LDS SSA Policies in Context

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Pages 17-34 (Last I counted that's 17).  The section is called "Aversive Conditioning Applied to Male Homosexuality" under the section "Review of the Literature."  This is a discussion of the other studies completed.  There is documentation of the studies discussed cited in standard APA formatting.  The fact that it doesn't match your expectations doesn't make the statement inaccurate.  

I would agree that it would be more accurate to say "17 pages of discussion documenting other studies."  

I can agree with that (but I'm not really in agreement about the 17 pages....although I see your point and will count it as an answer to the CFR).

I think where I got that FAIR gives the wrong impression is how Calm introduced it in her post too:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69982-lds-ssa-policies-in-context/?do=findComment&comment=1209781718

She stated:

Quote

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

That's not accurate and when I went looking for 17 or more "pages of studies", they were not there.  

Thanks also for your other comments here regarding the study.  I always appreciate your viewpoint and admire you greatly.

Edited December 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

Please don’t misinterpret what I am going to ask.

There have been and continue to be many severe procedures we are willing to endure in order to overcome injury and disease. We are willing to accept negative side-effects of some medicines to get relief from discomfort or avoid death. In my case, knee replacement surgery was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced, but enduring it has given me years of pain-free activity. I am “blessed” to have recurring cycles of cluster headaches which are worse than knee replacement. There is no effective or permanent treatment yet,  but I would be willing to do something pretty extreme in order to be rid of them once and for all.

When we read about some of these hurtful medical techniques used to attempt a cure for male homosexuality, we should keep in mind that the condition was thought to be a curable illness. Participants were willing to endure some harsh things in the hopes of achieving wellness. So, as I reflect on this situation I can appreciate that some would be willing to subject themselves to various harsh remedies hoping the ordeal would result in relief and peace.

We have all had similar things happen to us. If we were in that situation in 1958 or 1968 what might we have been thinking? 

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

I think you are judging the church based on it's worst rather than based on its overall Behavior and efforts. But that's just me.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I can agree with that (but I'm not really in agreement about the 17 pages....although I see your point and will count it as an answer to the CFR).

I think where I got that FAIR gives the wrong impression is how Calm introduced it in her post too:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69982-lds-ssa-policies-in-context/?do=findComment&comment=1209781718

She stated:

That's not accurate and when I went looking for 17 or more "pages of studies", they were not there.  

Thanks also for your other comments here regarding the study.  I always appreciate your viewpoint and admire you greatly.

My apologies for not being accurate, considering how intense I have been in insisting others be, it is bad form to just skim articles and not doublecheck my claims before posting like I usually do.  I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion, except for making clear the differentiation between electroshock/electroconvulsive therapy and electric aversion therapy.  Too much family, too much family drama, too much ECT to focus much on anything else these days.  Maybe I can do indepth posting again once my daughter's treatments become routine and we are not all waiting for the doom that always comes to come...because this time it won't please.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Pages 17-34 (Last I counted that's 17).  The section is called "Aversive Conditioning Applied to Male Homosexuality" under the section "Review of the Literature."  This is a discussion of the other studies completed.  There is documentation of the studies discussed cited in standard APA formatting.  The fact that it doesn't match your expectations doesn't make the statement inaccurate.  

I would agree that it would be more accurate to say "17 pages of discussion documenting other studies."  

Thank you for taking the time to be accurate.  It should have been me.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I'm sure a lot of threads here would be a lot shorter if everyone would just cave in to what the faultfinders say.

 

How about an apology? We say sorry all the time to people and that doesn't mean we ourselves did anything wrong. Maybe those on this board could do that? Maybe the church leaders could apologise or say they're sorry for the wrongs? I say sorry all the time, doesn't mean I had a hand in what went wrong, just that I'm sorry that it happened. Like when you say you're sorry when someone loses a loved one. Simple as that. 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

My apologies for not being accurate, considering how intense I have been in insisting others be, it is bad form to just skim articles and not doublecheck my claims before posting like I usually do.  I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion, except for making clear the differentiation between electroshock/electroconvulsive therapy and electric aversion therapy.  Too much family, too much family drama, too much ECT to focus much on anything else these days.  Maybe I can do indepth posting again once my daughter's treatments become routine and we are not all waiting for the doom that always comes to come...because this time it won't please.

No worries, Calm....this thread got to be confusing at times, I think....

We figured it out 

My best to you and your daughter (and family) and I hope things go well with her treatments.

Edited December 22, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

My apologies for not being accurate, considering how intense I have been in insisting others be, it is bad form to just skim articles and not doublecheck my claims before posting like I usually do.  I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion, except for making clear the differentiation between electroshock/electroconvulsive therapy and electric aversion therapy.  Too much family, too much family drama, too much ECT to focus much on anything else these days.  Maybe I can do indepth posting again once my daughter's treatments become routine and we are not all waiting for the doom that always comes to come...because this time it won't please.

Sorry you’re having family drama. Here’s hoping the treatments are successful. 

[california boy]

20 hours 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.

I can't remember reading any posts that even alluded to the idea that the church was just going along with  teachings that some scientist thought at the time.  That certainly was never my intent.  What was my intent is to clearly point out this false notion that the church uses revelation/inspiration to form its policies towards gay members.  I believe that is also very apparent.  And I don't understand why others can't acknowledge that fact.

Edited December 22, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that the pamphlet  proves that the church has never received any revelation. Perhaps you could point out such a post so that we could be more clear.  Since it is repeatedly shrieking, this shouldn't be too difficult.

What I  have stated repeatedly and continue to state is that there is no evidence that the church has received any revelation from God on any policies the church has instituted against gay members.  And that this pamphlet is more proof of that belief.  I will continue to hold that belief until there is some evidence that a revelation has been received.

Edited December 22, 2017 by california boy

[kllindley]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can't remember reading any posts that even alluded to the idea that the church was just going along with  teachings that some scientist thought at the time.  That certainly was never my intent.  What was my intent is to clearly point out this false notion that the church uses revelation/inspiration to form its policies towards gay members.  I believe that is also very apparent.  And I don't understand why others can't acknowledge that fact.

Maybe because it isn't as apparent as you think. I believe that from your experience, the evidence fully supports your conclusions. It would be not only wrong but also pointless for me to try to argue against that. Your conclusion is a logical and valid response to your experience.  And reasonable, rational, sincere people have different experiences that lead them to a different conclusion. 

Forme, the history of mistakes does not in the least undermine my conviction that Church responses to homosexuality are and continue to be inspired. In fact, due to the nature of the things that have changed and their relationship to the larger societal context, contrasted with the things that have remained consistent, I find that the historical data strengthen my testimony that the leaders do and have acted in accordance with revelation. 

It wouldn't make sense for me to try to "convince" anyone that my view is the correct one, and I have no interest in even trying. It's also very unlikely that you or anyone else will convince me that my position is wrong, but I am interested in understanding other perspectives and acknowledge that good-hearted, reasonable people reach different, valid conclusions.  

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please don’t misinterpret what I am going to ask.

There have been and continue to be many severe procedures we are willing to endure in order to overcome injury and disease. We are willing to accept negative side-effects of some medicines to get relief from discomfort or death. In my case, knee replacement surgery was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced, but enduring it has given me years of pain-free activity. I am “blessed” to have recurring cycles of cluster headaches which are worse than knee replacement. There is no effective or permanent treatment yet,  but I would be willing to do something pretty extreme in order to be rid of them once and for all.

When we read about some of these hurtful medical techniques used to attempt a cure for male homosexuality, we should keep in mind that the condition was thought to be a curable illness. Participants were willing to endure some harsh things in the hopes of achieving wellness. So, as I reflect on this situation I can appreciate that some would be willing to subject themselves to various harsh remedies hoping they would result in relief and peace.

We have all had similar things happen to us. If we were in that situation in 1958 or 1968 what might we have been thinking? 

 

I agree with you.  I think it is pretty apparent that these men were very desperate to try and do what the church asked them to do.  At the time the church was demanding that gay men become straight.  Many did all they could to accomplish that demand.  Even when what was demanded was not possible.  The church set them up for failure since that change was not possible for the vast majority of gay men.

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I  have stated repeatedly and continue to state is that there is no evidence that the church has received any revelation from God on any policies the church has instituted against gay members.  And that this pamphlet is more proof of that belief.  I will continue to hold that belief until there is some evidence that a revelation has been received.

No evidence? Really? Or no evidence that you find compelling?

[california boy]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are judging the church based on it's worst rather than based on its overall Behavior and efforts. But that's just me.

I am more than open to hear about a revelation that has been given on this subject.  Do you have any you can point to?

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No evidence? Really? Or no evidence that you find compelling?

I see no evidence.  I do see countless instances where the church has been wrong.  I listed them earlier in this thread.

[kllindley]

Gotcha. Sounds like you've got everything about God and the afterlife all figured out. I haven't been there yet myself, so I have to operate on faith and personal spiritual experiences. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How about an apology? We say sorry all the time to people and that doesn't mean we ourselves did anything wrong. Maybe those on this board could do that? Maybe the church leaders could apologise or say they're sorry for the wrongs? I say sorry all the time, doesn't mean I had a hand in what went wrong, just that I'm sorry that it happened. Like when you say you're sorry when someone loses a loved one. Simple as that. 

What you are describing is not, by definition, an apology. Apology implies the acceptance of guilt or blame.

That's why I think it's absurd to apologize on behalf of someone else.

I could take that tack here on this board. I could apologize on behalf of those I see defaming the Church and its leaders. But it wouldn't be very meaningful.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Gotcha. Sounds like you've got everything about God and the afterlife all figured out. I haven't been there yet myself, so I have to operate on faith and personal spiritual experiences. 

Probably about the same as everyone else has concerning gays.  Certainly the church has no clear understanding what happens to gays after they die.  They seem to be guessing just like everyone else.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you are describing is not, by definition, an apology. Apology implies the acceptance of guilt or blame.

That's why I think it's absurd to apologize on behalf of someone else.

I could take that tack here on this board. I could apologize on behalf of those I see defaming the Church and its leaders. But it wouldn't be very meaningful.

We've had this conversation before on here, maybe not you and me, but others, about saying sorry. So you've never said, "sorry for your loss", when someone has lost a loved one? Do you see what I mean? Can't we say, "sorry you've been put through something like that California Boy?" and all the others that have been put through so much. What's so hard about having more empathy and putting ourselves in their shoes? It would shorten threads like this and help heal those that need closure and validation. Does this English word not fit? Empathy? I thought LDS were better than this. Saying sorry doesn't mean you're to blame Scott, surely you know this. ETA: maybe I shouldn't have used the word "apology" in my previous post. Only the word "sorry". 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We've had this conversation before on here, maybe not you and me, but others, about saying sorry. So you've never said, "sorry for your loss", when someone has lost a loved one? Do you see what I mean? Can't we say, "sorry you've been put through something like that California Boy?" and all the others that have been put through so much. What's so hard about having more empathy and putting ourselves in their shoes? It would shorten threads like this and help heal those that need closure and validation. Does this English word not fit? Empathy? I thought LDS were better than this. Saying sorry doesn't mean you're to blame Scott, surely you know this. ETA: maybe I shouldn't have used the word "apology" in my previous post. Only the word "sorry". 

Well said. I can say I'm sorry my tithing dollars and tuition were used on the aversion therapy program and that people suffered. That doesn't mean I feel responsible for what happened. I'm just sorry it happened, and I hope I can be a friend and comfort to anyone who suffered. Blame has nothing to do with it.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Probably about the same as everyone else has concerning gays.  Certainly the church has no clear understanding what happens to gays after they die.  They seem to be guessing just like everyone else.

I think you are right to a degree, but I wouldn't call it "guessing".  More could be revealed concerning this topic.  We don't know much about it from revelation.  Not much has been said in scriptures.  What we do have is the plan of salvation, and we also have scriptures which we understand to state that homosexual acts are sinful.  What the church is doing, and what they have always done, is create policy based on their best understanding of scripture and revelations of modern prophets in conjunction with our best understanding of science and research.  As their understanding evolves, their policy evolves, and may continue to evolve. 

What you have to understand is that the church is accountable and responsible before God to make policies based on the best information that they have, until more is revealed.  Anything other than that would be reckless "guessing".  No one is claiming to have all the answers, but until God reveals critical changes, the brethren are obligated to continue on the path that they are on.  You see, the church must follow their best understanding and conscience, and they expect everyone else to do the same.  They don't expect you, or anyone else to blindly follow them.  Each individual is entitled to have God's will concerning them revealed to them.  Sometimes that comes easily, other times it is not always immediately apparent.  The same is true for the church.  The point is to do the best you can with the light that you have.  That is what the church is accountable for, and that is what each individual is accountable for.

Edited December 22, 2017 by pogi

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We've had this conversation before on here, maybe not you and me, but others, about saying sorry. So you've never said, "sorry for your loss", when someone has lost a loved one? Do you see what I mean? Can't we say, "sorry you've been put through something like that California Boy?" and all the others that have been put through so much. What's so hard about having more empathy and putting ourselves in their shoes? It would shorten threads like this and help heal those that need closure and validation. Does this English word not fit? Empathy? I thought LDS were better than this. Saying sorry doesn't mean you're to blame Scott, surely you know this. ETA: maybe I shouldn't have used the word "apology" in my previous post. Only the word "sorry". 

I think E. Oaks' idea that the church doesn't seek or give apologies (never mind that it cannot as it is an inanimate, fictional entity) has spilled over to some on this site.  Apologizing in this case means an admission of guilt and because the church doesn't do that, certain individuals will not either.

California Boy suffered due to a wrong policy or practice or whatever term assigned and he should at least get some empathy.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think you are right to a degree, but I wouldn't call it "guessing".  More could be revealed concerning this topic.  We don't know much about it from revelation.  Not much has been said in scriptures.  What we do have is the plan of salvation, and we also have scriptures which we understand to state that homosexual acts are sinful.  What the church is doing, and what they have always done, is create policy based on their best understanding of scripture and revelations of modern prophets in conjunction with our best understanding of science and research.  As their understanding evolves, their policy evolves, and may continue to evolve. 

What you have to understand is that the church is accountable and responsible before God to make policies based on the best information that they have, until more is revealed.  Anything other than that would be reckless "guessing".  No one is claiming to have all the answers, but until God reveals critical changes, the brethren are obligated to continue on the path that they are on.  You see, the church must follow their best understanding and conscience, and they expect everyone else to do the same.  They don't expect you, or anyone else to blindly follow them.  Each individual is entitled to have God's will concerning them revealed to them.  Sometimes that comes easily, other times it is not always immediately apparent.  The same is true for the church.  The point is to do the best you can with the light that you have.  That is what the church is accountable for, and that is what each individual is accountable for.

I think that is beautifully put and certainly much more sincere and frankly, honest than most of the things that are said about this issue. I too believe that church leaders are trying their best to figure out what fits in best with their understanding.  But I also think that especially when counseling gay men they should be very clear about these points.  If church leaders would lay out the position of the church in this manner rather than emphasizing that this comes from servants of God, or from a Prophet who is God's mouthpiece, then it would be a much more honest understanding of what is going on.  

I personally don't feel that some of the policies and actions fit my understanding of the Savior, but that doesn't mean that I have any problem with the church choosing who should be allowed baptism and who should not.  I never have.  My issue has always been claims of revelation from God and this is the will of God kinds of claims.  That is what I have not seen any evidence of.

Thanks Pogi for such a thoughtful post and attempting to understand where I come from on this issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We've had this conversation before on here, maybe not you and me, but others, about saying sorry. So you've never said, "sorry for your loss", when someone has lost a loved one? Do you see what I mean? Can't we say, "sorry you've been put through something like that California Boy?" and all the others that have been put through so much. What's so hard about having more empathy and putting ourselves in their shoes? It would shorten threads like this and help heal those that need closure and validation. Does this English word not fit? Empathy? I thought LDS were better than this. Saying sorry doesn't mean you're to blame Scott, surely you know this. ETA: maybe I shouldn't have used the word "apology" in my previous post. Only the word "sorry". 

Same word, different meanings. One is an expression of sympathy, the other is an acknowledgement of blame, guilt or responsibility. Surely you can see the distinction. 

[kiwi57]

On 12/23/2017 at 7:19 AM, Exiled said:

I think E. Oaks' idea that the church doesn't seek or give apologies (never mind that it cannot as it is an inanimate, fictional entity) has spilled over to some on this site.  Apologizing in this case means an admission of guilt and because the church doesn't do that, certain individuals will not either.

California Boy suffered due to a wrong policy or practice or whatever term assigned and he should at least get some empathy.

And if we have "empathy," then we will not question his angry rantings or challenge his reasoning, right?

Thank you for demonstrating how sufferings are weaponised.