california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: 20/20 hindsight is always perfect. 20/20 hindsight shows that church leaders make decisions based on their own bias and not based on revelation. I think that is the point of this discussion that you brought up. I think church leaders are good men trying to do their best to guide the church. But I don't think that their claims of revelation stand up over time, or as you say 20/20 hindsight.
pogi Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, california boy said: 20/20 hindsight shows that church leaders make decisions based on their own bias and not based on revelation. I think that is the point of this discussion that you brought up. I think church leaders are good men trying to do their best to guide the church. But I don't think that their claims of revelation stand up over time, or as you say 20/20 hindsight. I am not aware of any claims of revelation in regards to the topic at hand.
california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The point of the OP was not that critics should “leave us alone,” but simply to point out the prevailing medical and scientific context that led them to misguided actions. Critics ignore that context to demonize the Church. If the church is an organization that claims to look to scientific research and experts in different areas for instituting dogma, carefully ponders that information and makes a decision based on trying to do the best they can to guide the church, then you are absolutely right. The dogma on how to deal with gays falls along those lines in 1981 and continues to fall along those lines in 2017. If the church is an organization that claims to be guided by revelation from God and inspiration then that claim utterly fails. 1
california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: As usual, this is based on a childish belief on the infallibility of prophets that you were taught as a child but persist on holding as an adult. You disagree with the church on its present policies- fine. That is your privilege and I respect that. It is a genuine difference in belief. But don't criticize the church because the Santa Claus at the ward party which you believed in, wasn't the real Santa and so therefore the church "lied" to you. As a child you believed in Santa and infallible prophets who talked face to face with God on a daily basis. It's time to grow up. That is about how valid this comment is in my opinion. Not valid. Oh it has become crystal clear to me that claims of a prophet guiding the church by revelation is very much like believing in Santa Claus. Make no mistake, I am over it.
pogi Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, california boy said: If the church is an organization that claims to look to scientific research and experts in different areas for instituting dogma, carefully ponders that information and makes a decision based on trying to do the best they can to guide the church, then you are absolutely right. The dogma on how to deal with gays falls along those lines in 1981 and continues to fall along those lines in 2017. If the church is an organization that claims to be guided by revelation from God and inspiration then that claim utterly fails. What “dogma” are you referring to exactly?
smac97 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, california boy said: If the church is an organization that claims to look to scientific research and experts in different areas for instituting dogma, I am not sure what your point is here. The topic under discussion was a psychological and or medical therapeutic approach for treating homosexuals. This therapy was used in the broader Society in which the church found itself. There was, as I can see, no dogma attached to it. 13 minutes ago, california boy said: carefully ponders that information and makes a decision based on trying to do the best they can to guide the church, then you are absolutely right. The dogma on how to deal with gays falls along those lines in 1981 and continues to fall along those lines in 2017. Again what Dogma are you talking about here? 13 minutes ago, california boy said: If the church is an organization that claims to be guided by revelation from God and inspiration then that claim utterly fails. Well no, it doesn't. The church doesn't claim to be lead by Revelation in each and every particular and each and every decision it makes, or a school sponsored by it makes. 2
california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While electroshock has a bad reputation, largely due to the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, it actually is for other conditions extremely effective. So disparaging electroshock therapy as torture is a bit misleading. I don't think they should have done it in the least, but it had a rather prominent place in medicine and particularly psychology. It only fell out of favor for a few decades due to backlash over overuse. Yet even today for severe depression it remains among the most effective of treatments. It's also used for suicidal thoughts, and various other issues like types of hypomania. So I think there's a tendency to disparage electroshock therapy when of all the psychological treatments of that era it was one of the few that actually was scientific. It may have been misused, but turning to one of the few effective treatments for what at that time they thought was mental illness was hardly surprising. Especially for what they thought was mental illness that wasn't receptive to other treatments. The problem was that they continued with it well past when they should have known it wasn't effective. Now of course the cynic in me would say that most psychological treatments aren't terribly effective and that as a set of medical treatments remains in a fairly primitive ignorant state. We don't even really understand how most anti-depressants work. Likewise I don't think we really understand why electroshock therapy works although there are theories. Indeed, I'd argue that mental illness medicine remains in a place roughly analogous to where physics and chemistry were at the time of Boyle when they were transitioning out of alchemy. Obviously my friends in psychology frequently disagree. My honest opinion is I feel the church has a very deep prejudice against someone who is attracted to the same sex. It seems to be a blind spot to the point that the church continues to make decisions wanting for an outcome that seems to always allude them. The 1981 pamphlet is a good example of this. Church leaders wanted someone that is attracted to the same sex to be cured. So they looked around for experts that lined up with their agenda and adopted not only their thinking on what causes someone to be gay but to promise a cure and push it to the point where church leaders claimed revelation to recommended gay men to marry. They honestly thought that would fix the problem. It fit the belief that they wanted to have about homosexuality. The next step was to try electro shock therapy. Again this very deep prejudice against someone who is attracted to the same sex. This could be the answer that would fix them. It wasn't Eventually the church has given up on "curing" someone who is gay. The evidence was just overwhelming against that goal. The next step was to deny them marriage. The more the church could marginalize gays in society, the closer they could come to feeding that prejudice in getting rid of gays in society. While the church had a temporary victory, in the end, it backfired as people began to see more and more the value of stable gay families in society. I personally feel that Prop 8 was the single most important event that pushed gay marriage to the courts and ultimately the legalization of gay marriage. So if the church could not marginalize gay couples outside the church, the next best thing would be to marginalize gay couples and their families in the church. At least they could completely control that marginalization. So we get the October policy. While church leaders were able to marginalize gay couples in the church, what they couldn't control is how members react to that marginalization. Whether the latest strategy will work will only be known over time. Perhaps it will. The one consistent thread in all of these defenses has been the lack of revelation or inspiration from God. When that seemed to becoming apparent, the church double downs with claims of revelation. Whether one believes that actually happened is mostly based on how trusting the person is in this concept of a church run by revelation from God. On this particular issue of how to treat gays, there has been little evidence that any revelation has ever been received.
california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, pogi said: What “dogma” are you referring to exactly? If you haven't done so, read the 1981 pamphlet linked to in the now closed thread. In that pamphlet, the church leads out it's dogma on how to cure someone who is gay.
california boy Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am not sure what your point is here. The topic under discussion was a psychological and or medical therapeutic approach for treating homosexuals. This therapy was used in the broader Society in which the church found itself. There was, as I can see, no dogma attached to it. Again what Dogma are you talking about here? Well no, it doesn't. The church doesn't claim to be lead by Revelation in each and every particular and each and every decision it makes, or a school sponsored by it makes. I am talking about the entire body of dogma the church developed on how to treat gays. From how to cure them to how to marginalize their families both outside the church, and from within.
The Nehor Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 3 hours ago, ksfisher said: It sounds like you're trying to figure out the meaning of life. Why does anyone have struggles? Why are some born into wonderful, secure homes and others are born to abusive parents. Why for every Michael Jordan or LeBron James are there born I don't know how many people with physical, mental, or emotional problems that will handicap them for their entire lives. No, I am trying to find consolations and instruction. Asking “why” questions of God is chancy. Asking for how to deal with something or help dealing with it usually yields more results. 1
The Nehor Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: 20/20 hindsight shows that church leaders make decisions based on their own bias and not based on revelation. I think that is the point of this discussion that you brought up. I think church leaders are good men trying to do their best to guide the church. But I don't think that their claims of revelation stand up over time, or as you say 20/20 hindsight. I disagree. Plus we do not truly have hindsight until we get omniscience and it is all over.
ALarson Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, CV75 said: The treatment was devised by the psychoanalysts of yesteryear, and was an acceptable practice. Ok. That says nothing about it being inspired of or from God. These experiments involved putting a strain gage around a man's penis....prior to this they'd had him go out and buy his own porn (both gay and straight)....then, if he was aroused while viewing this porn, his penis was shocked. Does that sound like it was something from God? Let's just put it out there. This is what was done to these men. Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson 1
pogi Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 35 minutes ago, california boy said: If you haven't done so, read the 1981 pamphlet linked to in the now closed thread. In that pamphlet, the church leads out it's dogma on how to cure someone who is gay. Some obscure pamphlet from 1981 that has been completely overhauled does not rise to the level of incontravertible dogma. Sorry. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: Oh it has become crystal clear to me that claims of a prophet guiding the church by revelation is very much like believing in Santa Claus. Make no mistake, I am over it. For the number of times you bring it up, I hardly think you are "over it". That is as plain as can be. If you were over it you would let it go. I presume you do not pine for Santa every Christmas. 3
JAHS Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 10 hours ago, california boy said: I think the church picks and chooses what "best books" it wants to use in order to push it's agenda. There is much scientific research and studies that show that gay marriage is a very positive force both within society and increasing stability for gay couples and their families just like marriage strengthens society and families for straight families. This study done by a well knows Australian researches was just published that indicates that Gay relationships can be happier than hetero, It goes on to explain exactly why that seems to be true. Gay couples come into their relationship without preconceived gender roles. So they tend to divide up responsibilities of their relationship based on who has the best aptitude and interest in doing those roles. Interestingly, we had dinner with some friends last night and discussed how they decide who did what. We all agreed that without thinking about it, the person in the relationship that had the best skills and interest seamlessly contributed to the relationship. There were no pink jobs or blue jobs where gender expectations were a factor in deciding responsibilities. It just works much more seamlessly. Of course this is not the first study to show the value of gay marriage and more stable gay families. Does anyone see the church jumping on these "best books" to modify church policy. Or does just about everyone believe the church ignores the studies that don't fit their agenda. They "can" be happier but are they really? I can quote studies that show the opposite. From Psychology today: "Overall, same-sex couples reported shorter relationship lengths than different-sex couples (Joyner et al., 2017). And male same-sex couples experienced significantly higher rates of dissolution than female couples or different-sex couples. This is consistent with previous findings: Gay and bisexual men are exposed to minority stressors that can de-stabilize relationships" (Meyer, 2003; Lau, 2012). 1
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: My honest opinion is I feel the church has a very deep prejudice against someone who is attracted to the same sex. It seems to be a blind spot to the point that the church continues to make decisions wanting for an outcome that seems to always allude them. The 1981 pamphlet is a good example of this. Church leaders wanted someone that is attracted to the same sex to be cured. So they looked around for experts that lined up with their agenda and adopted not only their thinking on what causes someone to be gay but to promise a cure and push it to the point where church leaders claimed revelation to recommended gay men to marry. They honestly thought that would fix the problem. It fit the belief that they wanted to have about homosexuality. The next step was to try electro shock therapy. Again this very deep prejudice against someone who is attracted to the same sex. This could be the answer that would fix them. It wasn't Eventually the church has given up on "curing" someone who is gay. The evidence was just overwhelming against that goal. The next step was to deny them marriage. The more the church could marginalize gays in society, the closer they could come to feeding that prejudice in getting rid of gays in society. While the church had a temporary victory, in the end, it backfired as people began to see more and more the value of stable gay families in society. I personally feel that Prop 8 was the single most important event that pushed gay marriage to the courts and ultimately the legalization of gay marriage. So if the church could not marginalize gay couples outside the church, the next best thing would be to marginalize gay couples and their families in the church. At least they could completely control that marginalization. So we get the October policy. While church leaders were able to marginalize gay couples in the church, what they couldn't control is how members react to that marginalization. Whether the latest strategy will work will only be known over time. Perhaps it will. The one consistent thread in all of these defenses has been the lack of revelation or inspiration from God. When that seemed to becoming apparent, the church double downs with claims of revelation. Whether one believes that actually happened is mostly based on how trusting the person is in this concept of a church run by revelation from God. On this particular issue of how to treat gays, there has been little evidence that any revelation has ever been received. It's not a prejudice, it's believed to be a sin. Surely you can see the difference And regarding revelation? Do you really want me to recite every bible verse against sodomy? You have the right to disagree and many do in fact disagree with the church- but making ridiculous claims like this don't help your case any at all No alleged revelations about homosexuality? Give me a break And claiming the church is prejudiced against sin? Oh my gosh. Yes I think it is safe to say that most religions are not in favor of sin. You may disagree that it is a sin, but that is irrelevant. 5
mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 2 hours ago, california boy said: 20/20 hindsight shows that church leaders make decisions based on their own bias and not based on revelation. I think that is the point of this discussion that you brought up. I think church leaders are good men trying to do their best to guide the church. But I don't think that their claims of revelation stand up over time, or as you say 20/20 hindsight. Over it, hey? Yawn. 2
Gray Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's not a prejudice, it's believed to be a sin. Where do you think people got the idea that it was sinful? 1
The Nehor Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Where do you think people got the idea that it was sinful? The Torah. Edited December 20, 2017 by The Nehor 1
Gray Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The Torah. Nah. There's lots of stuff in the Bible that everyone ignores because it would gore their ox. The important moral rules are the ones that most inconvenience people NOT like us. But even in the Torah, it's still just based on prejudice. 1
smac97 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 2 hours ago, california boy said: I am talking about the entire body of dogma the church developed on how to treat gays. From how to cure them to how to marginalize their families both outside the church, and from within. Okay. But this thread isn't about that. So perhaps you can understand our confusion. I wish you well. Thanks, -Smac
kiwi57 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 4 hours ago, ALarson said: Well, maybe talk to some who were receiving the shock treatments a couple of times a week for weeks at a time. I'd imagine they'd classify that as "extensive". Would they? Pity that's not what "extensive" actually means, is it? An "extensive" program is one that includes a large number of participants over a considerable period of time. It has nothing to do with how those participants felt about it. 4 hours ago, ALarson said: There were also quite a large number of students involved. If that's the case (note that the linked source only mentioned 14) then we're on the way to establishing the extent of it. So, given that the actual incidence of homosexuality appears to be around 1.5% of the general population, just how many students were involved in this activity? 4 hours ago, ALarson said: Don't pretend this was just a "nothing" because for most of those involved it was painful and extremely damaging. There were records kept and this treatment and program are well documented. You might want to read up on it before you just make light of it again. "Extensive" is a word that means something. Something quite different than "It wasn't much fun." Interesting that you would feel obligated to try to shame me into silence in order to shut down any questioning of the actual extent of this activity, isn't it? 1
kiwi57 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 3 hours ago, california boy said: 20/20 hindsight shows that church leaders make decisions based on their own bias and not based on revelation. I think that is the point of this discussion that you brought up. Well, it's certainly the point that you are trying to milk out of it.
Tacenda Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 25 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Well, it's certainly the point that you are trying to milk out of it. I don't know why, but I'm always surprised or sad when a fellow LDS treats a human being like CB with such disregard. I thought Jesus taught us better than that or I thought we knew better than that.
JulieM Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Pity that's not what "extensive" actually means, is it?" An "extensive" program is one that includes a large number of participants over a considerable period of time "Extensive" is a word that means something. It can also mean thorough and comprehensive. Words that I imagine would describe this experiment and study and treatment for those who conducted it. Edited December 20, 2017 by JulieM 2
Recommended Posts