campuses where such treatments were taught as part of legitimate and recommended medical treatment? You don't think those places had clinical trials and training labs? People obtained degrees in fields that not only prescribed by administered said practices.

McBride's dissertation cited pages of studies using aversion therapy:

"Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions....

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion_therapy_performed_at_BYU

There is a table with listings of institutions (at least 25 as there were over 30 listings, but some were likely repeats) performing research included, though formatting is screwed up it is still readable.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I recognize that we are not talking about ECT. It sounded like you were minimizing the experience, but perhaps I misread you. But suggesting I’m focused on expressing horror is an exaggeration. 

I am simply asking people to use the correct label and not "electroshock" or "electroconvulsive" therapy or "shock treatment".

This is because such label misuse attaches the negative associations of aversion therapy (which people generally view as bad, bad, bad even if it is possibly the most effective treatment for stopping smoking, see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known ) to a positive electroconvulsive therapy (which people need to see as the good, lifesaving treatment it is).

Is that clear enough?

How that works out to me minimizing aversion therapy when I am being strident about the detriment to ECT of being associated with it, I have no clue.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am simply asking people to use the correct label and not "electroshock" or "electroconvulsive" therapy.

Is that clear enough?

I know that’s what you were doing. I never conflated the two in the first place. 

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think you responded to my question and that is obviously your right.

Well ok then let's handle that.

This was your post

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think they ever speak for God but they claim otherwise. Do you think this claim may lead some to believe the leaders at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?

Your question is ambiguous but as I read it this is it, making it more clear.   (Too many equivocations which are unwarranted.  Is "speaking for God" equal to  "infallible"?  Is "revelation" equivalent to "speaking for God"?  Is "revelation" equivalent both to "speaking for God" AND infallibility?  I personally do not see them as equivalent but I will assume you see them as equal.)

" I don't think prophets ever speak for God but the prophets claim otherwise.  Do you think that the claim that "prophets speak for God" may lead some to believe the prophets at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?"

My answer was:

Quote

 

That's circular.

Duh!  An old guy says old guys are always right.   If you don't have an ANSWER FROM GOD that that old guy is correct and a prophet, why on earth would you accept that as a revelation?

Do you know how many claimed revelations there have been?   Have you studied ANY history of religion or comparative religions at all???

Religion is about finding your own path not about trusting old guys who tell you they are right unless God tells you they are.  Who would do that?

Here- send me 10% of your income- because I am and old guy and i say I am right.

Here's my address.....  

 

So it appears we have multiple assertions here

1- You dont ever think that prophets speak for God.  OK, not relevant to the question I suppose...

2- Prophets claim otherwise.

That is clearly debatable in itself- where do prophets claim they speak for God?  Where is there a statement saying "I speak for God" made by a prophet?

And suppose there IS such a statement MADE BY A PROPHET.  Can't you see that that would be circular like me saying "I speak for God so you better believe me"?

So any claim made by a prophet that "prophets speak for God" is circular.   I declare myself a prophet- I can say I speak for God without any confirmation that I am a prophet!!

Can you understand that?

Now the question:

"Do you think this claim may lead some to believe the leaders at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?"

Is revelation "infallible"?   How could we know that?   Is "revelation" simply something we feel inside which is not about the "world as it is"- meaning is it possible to have a wrong revelation?  Or is that just something "you think is a revelation"?

Is an alleged "revelation" EVER falsifiable? And how is one to know if someone else had an actual "revelation" as opposed to just "making it up"?

I have no clue how this does not answer your question- the question is too ambiguous

What would be an "infallible statement in the form of revelation"?

How could we show that it was either one- infallible OR a revelation?

Does claiming revelation and infallibility lead gullible people to believe one that one is in fact infallible?

Yes of course, but that was answered as a circular argument.

So if you are not totally bored by now, clarify the question or don't.   Whatever works for you.

I do not dodge questions and saying I do just makes me more persistent