LDS SSA Policies in Context

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

I suppose that is one interpretation.

And I can see the prejudice against animals. In cases of bestiality the animal has already had a traumatizing experience and then you have to kill it for being involved. All in all a really rough day for the animal.

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The church doesn't claim to be lead by Revelation in each and every particular and each and every decision it makes

Another nonspecific admission of fallibility.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's great, if you feel that the church ought to be teaching and acting consistent with "the mainstream".  When I sustain the 15 men, who lead this church, as prophets, seers, and revelators, it is with the hope that we can be directed in a manner consistent with God's revealed will.

Which, of course, is not what I said.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would desire and welcome that as well.

"Most" does not do justice to the reality of it. The acclaim was widespread and palpable and the acceptance nearly universal from my perspective.

I don't doubt there were some such as the individual you tell of here, and once in a while, one would hear via word-of-mouth of such a person. But such individuals, if not anomalies, were so much under the surface that it was easy to conclude they were not proud enough of their sentiment that they would desire to publicize it.

My experience exactly parallels yours. I vividly remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and how I felt when I heard the news of the revelation. No one in my circle had a negative reaction...just the opposite.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Do you think that BYU would be doing this and having bishops refer students to the program without approval from the board of regents? Seems highly unlikely. 

This illustrates the problem of ignoring the context.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that is pretty well documented (up through at least a couple of apostles involved with the approval).  I'll try to look up the sources from when I researched this when I can.  

This illustrates the problem of ignoring the context for the purpose of maligning Church leaders.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks. Even if it weren’t documented, the only way it wouldn’t have been approved by the board (which includes apostles) would have been that it was some kind of clandestine operation. Again, highly unlikely. 

Why would following currently accepted and recommended medical and scientific procedures and practices require clandestine operations?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

But as treatments improve, the Church will continue to abandon the old and  try the new to help the saints. This is better than doing nothing and the Lord will bless the efforts of everyone involved in good faith.

But critics assign the actions of those days to animus and ill-will, ignoring that they were actually following accepted practices. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Some obscure pamphlet from 1981 that has been completely overhauled does not rise to the level of incontravertible dogma. Sorry.

Why do you claim it was obscure?  The indication is that it was written for stake presidents and bishops.  Doesn't sound obscure to me

[california boy]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

What I am over is the idea that church leaders are receiving some kind of special revelation.  I am just not seeing insight that holds up on this issue.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

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). 

Well that is quite odd.since it has only been a year that gay couples could marry.  Maybe you should link the Psycology Today article to see if we are comparing apples to apples.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

So is all you can point to is you believe the church's position that homosexuality agrees with the Bible.  Something that other churches agree with and no claim of revelation.  People take from the Bible what they want to believe.  The church does the same thing.  Can we say divorce, something that Christ himself preached again.  Among dozens of other teachings that are ignored or changed,

 The lack of revelation that I have referred to is all the actions the church has taken against gays starting with claiming that they can be cured and ending with not allowing children of gay couples to be members of the church.

Edited December 20, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Exactly

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Oh, so that explains why believing Latter-day Saints never fast or pay tithing; or why the Law of Chastity doesn't apply to unmarried heterosexuals.

Oh. Wait.

5 hours ago, Gray said:

But even in the Torah, it's still just based on prejudice.

A mere assumption.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

I'm sorry you are surprised or sad. I used to be confused and concerned when people became surprised or sad about things that were neither surprising nor saddening, until I realised that weaponising one's feelings is a rhetorical technique.

The fact is that CB consistently tries to argue that anything any Church leader ever said or did regarding homosexual sin that they don't do any more is absolute proof that none of them have any inspiration, ever. How is it treating him with "disregard" to point that out? Doesn't he want people to be aware of the point he's trying to make?

Like you, he wears his feelings on his sleeve in order to deflect criticism from his attacks; but the fact remains that this is his consistent theme.

And the reason he harps on it is that he hopes thereby to undermine the authority of the Lord's anointed servants to teach the Saints that homosexual behaviour is sinful.

Which it is.

And despite his efforts, their authority remains intact.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

It can also mean thorough and comprehensive.  Words that I imagine would describe this experiment and study and treatment for those who conducted it.

The danger of relying upon inexact synonyms is that they can lead to redefinition by stealth. "Extensive" can mean "thorough and comprehensive" only to the extent that "thorough" would mean "leaving nobody out" while "comprehensive," in this context, would be taken to mean something like "including all possible participants." You can't call something "extensive" if it only affected a small number of people, or if the overwhelming majority of BYU students at this period remained entirely unaffected by it.

So, again I ask: How extensive was it, really?

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This illustrates the problem of ignoring the context.

How so? I was responding to the assertion that, without documentary proof, we can't be sure the brethren approved of the aversion-therapy program. I'm not sure how understanding context is relevant. 

I think we are pretty much agreed on this subject: the church was not out of the mainstream in what they did, though it seems it took them a little longer to abandon these practices.

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why would following currently accepted and recommended medical and scientific procedures and practices require clandestine operations?

Beats me. I'm not the one who is insisting there's no evidence that the brethren approved of these programs. 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

Who knows? I’m not judging (some look to the APA for prophets). It was simply devised by the psychoanalysts of yesteryear, and was an acceptable practice.

Brigham Young did some interesting things with consecrated oil.

None of this is really shocking… I can tell you “worse” (*yawn*) but I have no desire to titillate any bystanders.

That is why I appeal to grace and forgiveness and the other holy principles that seem conveniently overlooked in these matters, as does the Lord who suffered more than any of us to be able to establish and maintain His kingdom through fallible prophets. Such condescension; I stand all amazed!

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But critics assign the actions of those days to animus and ill-will, ignoring that they were actually following accepted practices. 

Of course, and ignorance, apathy, inertia and thoughtlessness, etc. One could turn the argument around, that God did not inspire better accepted practices among the professionals for the same condemnable reasons. But He loves us all the same, so we too have charity toward the Gentiles in the day of our common probation (2 Nephi 33:9).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

How so? I was responding to the assertion that, without documentary proof, we can't be sure the brethren approved of the aversion-therapy program. I'm not sure how understanding context is relevant. 

I think we are pretty much agreed on this subject: the church was not out of the mainstream in what they did, though it seems it took them a little longer to abandon these practices.

A little longer than who, yet quicker than who? It is easy to Google articles that show this is actually still debated in some countries, including the UK where the "practice has still not been entirely eradicated from mental health care. A 2009 UK survey found that while only 4% of therapists reported they would attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation if one consulted asking for such therapy, 17% reported having assisted at least one client/patient to reduce or change his or her homosexual or lesbian feelings."  http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/68888/

 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

The danger of relying upon inexact synonyms is that they can lead to redefinition by stealth. "Extensive" can mean "thorough and comprehensive" only to the extent that "thorough" would mean "leaving nobody out" while "comprehensive," in this context, would be taken to mean something like "including all possible participants." You can't call something "extensive" if it only affected a small number of people, or if the overwhelming majority of BYU students at this period remained entirely unaffected by it.

So, again I ask: How extensive was it, really?

I’m not by my computer right now but will look up some links for you to read on this.  I’m a bit surprised you’re not aware of what took place over the years this was done at BYU.  There’s a lot to read (I’ve read some in the past and have been reading more over the last day or so).   

There are also many personal stories from those who were involved that are heartbreaking to read.  I’ll look for some of those for you too if you’re interested.

I get you disagree with the word I chose to use earlier, but there are different definitions for it and I’ve explained what I meant.  Don’t get hung up on that one word and let it keep you from doing your own homework on this topic.  It’s a pretty interesting period to read about, IMO, although I get why some might not want to read more about it too.  That’s up to you.

I’d recommend reading some of the sources I’ve already posted and also what others have posted on this thread to start with.  Then do a search for “reparative electroshock therapy BYU”.  There’s one that’s good by someone “asking for proof” these happened.  A lot of responses with several links and info to read.

I will post more later for you when I can be on my computer, if you need more!

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A little longer than who, yet quicker than who? It is easy to Google articles that show this is actually still debated in some countries, including the UK where the "practice has still not been entirely eradicated from mental health care. A 2009 UK survey found that while only 4% of therapists reported they would attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation if one consulted asking for such therapy, 17% reported having assisted at least one client/patient to reduce or change his or her homosexual or lesbian feelings."  http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/68888/

I don't think we're as far apart as you think we are. I'm not attacking the church for what they did, just noting that I think the church was in line with the broader approach, particularly the approach of conservative faith-based organizations. 

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course, and ignorance, apathy, inertia and thoughtlessness, etc. 

Sorry, but this sounds like you’re describing yourself (“*yawn*”) and others here with that attitude too.  If it’s a topic you’re not comfortable with, that’s fine, but you are not showing “thoughtfulness” or compassion for the people who were deeply hurt by what took place.  It actually came through as “apathy”, to be honest.  Have you read any of the writings of those who were actually involved?  It’s very difficult to read them and not care or feel sorrow and empathy for them.  I agree with others here that these experiments didn’t happen through inspiration from God.

Edited December 20, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks. Even if it weren’t documented, the only way it wouldn’t have been approved by the board (which includes apostles) would have been that it was some kind of clandestine operation. Again, highly unlikely. 

Is this fact or supposition on your part?

The purging at the Maxwell Institute a few years ago suggested to me that the General Authorities who are trustees over BYU are far less hands-on with internal nitty-gritty at the school than has been generally supposed.