LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My OP had been prepared to present on the pamphlet discussion, but it was closed just before I submitted it. My intention was not to resurrect it with another similar discussion, but rather point out that what happened at BYU May not have been motivated by animus, but by an appeal to accepted medical practices. To me, that puts a better focus on what happened instead of the usual hypercritical narratives that are purposed to vilify the Church and certain specific leaders.

 Of course there are many, many past practices that seem barbaric now, but how should we judge those that were following what was accepted at the time? My first four-hour severely two impacted wisdom teeth extraction was performed with just Novocain and the dentist climbing up on the chair and placing his knee on my chest while tugging on the tooth with pliers. It was 6 years before I got up the courage to get the other two out. 

I think context is important whatever the topic, and in this case the context, as far as I can tell, is never mentioned. Of course treatments have changed....they always do as new information comes forward. We could argue that people including Church leaders should have known better. Perhaps they should have, but that would be hard to resolve.

Did you go to the same "low-cost" oral surgeon in Orem, UT?  I vividly remember a board being placed on my chest so the surgeon could get some leverage.  He also had knee pads on.  In any event, the recovery was really quick afterward and I was able to play in a baseball game the next day.

As for acknowledging mistakes in the past, when I was active, I liked the apologetic of how God leads his people along slowly, allowing mistakes and HIS making corrections when necessary.  However, a downside to this is that it breeds questioning members who don't trust leaders maybe as much as the church wants.  Dictatorships are easier to govern than sloppy democracies where agreement is tough to get.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Accepted, mainstream medical practices become outmoded all the time as collective knowledge increases and new and better practices emerge. Is it your contention that practitioners of past practices should be denounced for having made mistakes, even when such practices were the professional standard at the time?

Denounced? No, but it would be nice to hear someone express regret for the suffering caused by those outmoded practices. A good analogy might be found in parenting. I think most of us have tried to follow church teachings and current medical and psychological recommendations in raising our children (at least I did). We did our best, and we had our children's best interests at heart. But we have all made mistakes. If we've made mistakes that have ended up hurting our children, is it appropriate for parents to express regret or even apologize for things they did wrong? I know I've apologized to my children for some of the mistakes I made as a father. I owe it to my children to acknowledge when I have done wrong.

I guess we are approaching this from different angles. I think one can acknowledge mistakes the church has made without vilifying and denouncing the church. But too often, any criticism at all is taken as denunciation and vilification.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course those were mistaken therapies, but can we ignore the fact they were approved and used in the general medical community at that time? We must also acknowledge that that context is not mentioned when critics invariably use the BYU story to excoriate the Church and its leaders or to embarrass and silence defenders of the Church.

In hindsight, there are many, many things I wish I had never done. The question is should I have had the foresight not to do them in the first place. That is a difficult question.

The 14 men involved that stuck with it (3 dropped out) reported improvement.  Why I don't know, but I am guessing there was short term "improvement" due to a high desire to change.

It has been awhile since I read McBride's work, which was an effort to determine if nudity was necessary or if clothed photo subjects would be sufficient.(not surprising for a BYU study, I have always thought...hoping to be effective while encouraging modest thoughts rather than breaking the law of Chastity, even if for "medicinal purposes")  His many pages of citing successful studies made what most people think what was being studied, the effectiveness of aversion therapy, a given.

The questioning of their success claims came later.

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My OP had been prepared to present on the pamphlet discussion, but it was closed just before I submitted it. 

Ok...you must have shared that with Scott privately then because it's not mentioned in the OP.

Would you have preferred this conversation be about the pamphlet then?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Beliefs and teachings" about the Law of Chastity have not changed fundamentally.

That's not what anyone is claiming from what I've seen.  That's not what I stated in my post to you.

 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Denounced? No, but it would be nice to hear someone express regret for the suffering caused by those outmoded practices. A good analogy might be found in parenting. I think most of us have tried to follow church teachings and current medical and psychological recommendations in raising our children (at least I did). We did our best, and we had our children's best interests at heart. But we have all made mistakes. If we've made mistakes that have ended up hurting our children, is it appropriate for parents to express regret or even apologize for things they did wrong? I know I've apologized to my children for some of the mistakes I made as a father. I owe it to my children to acknowledge when I have done wrong.

I guess we are approaching this from different angles. I think one can acknowledge mistakes the church has made without vilifying and denouncing the church. But too often, any criticism at all is taken as denunciation and vilification.

To not express regret is one thing...but my big question is..that God and a Prophet being above science would know that this was not correct.  What were gay children to learn from this experience that would  excuse such abuse to bodies and to the soul.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok...you must have shared that with Scott privately then because it's not mentioned in the OP.

Would you have preferred this conversation be about the pamphlet then?

You don't think it's possible that I could have known intuitively that the thread was a spin-off?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Denounced? No, but it would be nice to hear someone express regret for the suffering caused by those outmoded practices. A good analogy might be found in parenting. I think most of us have tried to follow church teachings and current medical and psychological recommendations in raising our children (at least I did). We did our best, and we had our children's best interests at heart. But we have all made mistakes. If we've made mistakes that have ended up hurting our children, is it appropriate for parents to express regret or even apologize for things they did wrong? I know I've apologized to my children for some of the mistakes I made as a father. I owe it to my children to acknowledge when I have done wrong.

I guess we are approaching this from different angles. I think one can acknowledge mistakes the church has made without vilifying and denouncing the church. But too often, any criticism at all is taken as denunciation and vilification.

I don't believe anyone need apologize for having acted according to the best knowledge that was available to him/her at the time.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To not express regret is one thing...but my big question is..that God and a Prophet being above science would know that this was not correct.  What were gay children to learn from this experience that would  excuse such abuse to bodies and to the soul.

Maybe the lesson is to understand that prophets aren't necessarily "above" the context in which they live. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe anyone need apologize for having acted according to the best knowledge that was available to him at the time.

But God is above science...don't you think?  He and His prophet would know that this was not correct.  I am not judging here..I am trying to understand.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe anyone need apologize for having acted according to the best knowledge that was available to him at the time.

There we disagree. If one's actions hurt someone, regardless of the intent, one should at least express regret, but certainly an apology is not out of order.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Accepted, mainstream medical practices become outmoded all the time as collective knowledge increases and new and better practices emerge. Is it your contention that practitioners of past practices should be denounced for having made mistakes, even when such practices were the professional standard at the time?

I think in certain cases they should be when not enough thought was given to long term effects of what appears to be an easier alternative....for example the oxy epidemic.  If there had been a slower, methodical approach rather than everyone jumping on the bandwagon, there might have been a lot less in destroyed lives.

I have not studied the development of aversion therapy to know if there were warning signs or known significant reasons early on for not trusting the results of the therapy for homosexual thoughts/attraction.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To not express regret is one thing...but my big question is..that God and a Prophet being above science would know that this was not correct. 

You seem to have an expectation of infallibility here.  I don't know how else to characterize the claim that "Prophets" are, in your view, "above science."

Science is a very human endeavor.  There is much value in it, but it's far from perfect.

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What were gay children to learn from this experience that would  excuse such abuse to bodies and to the soul.

"Gay children" were subject to Aversion Therapy at BYU?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Just now, smac97 said:

You seem to have an expectation of infallibility here.  I don't know how else to characterize the claim that "Prophets" are, in your view, "above science."

Science is a very human endeavor.  There is much value in it, but it's far from perfect.

"Gay children" were subject to Aversion Therapy at BYU?

Thanks,

-Smac

At UCLA apparently.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To not express regret is one thing...but my big question is..that God and a Prophet being above science would know that this was not correct.  What were gay children to learn from this experience that would  excuse such abuse to bodies and to the soul.

It is an all-too-common misconception that revelation from God is available on demand. Many, many things are left to mortal men and women -- including prophets -- to study and work out on their own. That's a condition of mortality necessary for growth, which is one of the purposes of mortality.

The misconception becomes a problem when a person finds fault with a prophet for not knowing what the person thinks God should have reavealed to the prophet, in effect second-guessing God, which is always fraught with danger.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But God is above science...don't you think?  He and His prophet would know that this was not correct.  I am not judging here..I am trying to understand.

Please see what I just posted.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There we disagree. If one's actions hurt someone, regardless of the intent, one should at least express regret, but certainly an apology is not out of order.

I would not hold someone accountable to apologize to me if I knew he had done his best to help me and had acted as competently as he knew how, even if the result were a failure.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

The 14 men involved that stuck with it (3 dropped out) reported improvement.  

And 2 committed suicide shortly thereafter.  This was not a positive experience for most involved from what I've read.  If you have not read their accounts, I'd recommend doing that.

There were also more boys involved with these treatments than just those 14.  Once again, I'd recommend reading their accounts and can post some if you'd like.  I'll just need some time to find what I have on that, but many wrote about it.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has been awhile since I read McBride's work, which was an effort to determine if nudity was necessary or if clothed photo subjects would be sufficient.(not surprising for a BYU study, I have always thought...hoping to be effective while encouraging modest thoughts rather than breaking the law of Chastity, even if for "medicinal purposes")  His many pages of citing successful studies made what most people think what was being studied, the effectiveness of aversion therapy, a given.

 

I'd recommend you read McBride's paper again, Calim.  There were not 17 pages of studies listed (from what I saw and posted about earlier).  

As far as nude pictures used, according to first hand accounts (and the paper by McBride), they were used and the young men were required to purchase them themselves.

Here is a quote from the abstract of the paper (regarding their usage of nude pictures):

Quote

It was found that nude male pictures used in treatment were more effective in diminishing sexual responsiveness to male stimuli. It was also found that the initial use of nude female pictures may inhibit fantasy activity during treatment.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

First of all...it doesn't matter what school (university)...but we are taught that God knows all..and that we should strive to be like Him.  That what distinquishes this church from others is that there are Prophets and Seers that speak to and for God.  So...infallibility??  Many years ago I was taught to follow the prophet..He knows the way.  Something is not right here.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

You seem to have an expectation of infallibility here.  I don't know how else to characterize the claim that "Prophets" are, in your view, "above science."

Science is a very human endeavor.  There is much value in it, but it's far from perfect.

"Gay children" were subject to Aversion Therapy at BYU?

Thanks,

-Smac

At UCLA apparently.

Ah, that bastion of Mormonism in the Golden State!  I might have known...

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I would not hold someone accountable for doing his best to help me and for acting as competently as he knew how, even if the result were a failure.

That's a different issue. Suppose someone is passing the sacrament with the best of intentions and inadvertently loses his grip on the sacrament tray and hits a ward member in the head (I saw this happen once). One can assume that passing the sacrament is done with the best of intentions, but the member gets hurt anyway (in this case, a pretty decent cut to the forehead). If I were the deacon involved, I would apologize, wouldn't you? (The deacon in question did apologize.) Should we or the affected member "denounce" the deacon? Of course not. But common courtesy says one apologizes when one hurts another person.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is an all-too-common misconception that revelation from God is available on demand. Many, many things are left to mortal men and women -- including prophets -- to study and work out on their own. That's a condition of mortality necessary for growth, which is one of the purposes of mortality.

The misconception becomes a problem when a person finds fault with a prophet for not knowing what the person thinks God should have reavealed to the prophet, in effect second-guessing God, which is always fraught with danger.

To me, all this makes a prophet unnecessary.

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Science is a very human endeavor.  There is much value in it, but it's far from perfect.

Ditto for religion

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a different issue.

No, it's not a different issue, really.

Quote

Suppose someone is passing the sacrament with the best of intentions and inadvertently loses his grip on the sacrament tray and hits a ward member in the head (I saw this happen once). One can assume that passing the sacrament is done with the best of intentions, but the member gets hurt anyway (in this case, a pretty decent cut to the forehead). If I were the deacon involved, I would apologize, wouldn't you? (The deacon in question did apologize.) Should we or the affected member "denounce" the deacon? Of course not. But common courtesy says one apologizes when one hurts another person.

The deacon could have been expected to be competent enough to have held a tight grip on the sacrament tray and thus avoided the injury. So an apology in that instance could and should have been expected.

I'm talking about instances where the person did all that could reasonably have been expected of him/her and the result still was not what was desired. It might be a courteous and magnanimous thing to offer an apology, but I don't believe one could reasonably be expected.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it's not a different issue, really.

The deacon could have been expected to be competent enough to have held a tight grip on the sacrament tray and thus avoided the injury. So an apology in that instance could and should have been expected.

I'm talking about instances where the person did all that could reasonably have been expected of him/her and the result still was not what was desired. It might be a courteous and magnanimous thing to offer an apology, but I don't believe one could reasonably be expected.

An apology costs nothing but gains so much. But no, I certainly don't expect apologies or expressions of regret from the church, though that would be the magnanimous and courteous thing to do.