LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To me, all this makes a prophet unnecessary.

Not at all.

A prophet is necessary for those instances (and they are many) when God does have things to communicate to His people collectively or when God wants His anointed servants to do certain things in administering His Church.

The key point here is that God calls the shots, not fallible men or women. Recognition of this, I believe, is one of the things we need to learn in mortality.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ditto for religion

Indeed.  But I think God has a strong hand in many religious endeavors (though, perhaps, in some scientific ones as well).

I also believe that God has a much more direct role in the administration of the LDS Church.  That doesn't amount to infallibility, though.

Anything that man has a hand in will be mucked up by said hand.  And yet the Lord continues to strive with us, for which I am very grateful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

An apology costs nothing but gains so much.

Be that as it may, it is not just to blame a party for not offering an apology that could not reasonably be expected.

Quote

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.

This comes across as your being contemptuous of the Church for not living up to your arbitrary expectation of magnanimity and courtesy. Again, that strikes me as unjust.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, it is not just o blame a party for not offering an apology that could not reasonably be expected.

This comes across as your being contemptuous of the Church for not living up to your arbitrary expectation of magnanimity and courtesy. Again, that strikes me as unjust.

That wasn't the intent. I don't blame the church for not apologizing. I wish they would, but as I said, I don't expect it. No contempt was implied.

[ALarson]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

There were some who were not college students who had this therapy there.  IIRC, the youngest was 14 years old.  Some may consider that to be a child.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That wasn't the intent. I don't blame the church for not apologizing. I wish they would, but as I said, I don't expect it. No contempt was implied.

Well, it is not always true that "an apology costs nothing." In a litigious society such as the one that currently prevails, to the extent that an apology could be construed (or misconstrued) as an acceptance of blame and accountability, an apology could end up costing a great deal.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it is not always true that "an apology costs nothing." In a litigious society such as the one that currently prevails, to the extent that an apology could be construed (or misconstrued) as an acceptance of blame and accountability, an apology could end up costing a great deal.

That may be so, but it doesn't explain why some individual members refuse to even acknowledge harm was done, even if mistakenly. That's what I mean when I say some people believe in a sort of institutional infallibility. Sure, in the abstract, the church is led by fallible men, but if you mention specifics, you're a faultfinder who is vilifying the church. I do not understand that.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That may be so, but it doesn't explain why some individual members refuse to even acknowledge harm was done, even if mistakenly. 

I agree.  I'm amazed at how many are trying to put a positive spin on what was done to these gay young men in an attempt to cure them of their gayness.  I am sure that those who ran the studies did believe or hope the shock treatments (while showing these boys porn) would cure them.  So let's not worry about who's to blame even.  How about admitting it was a mistake?  Many people were harmed, boys killed themselves and others attempted to or were suicidal afterwards.  Those experiments (which is really what they were, IMO) hurt members of the church.  It's a dark and ugly part of the history of BYU and for the church leaders who were involved.  

Again, I don't really care who's to blame here. There's plenty to go around and share.   But I wish people would stop trying to defend what was done or make it into something positive.  It was not.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'm amazed at how many are trying to put a positive spin on what was done to these gay young men in an attempt to cure them of their gayness.  I am sure that those who ran the studies did believe or hope the shock treatments (while showing these boys porn) would cure them.  So let's not worry about who's to blame even.  How about admitting it was a mistake?  Many people were harmed, boys killed themselves and others attempted to or were suicidal afterwards.  Those experiments (which is really what they were, IMO) hurt members of the church.  It's a dark and ugly part of the history of BYU and for the church leaders who were involved.  

Again, I don't really care who's to blame here. There's plenty to go around and share.   But I wish people would stop trying to defend what was done or make it into something positive.  It was not.

I don’t care, either. I just don’t understand the seeming need to defend every action, no matter what. 

Maybe we’re just faultfinders. 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'm amazed at how many are trying to put a positive spin on what was done to these gay young men in an attempt to cure them of their gayness.  I am sure that those who ran the studies did believe or hope the shock treatments (while showing these boys porn) would cure them.  So let's not worry about who's to blame even.  How about admitting it was a mistake?  Many people were harmed, boys killed themselves and others attempted to or were suicidal afterwards.  Those experiments (which is really what they were, IMO) hurt members of the church.  It's a dark and ugly part of the history of BYU and for the church leaders who were involved.  

Again, I don't really care who's to blame here. There's plenty to go around and share.   But I wish people would stop trying to defend what was done or make it into something positive.  It was not.

Do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day to stop sinful behavior?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t care, either. I just don’t understand the seeming need to defend every action, no matter what. 

Maybe we’re just faultfinders. 

On both sides?   Possibly as that is human to do....

But, let's just have some honesty here about what took place.   It happened.  It was a mistake and it did not cure these boys of being gay, but it did cause harm.  Let's not defend what was done as if it was something positive.  I'd imagine those who conducted these treatments will agree on that too and maybe even regret doing them....who knows?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day to stop sinful behavior?

Well, some of these boys had never acted on their attraction to the same sex.  There was no "sinful behavior" for many of them....just a confessed attraction.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, some of these boys had never acted on their attraction to the same sex.  There was no "sinful behavior" for many of them....just a confessed attraction.

Do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day to stop personal responses they considered to be troubling? LDS Family Services is doing that today. Some of their approaches will give way to new therapies, the old therapies will likely be condemned by somebody, and people will be troubled over their personal responses one way or another in both old and new ways.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  But I think God has a strong hand in many religious endeavors (though, perhaps, in some scientific ones as well).

I also believe that God has a much more direct role in the administration of the LDS Church.  That doesn't amount to infallibility, though.

Anything that man has a hand in will be mucked up by said hand.  And yet the Lord continues to strive with us, for which I am very grateful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Some people believe God has a hand in many scientific endeavors or the arts or any other human enterprise.  Some believe God is more involved in their individual lives or more involved in their particular religion of choice.  Making arguments about whether God favors my views over your views is an age old human tradition. 

I'm grateful for life too and the freedom to believe and have differences of opinion on these topics.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

Do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day to stop personal responses they considered to be troubling? LDS Family Services is doing that today. Some of their approaches will give way to new therapies, the old therapies will likely be condemned by somebody, and people will be troubled over their personal responses one way or another in both old and new ways.

Don’t get me started on LDS Family Services. Not a good experience. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day to stop personal responses they considered to be troubling?

Maybe read my post again.  That's the opposite of what I was stating.  I even stood up for those who implemented these treatments.  That doesn't change the fact that they were not effective and hurt people.  So let's not defend the treatments or try to put a positive spin on them.  That was the point I was making.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some people believe God has a hand in many scientific endeavors or the arts or any other human enterprise. 

Yes.  I am one of them.

But I think the Lord's guidance of the LDS Church is a bit different.  He has invested the Church with authority not found elsewhere.  That authority, and the saving ordinances and other work performed by the Church, are, in some vital ways, uniquely and distinctly situated from all other "human enterprise(s)."

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some believe God is more involved in their individual lives or more involved in their particular religion of choice. 

I also believe God influences some people in some ways in other religions.  I think that influence is qualitatively and quantitatively different, however, from the guidance provided to the LDS Church through prophets and apostles who hold priesthood authority and keys.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Making arguments about whether God favors my views over your views is an age old human tradition. 

I'm not really making an argument, though.  I'm just stating my beliefs.  

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm grateful for life too and the freedom to believe and have differences of opinion on these topics.  

And I am glad we can have differences of opinion while also being cordial and respectful to each other (although I mess up in that regard on a fairly regular basis).

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I am one of them.

But I think the Lord's guidance of the LDS Church is a bit different.  He has invested the Church with authority not found elsewhere.  That authority, and the saving ordinances and other work performed by the Church, are, in some vital ways, uniquely and distinctly situated from all other "human enterprise(s)."

Sure, this is the same will all religions or points of view on just about every topic imaginable.  Another way of restating what you say here is that you believe that your beliefs are more correct or better than the beliefs of others.  This is standard human bias that people have about their belief systems.  

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also believe God influences some people in some ways in other religions.  I think that influence is qualitatively and quantitatively different, however, from the guidance provided to the LDS Church through prophets and apostles who hold priesthood authority and keys.

I agree, it absolutely is different, otherwise there wouldn't be different religions if everyone believed the same thing about religious authority.  

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really making an argument, though.  I'm just stating my beliefs.  

Aren't you making the claim that LDS authority is qualitatively better than the authority of other religions?  Perhaps this isn't an argument in the sense that you're not trying to justify this belief through some kind of logic or through explaining the premises upon which you base this belief.  But I'm assuming you have done this in the past and have these kinds of reasons that support your belief.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I am glad we can have differences of opinion while also being cordial and respectful to each other (although I mess up in that regard on a fairly regular basis).

Ditto, I do that way too often.  :-)  New years resolution time!   I need to get better at that.  

[california boy]

5 hours 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

The more I reread what was written, I think I agree with you.  

 

It still does not mean that the church has ever appeared to rely on revelation on how it treats gays.

[The Nehor]

On 12/20/2017 at 8:48 AM, Gray said:

Your jokes are usually brilliant, but this one earns three "mwah mwahs" on the trombone.

Well, even a stopped clock is wrong most of the day.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

As I have re read the pamphlet several times, I tend to agree now with what you wrote.  I think a lot of my judgement is based on the claims of revelation given to me about this issue which proved to be just as wrong as this pamphlet.  

What would I like to see church leaders do more of?  Be more clear where their decisions and directions are coming from.  To a lot of members, especially gay that are very sensitive to these issues, it is important to know where the church leaders claim these policies are coming from.  There is a big difference between, this is our best advice, and claims of divine guidance.  

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe read my post again.  That's the opposite of what I was stating.  I even stood up for those who implemented these treatments.  That doesn't change the fact that they were not effective and hurt people.  So let's not defend the treatments or try to put a positive spin on them.  That was the point I was making.

I wasn't contradicting anything, just asking a follow-up question. But since you brought it up, do you wish people would stop defending the principle that the Lord's grace covers those engaged in good faith in applying and receiving the best available therapies of their day that the responsible professional body has since objectively determined is ineffective or hurtful (as the professional body would define "ineffective" and "hurtful")?

[The Nehor]

So, 22 pages? I can only assume we have sorted this out now. Good to see.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the real issue: most people see the electroshock aversion therapy as a mistake, but for some reason, expressing that opinion is faultfinding. How can an organization improve if it cannot acknowledge its missteps? It is possible to express an opinion that an organization has made mistakes without vilifying that organization.

I'm sure it is.

But repeatedly shrieking that the pamphlet somehow "proves" that no LDS Church leader has ever received revelation on any topic at any time - or, to put it more succinctly - to exploit the pamphlet as a weapon against the fundamental truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, as one very active participant has done - is certainly faultfinding and vilification.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

It looked pretty obvious to me.