LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Gray]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

So did telling the man healed of leprosy.  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.

Oh, man.  The irony.

It's not ironic. I'm treating the available evidence like a historian (although I am not one, nor do I play one on TV). Your argument is in the spirit of fallacious Christian apologetic that try to read back the doctrine of the trinity into the Bible, where it does not exist. We can find no contemporary witnesses willing to call it a revelation.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I'm saying that wasn't true 20 years ago. Now, with an evolving definition of that term, it may apply.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 seems to be reinterpreting the experience, contrary to how President Hinckley treated the proclamation, and indeed contrary to the introductory text of the proclamation.

 

 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I mean that it was God's will divulged to the prophet and delivered to the Church by means of a now obsolete pamphlet.  That is californiaboys claim.  I am saying, nope. I know that you don't believe that God speaks to man like californiaboy and I do, so your involvement might be a bit of a distraction quite honestly. 

Thanks, it's helpful to understand what you mean. It seems to mean very different things to different people.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

You are speculating, with no evidence to even suggest your speculation may be true. I am dealing with the actual data in front of us. There is no evidence of any motivation to conceal a revelation behind this restatement of longstanding church teachings.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

So your dispute falls rather flat.

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

I saw it happen and so did you. No speculation whatsoever

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Pure strawman, counselor. Elder Oaks seems to be retroactively reinterpreting the experience. Everyone does it - that's what makes human memory so unreliable.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

His current feelings toward the matter contradict nearly two decades of church teachings. His witness is colored by his current reinterpretation.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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

More strawman, and insults directed at me. If you can't be civil, I'll put you on ignore.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not ironic. I'm treating the available evidence like a historian (although I am not one, nor do I play one on TV).

Well no, you're not.  It is not within the province of "historians" to say that a "revelation" is only legitimately from God if it is specifically announced as such within a particular period of time, or that revelatory provenance decreases over time.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your argument is in the spirit of fallacious Christian apologetic that try to read back the doctrine of the trinity into the Bible, where it does not exist. We can find no contemporary witnesses willing to call it a revelation.

Oh, brother.  I find your complaint implausible and fatuous.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm saying that wasn't true 20 years ago.  Now, with an evolving definition of that term, it may apply.

Right.  That's what historians do, after all.  Make pronouncements on the validity of revelations based on their own entirely subjective and ad hoc expectations and requirements.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Elder Oaks seems to be reinterpreting the experience,

No.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

contrary to how President Hinckley treated the proclamation,

Not at all.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

and indeed contrary to the introductory text of the proclamation.

Malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

"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.

You've just described the attempt to recast the proclamation as revelation. It's textbook presentism. The definition of revelation is changing, and the church's position against gay rights could use some bolstering. So the proclamation is promoted to revelation. I'm not suggesting a conscious effort behind these changes. It's just defensiveness and human bias.

 

 

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

Well no, you're not.  It is not within the province of "historians" to say that a "revelation" is only legitimately from God if it is specifically announced as such within a particular period of time, or that revelatory provenance decreases over time.

You misunderstand. The evidence is overwhelming that the church's longstanding position is that the proclamation was not a revelation. That's both based on church statements and a close reading of the proclamation itself.

Just now, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  I find your complaint implausible and fatuous.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Right.  That's what historians do, after all.  Make pronouncements on the validity of revelations based on their own entirely subjective and ad hoc expectations and requirements.

Another strawman.

Just now, smac97 said:

No.

Not at all.

Malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

Appeal to incredulity.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

You misunderstand. The evidence is overwhelming that the church's longstanding position is that the proclamation was not a revelation.

Not so.

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's both based on church statements and a close reading of the proclamation itself.

Not so.

I've had my say.  I'll leave you with the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

2 hours 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? 

I agree.  What have you found on that?  Any links where this took place?  I’m very interested in reading about anything you’ve found.

[JulieM]

3 hours 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.

Thanks, Calm.  Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  What have you found on that?  Any links where this took place?  I’m very interested in reading about anything you’ve found.

Common sense dictates the certainty that such training took place in medical schools and universities. The now-questioned techniques were approved an used. And not just at BYU. Read the summaries in the linked article from the OP.

[Bernard Gui]

An interesting short history of conversion therapies in Great Britain. Still looking for one on America that is public domain. 

http://www.historytoday.com/john-pierre-joyce/curing-homosexuality

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

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."

 

I don't quite understand your point.  You quoted the exact same part of the pamphlet I quoted.  Anyone can read the quote and what proceeded the quote.  To say that aligns with what the Lord has revealed is pretty concrete proof that there is a claim that the Lord revealed the same completely erroneous beliefs as some in the medical profession at that time.  Sad..  

[california boy]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Obviously you have no idea the point I am making or why I am making it.  

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well, someone has to support the few gay members in the mormon community.

Oh, indeed. Especially when there are so many trying to convince them that the Church hates them, and that being "true to themselves" means indulging their temptations as much as possible. Someone needs to support them against this onslaught of deception.

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Well, I for one am glad to know that that's what you thought you were agreeing with.

[kiwi57]

7 hours 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.

Interesting place to crop the quote. It's what the Lord has revealed "concerning the eternal nature of man as the offspring of divine parents." The authors of the pamphlet are clearly not claiming to have received new revelation regarding homosexuality or related topics; they are relating the scientific information back to already known revealed principles, such as the Plan of Salvation and the nature of agency.

I mention that, because your cropping appears to give a different impression.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not ironic. I'm treating the available evidence like a historian (although I am not one, nor do I play one on TV). Your argument is in the spirit of fallacious Christian apologetic that try to read back the doctrine of the trinity into the Bible, where it does not exist. We can find no contemporary witnesses willing to call it a revelation.

You're in denial, Gray. Elder Oaks is a contemporary witness. 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm saying that wasn't true 20 years ago. Now, with an evolving definition of that term, it may apply.

And as I mentioned before - and you did not deign to respond - it is merely your a priori assumption that it was not true 20 years ago. You have not a shred of evidence that it was not. Your entire argument is based upon silence - and you can only maintain that silence by censoring the record, which shows that the Church, in official channels, was explicitly describing the Proclamation as revelatory almost from day one.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Elder Oaks seems to be reinterpreting the experience, contrary to how President Hinckley treated the proclamation, and indeed contrary to the introductory text of the proclamation.

I've read President Hinckley's talk, as well as the introductory text of the Proclamation. I find nothing there that contradicts anything Elder Oaks said.

 

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

His current feelings toward the matter contradict nearly two decades of church teachings. His witness is colored by his current reinterpretation.

Do they?

Then it should be trivially easy for you to cite something nice and unambiguous from lo, those nearly two decades of Church teachings.

So where is it?

This is a CFR, Gray. Put up, please.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

More strawman, and insults directed at me. If you can't be civil, I'll put you on ignore.

Accusing an apostle of lying, on an alleged Mormon forum, rather disqualifies you from preaching civility. To anyone.

Edited December 21, 2017 by kiwi57

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

1] Elder Oaks seems to be retroactively reinterpreting the experience. Everyone does it - that's what makes human memory so unreliable.

 

2] His current feelings toward the matter contradict nearly two decades of church teachings. His witness is colored by his current reinterpretation. [# added for easy reference]

1]  That is a possible interpretation of what has been observed.  Another could be it is a clarification that was already known to those involved.

2]  As far as contradictions, that would depend on if it was an actual contradiction as opposed to a new revelation, building on knowledge, clarification, or some other reason to add a new, but consistent with previous labels label...

For example, say someone is originally called "prophet and seer" and then ten years down the line, the title is changed to "prophet, seer, and revelator".  Is that in your view a contradiction as opposed to an addition or clarification of information?

 

 

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, I for one am glad to know that that's what you thought you were agreeing with.

It's what happens when you post right after an hour on the Beltway. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't quite understand your point.  You quoted the exact same part of the pamphlet I quoted.  Anyone can read the quote and what proceeded the quote.  To say that aligns with what the Lord has revealed is pretty concrete proof that there is a claim that the Lord revealed the same completely erroneous beliefs as some in the medical profession at that time.  Sad..  

My point is that the pamphlet is only claiming that particular points of professional consensus included in the guidance are those that are most consistent with what the Lord has revealed, which is that all God's spirit children learned true behavior from our divine parents and come to earth spiritually whole (healthy). This condition changes when false behavior is learned by unsuspecting children and/or they are affected by emotionally unhealthy development (D&C 93:38-40. Wouldn't you agree with the revelation, if not with the science?

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Oh, indeed. Especially when there are so many trying to convince them that the Church hates them, and that being "true to themselves" means indulging their temptations as much as possible. Someone needs to support them against this onslaught of deception.

I gave you a rep point  Other than two things...you are correct.

They don't need convincing...and being true to oneself is not a temptation..it is being true.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Calm, I know that's what you were trying to do here and I'm glad to know the proper terms to use regarding what was done to these young men.  But, I think the point some are making is that even though the wrong term was used, most (all who research this) know the shocks were not to the boy's brain, but to his penis and other parts of his body.  I've never believed it was to the brain even though I was one using the wrong term.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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 institutiions.

I'll take another look at these (I did at one time but it's been quite awhile ago).

Are there any other Universities mentioned there where this therapy was given to gay students, do you know?  That's what I'd be interested in seeing as I do believe this is a part of why some still focus on BYU whenever this topic is brought up (not just by members of the church but even in the media too).  I think it was unusual to spy on and turn students in who were suspected of being gay and then they were told they'd need to "volunteer" for these treatments to stay in school.  That's really part of the outrage I've seen in what I've read.  Of course, some of the boys were so desperate to believe this was a cure they willingly volunteered for the treatment.

Edited to add:

I just took a look at McBride's paper and I think the statement above of there being "17 pages of documentation" is not accurate (unless I missed those pages).  The references at the end of the paper are books, papers and then a few studies are mentioned (from what I can tell).

There are a few studies mentioned throughout the paper (I did a search using the word "studies"), but there is not 17 straight pages of the many studies or "documentation".

Of the studies mentioned (Freud was first named), I saw none that were done on students at a university.  Here are a few I saw named: "Thorpe, Schmidt and Brown" 1964; "Blackmore, Thorpe, Barker" on a single individual in 1963; and "Bancroft" 1970;  "Feldman & MacCulloch" 1971; "McConaghy" 1969.  Like I said, they were dispersed throughout the paper and were in parenthesis after a quote to give the source.

From what I saw, there were not 17 pages of studies listed or discussed.  Once again, maybe I missed them?  I did go through each page and skimmed.

Here's a quote from the paper regarding Freud being the first to use aversion conditioning for homosexuality:

"Freud's (1960) early research was one of the first attempts to employ aversive conditioning using emetic drugs in the treatment of homosexuality."

Link to the paper:

https://ia800802.us.archive.org/35/items/BYUaversionTherapy/McBride Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy BYU Dissertation Aug 1976_text.pdf

It's interesting to read his paper for anyone here truly interested in this topic and study.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

never mind.

Edited December 21, 2017 by california boy