LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

There was one person highly involved in the conversation who used volts of electricity to the brain in a one liner and two people liked his comment.  No one corrected him that I saw.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[pogi]

15 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.

Quote

 

B. The Causes of Homosexual Behavior

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 revealedconcerning the eternal nature of man as the offspring of divine parents.

 

Cali-boy, clearly this is referring to the revelations on the plan of salvation and not some policy on curing homosexuality.  This explains that the policy was based on the predominant view of professional research at the time, which the church perceived as being "most consistent" with existing revelation concerning the plan of salvation.  This pamphlet was not revelation or dogma.  It simply wasn't. 

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position.  I thought you were saying that the church developed 1981pamphlet from existing thought at the time. I think you are probably right.  And what I was asserting is that current pamphlets also come from existing thought outside church sources such as the Catholic church and Evangelic churches.  Just like the 1981 pamphlet, no divine direction goes into them even when such claims are made by some.  There is no evidence that church leaders have ever gotten any of past or current church policies towards gays from divine source.  Current pamphlets should not be taken as coming from God any more than past pamphlets guiding church leaders.

What you were asserting is that the old pamphlet was presented as revelation and dogma, in an attempt to erode our trust in the brethren as revelators and undermine the church's foundation of revelation .  That is my only beef. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was one person highly involved in the conversation who used volts of electricity to the brain in a one liner and two people liked his comment.  No one corrected him that I saw.

I appreciate your clarification.   But personally it is more of a technicality than some kind of "this makes it all ok" kind of comment.  The bottom line is what BYU did to homosexuals in an effort to cleanse them from what they view as being evil was in itself evil.  Running high volts of electricity to a persons penis and inducing drugs to make a person throw up is horrible.  These horrific procedures caused severe trauma and mental scaring as well as physical scaring.  That is what should be acknowledged.  And that is what BYU and church leaders should apologize for. An apology we all know will never happen.  The church doesn't do apology.

The least of my concerns is what the correct name for the procedure is called.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was one person highly involved in the conversation who used volts of electricity to the brain in a one liner and two people liked his comment.  No one corrected him that I saw.

 

Oh wow.  I missed that.  Did you correct them?  You should if you didn't just so they know....seriously.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh wow.  I missed that.  Did you correct them?  You should if you didn't just so they know....seriously.

I missed that, too. I didn't think anyone believed they were electric shocks to the brain. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Cali-boy, clearly this is referring to the revelations on the plan of salvation and not some policy on curing homosexuality.  This explains that the policy was based on the predominant view of professional research at the time, which the church perceived as being "most consistent" with existing revelation concerning the plan of salvation.  This pamphlet was not revelation or dogma.  It simply wasn't. 

What you were asserting is that the old pamphlet was presented as revelation and dogma, in an attempt to erode our trust in the brethren as revelators and undermine the church's foundation of revelation .  That is my only beef. 

Would you agree that the church was using the scientific views outlined in the 1981 pamphlet because they believed that they closely matched the revealed view of the church and the nature of man?

Would you also agree that by the use of this pamphlet that is clearly false also shows that the church does not rely on revelation when it comes to how the church treats and acts towards gays?

Edited December 21, 2017 by california boy

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I missed that, too. I didn't think anyone believed they were electric shocks to the brain. 

I wonder if they were kidding with their comment?  Either way, I'd imagine that anyone who becomes familiar with this topic knows rather soon where the shocks were taking place.  That's another part of the outrage, IMO and disbelief that this was ever done to boys and men.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you agree that the church was using the scientific views outlined in the 1981 pamphlet because they believed that they closely matched the revealed view of the church and the nature of man?

From the pamphlet:

Quote

B. The Causes of Homosexual Behavior

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.

So it sounds like the pamphlet looked at competing scientific explanations "on the causes of homosexual behavior" (since "Professionals d{id} not agree on" it at the time), and then went with a "view" which both A) was thought to constitute the majority view ("most professional research supports..."), and B) was also "consistent with what the Lord has revealed concerning the eternal nature of man."

As I see it, "consistent with" does not mean "coming/originating from divine revelation."  The author(s) of the pamphlet apparently were attempting to reconcile revealed truths (regarding the Law of Chastity, the "eternal nature of man," our status as "the offspring of divine parents," etc.) with the conjectural and unsettled - but still derived from "professional research" - information available at the time.

We now have more information about this issue, and the Church has adjusted its policies and practices to some extent.  However, the doctrines (the Law of Chastity, the "eternal nature of man," our status as "the offspring of divine parents," etc.) do not appear to be changing.

I think the Church has substantially improved its treatment of this issue.  Sadly, these improvements are being ignored in favor of handwringing and accusations about a pamphlet published 36 years ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2017 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

I think we must weigh any counsel against scriptures and personal revelations, that ultimately we are responsible for our own choices and actions, and that God’s perfect judgement will be tempered by his infinite mercy to make all wrongs right.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church has substantially improved its treatment of this issue. 

I agree and I look forward to more progress as science and mainstream thinking continues to progress.

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, these improvements are being ignored in favor of handwringing and accusations about a pamphlet published 36 years ago.

I don't see much "handwringing" over these writings.  Where I see them brought up is as evidence that the church's beliefs and teachings have changed on this topic (along with those in the world and science) when many simply refuse to acknowledge or admit there have been changes.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you agree that the church was using the scientific views outlined in the 1981 pamphlet because they believed that they closely matched the revealed view of the church and the nature of man?

Would you also agree that by the use of this pamphlet that is clearly false also shows that the church does not rely on revelation when it comes to how the church treats and acts towards gays?

Yes, I would agree with the first paragraph.  That is exactly what I see the church saying in the pamphlet.  

Yes, I would also agree that the church does not always rely on new revelation when deciding church policy and procedures.  Pamphlets, policies, and procedures are not dogma.  There are many, many mysteries yet to be revealed.  The church does the best with what they know, given the revelations they do have, until more is revealed.  I am not aware of any new claimed revelation or dogma since the 1981 pamphlet, regarding the proper treatment of gays.  I assume that any new policy towards gays is based on the brethren's best understanding of the revelations given in conjunction with the best understanding of modern research - just like the old pamphlet. 

I think what you are trying to get me to admit is that the brethren are fallible (I have never said otherwise), and that any new policy may also be imperfect just like the old one (of course!).  I think that is what everyone here is saying.  The brethren are fallible.  Yes, any new policies that come out may potentially be modified in the future as new revelation and research comes out. 

I have answered your questions, now would you please answer mine?

Would you agree that the church never claimed, or pushed, the 1981 pamphlet as "revelation" or "dogma"?  If so, would you please retract your statements?

Edited December 21, 2017 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the pamphlet:

So it sounds like the pamphlet looked at competing scientific explanations "on the causes of homosexual behavior" (since "Professionals d{id} not agree on" it at the time), and then went with a "view" which both A) was thought to constitute the majority view ("most professional research supports..."), and B) was also "consistent with what the Lord has revealed concerning the eternal nature of man."

As I see it, "consistent with" does not mean "coming/originating from divine revelation."  The author(s) of the pamphlet apparently were attempting to reconcile revealed truths (regarding the Law of Chastity, the "eternal nature of man," our status as "the offspring of divine parents," etc.) with the conjectural and unsettled - but still derived from "professional research" - information available at the time.

We now have more information about this issue, and the Church has adjusted its policies and practices to some extent.  However, the doctrines (the Law of Chastity, the "eternal nature of man," our status as "the offspring of divine parents," etc.) do not appear to be changing.

I think the Church has substantially improved its treatment of this issue.  Sadly, these improvements are being ignored in favor of handwringing and accusations about a pamphlet published 36 years ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that things are much better. For that we should all be grateful. It would be nice if the church acknowledged the suffering of participants in these programs. Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it. Expressions of regret are probably unlikely.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and I look forward to more progress as science and mainstream thinking continues to progress.

I don't see much "handwringing" over these writings.  Where I see them brought up is as evidence that the church's beliefs and teachings have changed on this topic (along with those in the world and science) when many simply refuse to acknowledge or admit there have been changes.

Nineteen pages of back-and-forth argumentation over a pamphlet that was discontinued more than three decades ago certainly strikes me as hand-wringing.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Nineteen pages of back-and-forth argumentation over a pamphlet that was discontinued who-knows-how-many years ago certainly strikes me as hand-wringing.

It wasn't a critic who started this thread. 

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think we must weigh any counsel against scriptures and personal revelations, that ultimately we are responsible for our own choices and actions, and that God’s perfect judgement will be tempered by his infinite mercy to make all wrongs right.

That's great that God will do this in the end, I guess.  Too bad some had to suffer through bad advice that maybe could have been alleviated with a little humility and an admission that fallible opinion, not inspiration governed the decision to recommend shock therapy (whatever the correct term is)?  Do you think God will condemn, maybe a little bit, the overly trusting individual who mistakenly believed that his bishop was inspired to recommend the shock therapy?  We are responsible for our own actions and should never completely trust a bishop, even when he claims his counsel is inspired?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It wasn't a critic who started this thread. 

True. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nineteen pages of back-and-forth argumentation over a pamphlet that was discontinued more than three decades ago certainly strikes me as hand-wringing.

 

I thought this discussion was started by Bernard about the shock treatments performed on gay young men at BYU?  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

I thought this discussion was started by Bernard about the shock treatments performed on gay young men at BYU?  

Indeed, that is the case.

[ALarson]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Indeed, that is the case.

Quote from OP:

Quote

The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction.

No mention of the pamphlet.  Others brought it up, but it's certainly not the topic of the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It wasn't a critic who started this thread. 

 

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True. 

 

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought this discussion was started by Bernard about the shock treatments performed on gay young men at BYU?  

No, it wasn't a critic who started this thread. It was a spin-off from a thread that certainly was started by a critic. So that means it's significantly more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet.

And I daresay this would have been part of the old thread had it not been closed.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Another interpretation is that Elder Oaks always believed it was revelatory, but more senior church leadership disagreed and had suppressed that interpretation until recently. But there is no evidence to support the idea that Elder Oaks believed it to be revelatory until recently.

Certainly the church's approach for decades has been to avoid referring to it as such. The introduction to the text makes it clear that it's a restatement of existing doctrine.

 

Quote

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?

 

The church seems to have gone out of its way to be careful not to refer to it as revelation until very recently. So in that context, yes, it's a contradiction, a change.

Again, I'm personally fine with the word, but I think there's a shift in definitions that is going that makes the word "revelation" quite a different concept than it was 20 years ago.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it wasn't a critic who started this thread. It was a spin-off from a thread that certainly was started by a critic. So that means it's significantly more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet.

Well, hand-wringing doesn't have to generate a response.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nineteen pages of back-and-forth argumentation over a pamphlet that was discontinued more than three decades ago certainly strikes me as hand-wringing.

 

Scott..I really do love you and respect you  But what if we could put we could put aside judging (hand wringing) think less of what we know and more about what we can learn? 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it wasn't a critic who started this thread. It was a spin-off from a thread that certainly was started by a critic. So that means it's significantly more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet.

I didn't know it was a "spin-off" (where does it state that?).  The pamphlet is not mentioned in the OP, Scott.  So no, it's not a "more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet".  The majority of this thread has been a discussion regarding what took place at BYU (which was on topic per the OP).

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

No, it wasn't a critic who started this thread. It was a spin-off from a thread that certainly was started by a critic. So that means it's significantly more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet.

And I daresay this would have been part of the old thread had it not been closed.

This probably could have been a lot shorter if responses would have been with contrition instead of defensiveness.  It is obvious now that the church followed certain theories and practices that people find abhorrent today.  How about let's just admit to a mistake, and move on?  Surely mistake correction is part of modern revelation, right?  So, no problem in admitting to needing a course correction?