LDS SSA Policies in Context

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

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

Okay.  

"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

I was referring to how some students were threatened with expulsion from school unless they "volunteered" to undergo these treatments to cure them.  Many tell the same story about this happening.

It's the circumstances regarding how students were spied on and turned in, etc. that draws more interest to this story, IMO.  Some reportedly even committed suicide (including one BYU professor who was "outed" during that time).  There are stories behind just the fact that some believed these treatments could cure a person of being gay.

This is what draws attention to what took place at BYU from what I've found in my reading.  That's why it's different from other locations where these treatments took place.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

As soon as the church quits claiming that when they all agree on this issue it is a revelation from God. then I will quit pointing out all the times what they agreed on something about this issue that turned out to be absolutely wrong.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Still not over it.

Still skipping over the points that completely disprove any revelation took place.

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

What is your point?  I agree that a lot of what we teach is not doctrine, dogma, or received by revelation.  My problem is that people confuse teachings, practices, and policies with revelation and dogma.  Big difference.  The only official doctrines that I am aware of are found in the standard works.

 

 

 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

What is your point?  I agree that a lot of what we teach is not doctrine, dogma, or received by revelation.  My problem is that people confuse teachings, practices, and policies with revelation and dogma.  Big difference.  The only official doctrines that I am aware of are found in the standard works.

 

A few items with no claimed revelation behind them:

• Modern word of wisdom practices
• Ban on women having the priesthood
• Ban on gay marriage

 

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

It's significant that no one was using that kind of language at the time.

I will agree that the proclamation (and its forgotten twin brother, The Living Christ) were seen at the time as important documents teaching true doctrine. Both simply restate existing teachings, however.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

A few items with no claimed revelation behind them:

• Modern word of wisdom practices
• Ban on women having the priesthood
• Ban on gay marriage

Actually, it's pretty much everything, nowadays. Except after the fact, when there is public outcry . . .  

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't think being gay and allowing gay couples to marry is profoundly important part of society.  In fact one of the strongest reasons that gay marriage was ruled legal is because none of the legal team fighting against gay marriage could point to ANY evidence that gay marriage would affect society.  

Religious beliefs about homosexuality claim to be based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible.  They use that as a sure sign from God that gay couples should not marry or have sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  But has been already pointed out, those same religions including the Mormon church completely ignores very explicit verses that prohibit things like divorce or wearing make up.  People believe what they want to believe.  It has little to do with God or society.

[Bob Crockett]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think being gay and allowing gay couples to marry is profoundly important part of society.  In fact one of the strongest reasons that gay marriage was ruled legal is because none of the legal team fighting against gay marriage could point to ANY evidence that gay marriage would affect society.  

Religious beliefs about homosexuality claim to be based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible.  They use that as a sure sign from God that gay couples should not marry or have sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  But has been already pointed out, those same religions including the Mormon church completely ignores very explicit verses that prohibit things like divorce or wearing make up.  People believe what they want to believe.  It has little to do with God or society.

From a secular standpoint, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage.  I see more wrong with the government being the sponsor of what is essentially a religious rite.  Couples, or more than couples, ought to be free to enter into compacts for community property and child rearing rights.  Given DNA science, there is no longer a historical need for marriage to presume paternity.

From a religious standpoint, religions ought to be free from criticism from persons without standing, outsiders and nonbelievers, who say that churches ought to be transparent with their finances, remove homosexuality from the list of sins, ordain women to be priests, remove the requirement that women sit on one side and men on on the other, remove restrictions against women from working and driving (Shephardim) and the like.  I mean, what is fundamentally wrong with Christians and Muslims believing and teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin?   Certainly, the patristic  writers without exception believe so.   If you don't like it, don't pay attention to what others believe  in their religious practices.    Why let it dominate your scholarly  thought?   What's the point?

If I want to work for Amway, I ought to be entitled to do so without constant harping and criticism from the collective you.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[CA Steve]

When it comes to orthopraxy, is there any difference between policy & doctrine?

It seems to me that we are using distinctions that are only important in theological discussions to defend actual practices.

If we are expected to treat a policy the same as a doctrine, how are they really different?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think being gay and allowing gay couples to marry is profoundly important part of society.  

Huh.  That seems like an odd thing to say.  But I'll leave you to it.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Religious beliefs about homosexuality claim to be based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible.  

The LDS Church's position on homosexual behavior is based on a lot more than "a handful of scriptures in the Bible."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Do we know who Jesus married??  Does it matter?  Would it affect the good in the world?  To speak of scriptures here on this board is to speak of scriptures only in the mormon interpretation of them so it doesn't matter much to me...but I have not found in Jesus' gospel anything that would take a group of people  which many are good and productive and great for this society...and single them out.  It is the mormon gospel that that says this with fallible prophets and simmular religious influence that infers that God could possibly create SSA....as a huge mistake. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

When it comes to orthopraxy, is there any difference between policy & doctrine?

It seems to me that we are using distinctions that are only important in theological discussions to defend actual practices.

If we are expected to treat a policy the same as a doctrine, how are they really different?

This is a good point. Arguing that, for example, the priesthood ban was a policy, not a doctrine, isn't really an answer to questions or concerns about it. It completely avoids addressing *why* God allowed it. 

I think, as you note, that the distinction between policy and doctrine is a defensive polemical tactic. I don't think non-doctrinal or adoctrinal policies are a winning point in addressing criticisms or concerns . . .

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's significant that no one was using that kind of language at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the leaders of the Church?  How do you account for this 1996 statement by Elder Scott:

Quote

Learn the doctrinal foundation of the great plan of happiness by studying the scriptures, pondering their content, and praying to understand them. Carefully study and use the proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve on the family. It was inspired of the Lord.

Or this remark published in the December 2000 Ensign:

Quote

When I first heard President Gordon B. Hinckley read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” to the sisters of the Relief Society, I knew without a doubt it was inspired. But as an unmarried woman, I did not feel it applied to me personally.

Or this entry in a 2002 manual:

Quote

Other proclamations concerning the Church, its message and its mission, have been issued from time to time, but this early declaration best exemplifies the Lord’s instruction in the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. (For a more recent example of an official proclamation by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, p. 102.)

Or this remark published in January 2004:

Quote

One of the things any Church member—married or single—can do to bless his or her life is to apply the principles and counsel contained in the divinely inspired document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Or this statement in a 2004 publication by the Church:

Quote

On September 23, 1995, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th President of the Church, read the following proclamation in a general Relief Society meeting. This inspired proclamation, titled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” has become the Church’s definitive statement on the family.

Or this remark published in the Ensign in September 2009:

Quote

While attending general conference, my husband and I went through a visitors center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. One of the exhibits in particular caught my eye. There on the wall was The Family: A Proclamation to the World, illustrated with a few pictures.

Being a photo-taking mother of four and grandmother of 14, I thought to myself, “I have enough pictures to illustrate every line in the proclamation.” When I returned home, I shared the idea with one of my daughters. From our vast supply of photos, we selected enough to make 31 digital scrapbook pages. 

...

We know it is important for those with traditional family values to see themselves as part of this inspired proclamation.

Pres. Hinckley originally presented the Proclamation as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."  I'm not sure how you can argue that this necessarily precludes inspiration/revelation.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I will agree that the proclamation (and its forgotten twin brother, The Living Christ) were seen at the time as important documents teaching true doctrine. Both simply restate existing teachings, however.

Lots of revelations "restate existing teachings."  That does not invalidate their status as revelations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

A few items with no claimed revelation behind them:

• Modern word of wisdom practices
• Ban on women having the priesthood
• Ban on gay marriage

I still don't understand your point.  These are not claimed to be revelation, therefore an obscure pamphlet from the 80's that is out of circulation and practice IS "revelation" and "dogma"?  That makes no sense to me.  All of the above at least have some sticking power and have endured the test of time (so far).  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

"Retrospective revelation"

Quotation marks? You must be quoting yourself.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

For that I'm thankful. I think we can all agree that the experiments with aversion therapy were not successful and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering. As they said, the road to hell ...

Well, you think wrongly LOL ("all agree?"). In general, they were deemed unsuccessful; "unnecessary suffering" is a philosophical conclusion depending on one's assessment of his outcomes, and not necessarily a therapeutic one. Who are you suggesting was led to hell?

Edited December 20, 2017 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

Well, you think wrongly LOL ("all agree?"). In general, they were deemed unsuccessful; "unnecessary suffering" is a philosophical conclusion depending on one's assessment of his outcomes, and not necessary a therapeutic one. Who are you suggesting was led to hell?

I'm sorry to hear not everyone agrees with that statement. 

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's significant that no one was using that kind of language at the time.

Boy, we sure did!

The minute the Proclamation was announced, our mission president had it translated into German and printed on high-quality slick brochure material. We used it that week, and had a special experience with an angry gay man using it as a revelation from modern-day apostles. We invited him to come with us to General Conference that Saturday (that's how quick the turnaround was with it; it was announced at the Women's meeting the Saturday prior). He had screamed at us about hating him and his gay friends, and I had yelled back asking if we could come in and defend ourselves. We had a good discussion about God, revelation, knowing whether our views are God's views, etc. 

The Proclamation came into play when we gave him one, explained it, and read with him the second-to-last paragraph about not following the law of chastity bringing upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. Rather than dismissing it with a smirk, he was sober and thoughtful and the Spirit was present. 

I have regarded it as a revelation since it's inception, and that is my sense of many others as well. This, even though it was written by Paul Reeve as support for building a case of special doctrinal reasons opposing gay marriage.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I still don't understand your point.  These are not claimed to be revelation, therefore an obscure pamphlet from the 80's that is out of circulation and practice IS "revelation" and "dogma"?  That makes no sense to me.  All of the above at least have some sticking power and have endured the test of time (so far).  

No, I'm saying no claim of revelation says nothing about its legitimacy or church leaders' responsibility for its contents.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quotation marks? You must be quoting yourself.

 

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

A few items with no claimed revelation behind them:

• Modern word of wisdom practices
• Ban on women having the priesthood
• Ban on gay marriage

 

The very argument made by fundamentalists with respect to OD 1.  I've read books and pamphlets many by them arguing that because OD1 isn't prefaced with "Thus Saith the Lord," it isn't revelation.  

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Boy, we sure did!

The minute the Proclamation was announced, our mission president had it translated into German and printed on high-quality slick brochure material. We used it that week, and had a special experience with an angry gay man using it as a revelation from modern-day apostles. We invited him to come with us to General Conference that Saturday (that's how quick the turnaround was with it; it was announced at the Women's meeting the Saturday prior). He had screamed at us about hating him and his gay friends, and I had yelled back asking if we could come in and defend ourselves. We had a good discussion about God, revelation, knowing whether our views are God's views, etc. 

The Proclamation came into play when we gave him one, explained it, and read with him the second-to-last paragraph about not following the law of chastity bringing upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. Rather than dismissing it with a smirk, he was sober and thoughtful and the Spirit was present. 

I have regarded it as a revelation since it's inception, and that is my sense of many others as well. This, even though it was written by Paul Reeve as support for building a case of special doctrinal reasons opposing gay marriage.

This is a great example of a continuation of the long tradition of bottom-up revelation, aka folk doctrine. This finally filtered upwards to the general authority level.

[Gray]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

The very argument made by fundamentalists with respect to OD 1.  I've read books and pamphlets many by them arguing that because OD1 isn't prefaced with "Thus Saith the Lord," it isn't revelation.  

Indeed.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

This is false. I saw it as revelatory from the very first. So did many others.

These official proclamations with imprimatur of the First Presidency and Qourum of the Twelve, bearing their personal signatures, are not published very often. When it happens, it is an occasion of great moment. Copies of this one were delivered to leaders of government and other dignitaries. I don't see how it could not be considered revelatory in its purport. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but don't impute it to everybody else.