LDS SSA Policies in Context

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Where do you think people got the idea that it was sinful?

Don't ask me, ask every prophet who ever lived. I just work here. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Actually, I am aware of claims with that one.  President Nelson claimed that it was received by revelation. 

Retrospectively. No one involved at the time was making that claim.

I don't understand.  What is the significance of President Nelsons retrospective statements about the origins of the Proclamation?

Wouldn't any explanation as to its origins necessarily be "retrospective?"

It seems that you are implicitly accusing Pres. Nelson of dishonesty.  Is that so?

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think the important question in any of these topics is whether or not some leader said it was revelation, or a discrete revelatory event.

I think the revelatory provenance of the Proclamation is extremely important.

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

The question is, is it true?  In the case of this pamphlet, no. In the case of the Proclamation, yes and no.

"It" referring to what?

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sidenote: I'm fine calling good, true ideas "revelation", even in absence of a revelatory event. I suspect church leaders are also increasingly following that model.

I think there are "revelatory events" and "revelatory processes."  I'm good with both.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

9 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.

So now we are blatantly arguing about the dictionary. 

Sigh.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'll look for my sources (I'll have to dig through some boxes as I did pretty extensive research on this at one time), but general authorities referred students for this electroshock program.  We also have first hand statements from those involved stating they went in to speak with apostles (Spencer W. Kimball is one that is named) and were told by them about this treatment to cure them and then they were referred by the apostle to those at BYU running the treatments.

I believe (iirc) it was Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen who were the two mostly involved (and Dallin Oaks of course...but he wasn't an apostle at that time).  This makes sense because they were the two who were "appointed to assist" over this "important phase of the church work" at that time.

Here's some on this (I do have many of the sources in the footnotes and will try to locate them, if you're interested):

 

Wikipedia may be a decent place to start, but in anything controversial, I am reluctant to trust what is essentially an encyclopedia put togethered by interested parties without requiring fact checkers.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now we are blatantly arguing about the dictionary. 

Sigh.

Talk to kiwi about that.  I was just clarifying when he asked.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know what your concern is about my original comment.  Californiaboy suggested that the pamphlet was "revelation" and "dogma", and because we know now that it was bad practice, we therefore cannot trust the brethren as revelators.  Do you disagree with my reply that, no, it was neither received by revelation or as dogma?  If someone claimed that it was revelation, then we might have reason to distrust that person who made the claim, but there is no claim.  It was nothing more than a mistaken policy.  It was not revelation or dogma.  The Proclamation has already been in circulation longer than the pamphlet was.  

If people can build this pamphlet up to the level of revelation, scripture, or dogma, it becomes easy for them to dismiss the prophets as genuine revelators.  That simply is not going to work in this case. 

A lot of doctrines of the church have no one claiming they were received by revelation. That was kind of my point. So if you're bringing that up as a defense, a lot of what we do and teach is similarly in the wind.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Yes, so? That's my point. If you are over it quit harping. 

But every other post of yours brings up the same old point

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/ScientificExamination.pdf

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/GayRightsPatientRights.pdf

http://www.nclrights.org/bornperfect-the-facts-about-conversion-therapy/

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/gay-conversion-therapy

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-scot/shock-the-gay-away-secrets-of-early-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/115/529/1417

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0022913

http://time.com/3705745/history-therapy-hadden/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542019

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/uk-psychiatrists-have-issued-an-historic-admission-of-the?utm_term=.fjlvzeGNN#.wvKMjGLzz

I know the intended narrative of some folks in this thread is to vilify the LDS Church because of this therapeutic method was used at BYU.  I understand such indignation.  

However, neither BYU nor the LDS Church invented this form of therapy.  So headlines like ABC's "Mormon Gay Cures and Reparative Therapies Still Shock Today"  seem fairly misleading (particularly where the article goes on to state that "Psychologists confirm those harsh experiments were used in a variety of medical settings by scientists of all faiths.").

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you please curate this information? This isn't much better than saying, "google it". To start with, what institutions were performing these procedures contemporary with BYU?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wikipedia may be a decent place to start, but in anything controversial, I am reluctant to trust what is essentially an encyclopedia put togethered by interested parties without requiring fact checkers.

Me too.  That's why I researched out as many of the sources in the footnotes that I could find and read them (along with many other sources and first hand accounts of those involved).  It's pretty well documented that at least those 2 apostles (Petersen and Kimball) approved of these treatments.  We have too many similar first hand statements naming them to disregard the evidence, IMO.  It makes sense too as I don't believe local ward and stake leaders would have even known to recommend ward members for these treatments at BYU without some information given to them from leaders in SL.

I think this would actually make members feel better about this rather than thinking these were done by some rogue BYU professors in secret.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  What is the significance of President Nelsons retrospective statements about the origins of the Proclamation?

Wouldn't any explanation as to its origins necessarily be "retrospective?"

It seems that you are implicitly accusing Pres. Nelson of dishonesty.  Is that so?

The significance is it wasn't seen as a revelation until recently. That's what retrospectively means. It's been reinterpreted.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the revelatory provenance of the Proclamation is extremely important.

"It" referring to what?

I think there are "revelatory events" and "revelatory processes."  I'm good with both.

Thanks,

-Smac

It referring to any teaching of the church.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Still not over it.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Can you please curate this information? This isn't much better than saying, "google it". To start with, what institutions were performing these procedures contemporary with BYU?

I'd like to know that too.  Usually any search for these treatments brings up BYU pretty near the top.

smac, can you tell us what other universities were doing these electroshock treatments to cure gays at the same time BYU was?  (If you know....)

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Can you please curate this information?

No, thanks.  

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

This isn't much better than saying, "google it".

You asked for references.  I provided them.  And the CFR wasn't even directed at me.

And now you want me to "curate" the references?  Would you like anything else served up on a silver platter?  One lump with your tea, perhaps?

You asked for references.  You now have some.  You are as capable as anyone else of researching and answering your own questions.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

To start with, what institutions were performing these procedures contemporary with BYU?

An interesting question.  I look forward to hearing about your research on this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Talk to kiwi about that.  I was just clarifying when he asked.

Takes two to argue.

Who cares? What's the central point of confusion, and is it important? Is it a distinction without a difference ?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Still not over it.

And why should he be "over it".  That's insulting to even say, IMO.  His life was devastated along with his wife's and children's.  I feel he's moved on quite well and is as understanding and forgiving as he can be at this time.  

Don't read his posts if it bothers you, but he has every right to express his feelings here just like everyone else does.  Put him on ignore or just don't engage or respond.  That's what I do with a few on here and it works well for me....

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Takes two to argue.

Which is now what you’re doing 

I responded once and clarified.  He’s the one who continued and I haven’t responded again but tried to move on with a discussion.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And why should he be "over it".  That's insulting to even say, IMO.  His life was devastated along with his wife's and children's.  I feel he's moved on quite well and is as understanding and forgiving as he can be at this time.  

Don't read his posts if it bothers you but he has every right to express his feelings here just like everyone else does.  Put him on ignore or just don't engage or respond.  That's what I do with a few on here and it works well for me....

Perhaps the church regarding SSA..should just get over it.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The significance is it wasn't seen as a revelation until recently.

It wasn't?  By whom?

CFR.

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's what retrospectively means. It's been reinterpreted.

No, that's not what "retrospectively" means.

"Retrospective": 

Quote

1. directed to the past; contemplative of past situations, events, etc.
2. looking or directed backward.
3. retroactive, as a statute.

Event X happens.

Percipient Witness to Event X thereafter describes Event X.

PW's description is necessarily "retrospective."  It will always be "retrospective."

Pres. Oaks' remarks (I previously referenced Pres. Nelson - my bad) provide further information, not previously expressly published to the world, that the Proclamation arose from a "revelatory process."

I don't see this as a "reinterpretation" of the Proclamation.

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

The question is, is it true?  In the case of this pamphlet, no. In the case of the Proclamation, yes and no.

Quote

"It" referring to what?

It referring to any teaching of the church.

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.

What do you mean by the Proclamation being "yes and no" (in response to the question "Is it true?")?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, thanks.  

You asked for references.  I provided them.  And the CFR wasn't even directed at me.

And now you want me to "curate" the references?  Would you like anything else served up on a silver platter?  One lump with your tea, perhaps?

You asked for references.  You now have some.  You are as capable as anyone else of researching and answering your own questions.

An interesting question.  I look forward to hearing about your research on this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I guess since I didn't issue you the CFR, I can't be upset at you for not meeting it. Thanks!

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It wasn't?  By whom?

CFR.

You can't prove a negative, so your CFR doesn't make sense. But the only references to it being a revelation or "revelatory" are all recent. That means it has only come to be seen this way recently.

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, that's not what "retrospectively" means.

"Retrospective": 

Event X happens.

Percipient Witness to Event X thereafter describes Event X.

PW's description is necessarily "retrospective."  It will always be "retrospective."

Pres. Oaks' remarks (I previously referenced Pres. Nelson - my bad) provide further information, not previously expressly published to the world, that the Proclamation arose from a "revelatory process."

I don't see this as a "reinterpretation" of the Proclamation.

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.

What do you mean by the Proclamation being "yes and no" (in response to the question "Is it true?")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, maybe a better word is "retroactively". Thanks!

[Bob Crockett]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Aversion shock therapy is not the same thing as electroconvulsive therapy, where a seizure is induced.

It wasn't people's brains that were getting shocked, but various parts of bodies.

You are certainly correct.  This wasn't "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  Completely different things.  When I was on my mission during the 1970s, the Shick Method was extremely popular for an anti-smoking program.   They should have called it the Shock Method.  Shock therapy was used in many circumstances and by many institutions to control addiction, including homosexuality which was considered by most to be a mental disorder or, as Freud put it, an "inversion" like excessive autoeroticism.  Today shock therapy looks cruel and dumb, but when I was a child and my mother couldn't afford much, my brothers and sisters and I had dental work without anesthesia.  Times change.   

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Quote

And why should he be "over it".  That's insulting to even say, IMO.  His life was devastated along with his wife's and children's.  I feel he's moved on quite well and is as understanding and forgiving as he can be at this time.  

Don't read his posts if it bothers you but he has every right to express his feelings here just like everyone else does.  Put him on ignore or just don't engage or respond.  That's what I do with a few on here and it works well for me....

Perhaps the church regarding SSA..should just get over it.

I don't understand.  Sexual behavior is a profoundly important part of society, and of the Restored Gospel as well.  There are ample biblical provisions for regulating sexual behavior amongst the Lord's covenant people.  This does not seem to be even a remotely disputable point.

I think the LDS Church works hard to take a "hands off" approach to things about which reasonable minds can disagree, things which are best left to the discretion of the individual or family, things which are trivial, etc.

Regulating sexual behavior does not seem to fit within any of these parameters.  Regulating sexual behavior is part and parcel of pretty much all secular and religious societies.  There are differences of degree, to be sure.  But the underlying concept is there.

Most religious groups have teachings about sexual ethics and behaviors.  Do you likewise expect every other religious group to "just get over" such things?  Or do you only impose such expectations on Mormonism?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An interesting question.  I look forward to hearing about your research on this topic.

So, you have no idea how many other universities were performing these treatments on their gay students back then?

I'd have to say that I doubt it was happening on many other campuses, but don't know for sure.  In doing a google search for "electroshock therapy for gays university", the top 4 results include 3 about BYU.  I can't find any other references to other Universities who were conducting these at that time.  

I tend to think most of these treatments took place in private with a person's psychiatrist. 

What took place at BYU (especially with how students were encouraged to spy on each other and turn students in who may be gay) wasn't going on anywhere else. 

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

So, you have no idea how many other universities were performing these treatments on their gay students back then?

I'm not sure about "universities."  My general understanding is that Aversion Therapy methods, including those used at BYU, were previously used in many different parts of society, so much so that there were several professional journal articles published about them in the U.S., the UK, etc.

Just now, ALarson said:

I'd have to say that I doubt it was happening on many other campuses, but don't know for sure. 

I'm not sure I understand the fixation on college campuses.

Just now, ALarson said:

In doing a google search for "electroshock therapy for gays university", the top 4 results include 3 about BYU. 

Yes.  It's a common topic because it is titillating and controversial and, in retrospect and when decontextualized, deeply troubling.

Just now, ALarson said:

I can't find any other references to other Universities who were conducting these at that time.  

I tend to think most of these treatments took place in private with a person's psychiatrist. 

Okay.  

Just now, ALarson said:

What took place at BYU (especially with how students were encouraged to spy on each other and turn students in who may be gay) wasn't going on anywhere else. 

"What took place at BYU" was a form of Aversion Therapy that certainly was "going on" elsewhere.  I am confused why you are suggesting otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

You can't prove a negative, so your CFR doesn't make sense. But the only references to it being a revelation or "revelatory" are all recent. That means it has only come to be seen this way recently.

With respect, I disagree.  I think many (most?) active and observant Latter-day Saints have looked on the Proclamation as an inspired/revelatory document.  Pres. Oaks simply confirmed and clarified what most/many of us already believed.

Thanks,

-Smac