Tacenda Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 54 minutes ago, kllindley said: That is the problem for me. I don't know of any licensed mental health professional who performs anything called "conversion therapy.". The proposed rules would prohibit any licensed mental health professional from working with a client to change any "behaviors" associated with sexual orientation. Should a bisexual person who has dated both men and women be allowed to seek any help from a therapist if they decide they want to settle down with a partner of the opposite sex? What do you personally believe? Because the proposed rule would not allow that. Isn't all of this for someone under 18 though?
kllindley Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Isn't all of this for someone under 18 though? 17 year olds don't date? Or want to stop watching porn? Edited October 17, 2019 by kllindley 2
kllindley Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 19 hours ago, california boy said: Edit. Sorry, I didn't read far enough. I will take a look at what you linked to. Did you get a chance to read the current proposal? Also, I had asked: Maybe you could explain why this amended bill was so terrible that the LGBT lobby preferred not to even vote on it. 19 hours ago, california boy said:
mgy401 Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 2 hours ago, toon said: I don't see this as about choice. Rather, it's about what the state will allow licensed individuals to do and not due under the auspices of that license. But we wouldn’t draw that distinction if, instead of conversion therapy, the “treatment” the state wanted to proscribe were something like abortion. In that case, the discussion would naturally pivot to the patient’s right to obtain the treatment she desires—and indeed, many would argue that if the patient wants it, the health professional HAS to provide it regardless of the health professional’s own ethical misgivings.
kllindley Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, mgy401 said: But we wouldn’t draw that distinction if, instead of conversion therapy, the “treatment” the state wanted to proscribe were something like abortion. In that case, the discussion would naturally pivot to the patient’s right to obtain the treatment she desires—and indeed, many would argue that if the patient wants it, the health professional HAS to provide it regardless of the health professional’s own ethical misgivings. Astute observation.
Popular Post kllindley Posted October 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 17, 2019 Here's a great piece that was published in the Desert News about the nuance I've been discussing. Guest opinion: The church does not support conversion therapy, but that doesn’t fit in some headlines From the article: " Complex matters demand caution and prudence. And a surprising degree of common ground can be found on many therapeutic practices associated with both benefit and harm, as demonstrated by the long-standing efforts of gay-affirming and more religiously orthodox therapists working together in the Reconciliation and Growth Project. Meanwhile, the letter also raises questions regarding how practitioners counsel concerning behavior. While the letter makes it clear that prohibiting “true sexual orientation change efforts for minors is appropriate,” it also states that the proposed rule, “defines ‘sexual orientation’ to include not only ‘gender patterns in attraction’ ... but also ‘behavior.’” In short, if a young gay man watches a significant amount of pornography and wants to change the behavior, the letter contends, the rule’s language could restrict “appropriate and ethical” practices, such as “provid(ing) reasonable therapies to assist a client in modifying behaviors and expressions that the client has identified as inconsistent with the client’s own self-determined goals and self-defined well-being.” This is also relevant to therapeutic efforts to help LGBTQ minors integrate into their faith communities, or helping adolescents who wish to remain abstinent. The Family Services’ letter provides a studied approach on a sensitive issue. It’s lamentable to see so many in the conversation dismiss these sincere efforts at nuanced understanding so essential for constructive dialogue. Sound policy that truly helps children requires therapists, politicians, scientists, LGBTQ advocates and religious leaders to come to the table in a manner that doesn’t reduce the other’s perspective into ready-made talking points. The theatrics of politics must never blind us from the real work of protecting and lifting young people, especially LGBTQ youths." 6
Calm Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Tacenda said: the church didn't do it, but BYU did?!?! BYU is the church, lol!! Oh my gosh! No, it isn't any more than your local ward qualifies for the label in this discussion and thank goodness. There are nonmembers who work at BYU, members who have never been in leadership positions that could influence church policy, members who end up being extremists or apostates (not using this to mean exmormon), and a whole range of individual variations. Leadership that makes policy for the Church is much more homogeneous. Only some of them have worked at BYU. Few of those were probably aware at the time of specifics of psychological research or counseling. My father-in-law was a BYU counselor. I don't remember ever hearing him say he discussed what he was doing with the BYU President, for example. There were likely in the past when it was more popular in general and there still may be bishops and other local leaders (hopefully not) who recommended therapists who attempted some form of conversion or extreme aversion therapy. But from the guidelines that were issued by the Church that I have read, I don't see anything indicating specific support for conversion therapy. Edited October 17, 2019 by Calm 2
Calm Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 8 hours ago, Tacenda said: Take the time, if you still have some, to read through. If this is accurate (can't check the sources at this time), it ceased in 1983...not partiticularly recent. 1
Ahab Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Oh my gosh! No, it isn't any more than your local ward qualifies for the label in this discussion and thank goodness. There are nonmembers who work at BYU, members who have never been in leadership positions that could influence church policy, members who end up being extremists or apostates (not using this to mean exmormon), and a whole range of individual variations, Leadership that makes policy for the Church is much more homogeneous. Telling her the local ward of the Church isn't the Church probably isn't enough clarification to help her understand why a local ward of the Church is not the Church. Especially when considering how her local ward of the Church really is the Church at her local level. The Church, world-wide, is not Church headquarters alone, but every local level of the Church is just as much the Church or a part of the Church at the Church world-wide leadership level. BYU, on the other hand, should more correctly be referred to as affiliated with the Church, a kind of friend to and of the Church, rather than part of the Church, itself. 1
The Nehor Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 2 hours ago, mgy401 said: But we wouldn’t draw that distinction if, instead of conversion therapy, the “treatment” the state wanted to proscribe were something like abortion. In that case, the discussion would naturally pivot to the patient’s right to obtain the treatment she desires—and indeed, many would argue that if the patient wants it, the health professional HAS to provide it regardless of the health professional’s own ethical misgivings. You cannot force a doctor to give an abortion. Yes, I know there are hysterics about how it is coming but I am not convinced.
Calm Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll try to get to the library and sort it out. Seeing if friends or family have it, will post as soon as I get it so check if I can save you a trip.
kllindley Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You cannot force a doctor to give an abortion. Yes, I know there are hysterics about how it is coming but I am not convinced. But you can apparently force me to tell a 17 year old LGBT youth there is nothing I can do to help them if they want to integrate in their faith community, remain abstinent, or change pornography viewing behavior. Edited October 17, 2019 by kllindley 4
Calm Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 8 hours ago, mgy401 said: Just for reference, what was the gay LDS suicide rate in the 1950s-early 1980s (when aversion therapy was openly being practiced at BYU), versus the late 1980s-present (when it wasn’t)? I doubt this info is available given the subject was often ignored plus much, much fewer were identifying as "gay" or "out" even in terms of experiencing same sex attraction (which includes those who identify as homosexual or bisexual and those who don't) though it would be interesting. Rates for LGBTs have been going up since the 1990s I read last night somewhere, but don't know if that has been adjusted for the increase in suicides in general...which would be very important to do, imo, to draw any conclusion.
The Nehor Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: But you can apparently force me to tell a 17 year old LGBT youth there is nothing I can do to help them if they want to integrate in their faith community, remain abstinent, or change pornography viewing behavior. I hope not but we will see. 1
california boy Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 4 hours ago, kllindley said: Did you get a chance to read the current proposal? Also, I had asked: Maybe you could explain why this amended bill was so terrible that the LGBT lobby preferred not to even vote on it. 1 hour ago, kllindley said: But you can apparently force me to tell a 17 year old LGBT youth there is nothing I can do to help them if they want to integrate in their faith community, remain abstinent, or change pornography viewing behavior. I have to say, I am a bit gun-shy about getting too deeply into this issue for a couple of reasons. I don't feel like I understand the issues enough to make solid comments. And obviously I don't speak for the LGBT community. I personally can think of a lot of reasons why the licensing board wants therapists to be neutral, neither encouraging or discouraging on what path a LGBT patient should take. Maybe I am a bit confused what kind of counseling a therapist might want to give someone who is gay who wants to stay in the church. It seems pretty basic to me. Be celibate. I am also confused what counseling would be needed if a person chooses to not be celibate. So to me, neutral makes sense. The therapy should be more directed at coming to grips with being LGBT. Being ok with being different than the rest of the world. That took me a lot to work through. I wish I would have had some help with that. You might be in a better position to say what kind of counseling would be helpful if someone wants to stay active in the church. What would they work towards to help them stay celibate that a therapist could give them other than it is ok to be celibate. It does indeed seem like a bishop thing more than a therapist. So give me some insight into what you think a therapist might say to someone who wants to remain celibate that would be helpful. It might give me a better understanding why you are reacting so strongly to this bill.
sunstoned Posted October 18, 2019 Author Posted October 18, 2019 14 hours ago, smac97 said: "Our own recent history?" From FAIR: Thanks, -Smac I really think it is a stretch to say that church leaders were unaware of the conversion shock therapy that was conducted at BYU during the tenure of two Presidents (Oaks and Wilkinson). 1
Calm Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: I really think it is a stretch to say that church leaders were unaware of the conversion shock therapy that was conducted at BYU during the tenure of two Presidents (Oaks and Wilkinson). I haven't access to the possible nonanecdotal sources claiming there were other times electrical shock aversion therapy was used besides McBride's 1975-76 research project. Do you know of quoted sources rather than just paraphrases to avoid the possibility of misinterpreted or over/understatements of the two or three sources listed? (Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics...which has some significant problems with his interpretations of nonsexual behaviours as sexual, imo, so I think it very important to see how he got to his claim if reported accurately by wiki...and Phillips' Conservative Christian Thought, etc. paper are the two I am interested in). I see no reason for a university president to be aware of one college research project involving less than 20 subjects. If there were more occurrences, including ongoing therapy, it becomes more likely some knowledge of it would occur just as I became aware of an aversion class for anorexics and binge eaters due to seeing posters in my dorm for it just because of being in the environment they are happening in, but not sure how much official involvement would occur. BYU presidents may be more hands on due to the religious teaching being intended to be schoolwide at least while I was there late 70's and early 80's. Why would a university president be expected to be involved in determining what counselors would be using in their sessions? Wouldn't it be assumed that would be overseen to meet professional/academic standards by the heads of the counseling centers (I think there were two, one through admin that had fulltime counselors who might teach classes on the side like my father-in-law and a second through the psych department which had advanced students in my program doing counseling as part of their training)? I never heard approval of my classes and counseling training had to go through anyone besides the department, though I did hear of some frustration of lack of support while friendly with a number of professors and grad students for less traditional research at BYU from higherups. Any heads of university depts here? If not, I can ask my husband how involved university presidents get in his experience. I know he has met at least once with one, Matt Holland, to discuss expansion of entrepreneurship through other programs at UVU, iirc. Edited October 18, 2019 by Calm
CV75 Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 14 hours ago, Ahab said: Telling her the local ward of the Church isn't the Church probably isn't enough clarification to help her understand why a local ward of the Church is not the Church. Especially when considering how her local ward of the Church really is the Church at her local level. The Church, world-wide, is not Church headquarters alone, but every local level of the Church is just as much the Church or a part of the Church at the Church world-wide leadership level. BYU, on the other hand, should more correctly be referred to as affiliated with the Church, a kind of friend to and of the Church, rather than part of the Church, itself. I think it is fair to say that BYU very much reflects the Church’s view of the world and approaches to solving problems for individuals, communities, societies, etc. These approaches naturally change over time, and in this case, over 35 years. In connection with this, President Nelsons’ comment on ecclesiastical procedure applies to secular matters as well: “adjustments made to [recommendations for therapeutic] procedures do not change the sacred nature of [individual agency]. Adjustments allow for [problem-solving to honor] the [agency] of people living in different times and circumstances…” This was true when conversion therapy was acceptable, just as true today.
bsjkki Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) Okay, reading through this thread and also watching the Facebook fake news catastrophe made me want to clarify the facts and give original text. This is the full text of the rule change the church objected to. https://dopl.utah.gov/laws/Prop_R156-61_OAR_44032.pdf This is the full text of the original bipartisan bill most supported. https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399.pdf This is the full text of the “water downed” version. https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399S04.pdf On Facebook, my friends are upset and linking to the water downed version that the church supported claiming they objected to this bill which is totally not true. The church even supported the original bill. The church objected to the “rule change.” It does contain language that is not in either of the Bills with regards to behaviors. Thank you Kindley for the heads up. The headlines and news articles are less than clear and full of emotionally charged “fake news.” The church in no way supports what most people consider “conversion therapy” and does not object to banning those practices. The church also needs a better writer for the newsroom. A more informative statement could have helped. Adding this article that explains what happened with the two original bills. https://www.thedailybeast.com/utah-was-set-to-ban-conversion-therapy-then-it-didnt Edited October 18, 2019 by bsjkki 2
bsjkki Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 On 10/15/2019 at 10:36 PM, sunstoned said: I am not sure if this post belongs here or in the news section. I am unclear why the church would oppose this. Conversion therapy has been largely debunked by science. Quote: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Tuesday opposed a proposed rule that would ban Utah-licensed mental health professionals from using conversion therapy — such as trying to turn a gay child straight or alter a minor’s gender identity. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... h-opposes/ The thread title is misleading. The church does not oppose a ban on conversion therapy. It only opposes this particular rule change due to concerning language. The language in the rule change is much “fuzzier” than both versions of the bill the church did not oppose. 4
sunstoned Posted October 19, 2019 Author Posted October 19, 2019 22 hours ago, Calm said: I haven't access to the possible nonanecdotal sources claiming there were other times electrical shock aversion therapy was used besides McBride's 1975-76 research project. Do you know of quoted sources rather than just paraphrases to avoid the possibility of misinterpreted or over/understatements of the two or three sources listed? (Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics...which has some significant problems with his interpretations of nonsexual behaviours as sexual, imo, so I think it very important to see how he got to his claim if reported accurately by wiki...and Phillips' Conservative Christian Thought, etc. paper are the two I am interested in). I see no reason for a university president to be aware of one college research project involving less than 20 subjects. If there were more occurrences, including ongoing therapy, it becomes more likely some knowledge of it would occur just as I became aware of an aversion class for anorexics and binge eaters due to seeing posters in my dorm for it just because of being in the environment they are happening in, but not sure how much official involvement would occur. BYU presidents may be more hands on due to the religious teaching being intended to be schoolwide at least while I was there late 70's and early 80's. Why would a university president be expected to be involved in determining what counselors would be using in their sessions? Wouldn't it be assumed that would be overseen to meet professional/academic standards by the heads of the counseling centers (I think there were two, one through admin that had fulltime counselors who might teach classes on the side like my father-in-law and a second through the psych department which had advanced students in my program doing counseling as part of their training)? I never heard approval of my classes and counseling training had to go through anyone besides the department, though I did hear of some frustration of lack of support while friendly with a number of professors and grad students for less traditional research at BYU from higherups. Any heads of university depts here? If not, I can ask my husband how involved university presidents get in his experience. I know he has met at least once with one, Matt Holland, to discuss expansion of entrepreneurship through other programs at UVU, iirc. I don't have any first had knowledge, but there are first person accounts: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=1324070 Here is a doctoral dissertation written by a BYU therapist describing his use of aversion therapy to cure homosexuals: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1u3K43P-3JoY2Q5NDY3ZjYtNWUyMi00YWJiLWFhM2EtYTE4MjViNWVjOGEz/view?layout=list&sort=name&pli=1&num=50
Calm Posted October 19, 2019 Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) Yes that is McBride whose research I mentioned. It was experimental research on one aspect of aversion therapy, the effectiveness of clothed vs. nude pictures for treatment and not actual therapy solely for the purpose of therapy. Same thing as comparative drug trials, the purpose is to study effectiveness of drugs. Given this was for his doctorate, not sure he should be called a therapist either, but rather a grad student. The study was limited to 22 sessions no matter the effect on the subject, another difference with typical therapy. (As a undergrad student in the same department a year later...wait, two years later, I was a physics/EE student that first year, I feel the need to nitpick.) Edited October 19, 2019 by Calm 1
Tacenda Posted October 19, 2019 Posted October 19, 2019 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: I don't have any first had knowledge, but there are first person accounts: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=1324070 Here is a doctoral dissertation written by a BYU therapist describing his use of aversion therapy to cure homosexuals: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1u3K43P-3JoY2Q5NDY3ZjYtNWUyMi00YWJiLWFhM2EtYTE4MjViNWVjOGEz/view?layout=list&sort=name&pli=1&num=50 Little did they know, that homosexuality isn't in the penis or ? it's in the brain or soul.
CV75 Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 12:16 PM, Fether said: Im typically just an observer on this site, but I figured it would be a good time to speak up as the media headlines speak nothing of what was actaully said. To Summerize the church's opposition to the rule as found in the LDSFS letter: 1) The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter: "Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... " 2) The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS. 3) The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here. 4) The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter." 5) Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be: "If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts": * Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria) * Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions) * Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices. * Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality) * Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way) * Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease. * Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria. * Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and development." Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule. If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it. To say the church is for conversion therapy is groundless and is steeped in personal prejudace against the church or religion in general. If you think this is just a smoke screen and that the church really does love electric shock therapy and demanding homosexuals stop being gay, than at least be honest and tell us that instead of spreading a false harrative that suggests the church is "against bannign conversion therapy". I think that denying the services bulleted above could contribute to suicide.
smac97 Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 On 10/16/2019 at 1:42 PM, smac97 said: I can't help but wonder if the overbreadth of the proposed rule was intended as a feature, not a bug. By larding up the proposal with obviously problematic elements (such as the risk you note above), its proponents know it will provoke a response from the Church. They can then turn to reliably pliant media outlets to make sensationalized (and fairly misleading) claims about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "opposes" a ban on "conversion therapy." By way of illustration, let's take a look at the headlines: Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’ MySanAntonio.com: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban Oil City News: LDS CHURCH AGAINST PROPOSED UTAH BAN ON ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ CBS News: Mormon Church urges Utah not to bar "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors ABC4 News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes rule that would ban conversion therapy KJZZ: LDS Church releases statement opposing proposed conversion therapy ban Fox13 News: LDS Church raises objections to proposed rule banning conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah {EDIT TO ADD} The Guardian: Mormon church strikes blow against Utah ban on conversion therapy {EDIT TO ADD} Longview News-Journal: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} Jackson Hole News Guide: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} The Alpena News: Mormon church opposes LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban {EDIT TO ADD} The Columbian: Latter-day Saints oppose Utah LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban {EDIT TO ADD} Gephart Daily: LDS Church opposes ban of conversion therapy for LGBTQ youths {EDIT TO ADD} Texarkana Gazette: Mormon church opposes 'conversion therapy' ban {EDIT TO ADD} GV Wire: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban {EDIT TO ADD} Daily Miner: LDS church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} KNPR: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ 'Conversion Therapy' Ban Meanwhile, here's the coverage from The Deseret News: Let's review that last bit again: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'" Will a casual reader of any of the above-bulleted news items glean this point from the headlines? Or even from the articles themselves? Probably not, since the article from The Deseret News is the only one that bothers to quote this portion of the Church's letter. Reason 5,613 to take a very cautious approach news coverage these days pertaining to conservative religious groups. Thanks, -Smac Wow. Looks like I called it. I gave up editing the above post to add news stories that substantially mischaracterize the Church's position on conversion/reparative therapy. There were just too many. Yesterday the Deseret News published this follow-up news item: Quote Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirms opposition to conversion therapy By Tad Walch@Tad_Walch Oct 23, 2019, 8:48pm MDT SALT LAKE CITY — Concerned by what a spokesman said are inaccurate news headlines, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed Wednesday that it opposes conversion therapy. Marty Stephens, the faith’s director of government and community relations, did a round of phone interviews with journalists on Wednesday to clarify the faith’s position on a proposed rule that would ban conversion therapy in Utah. "A round of phone interviews with journalists." I wonder how many of those journalists will clarify/correct the errors in reporting about the Church's position on this issue. I'm not holding my breath. I have little faith in or trust of journalists these days. Quote “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes conversion therapy, and our therapists do not practice it,” he said. That message has been lost in some news headlines and stories about the church’s concerns with the proposed rule being considered by the Utah Department of Professional Licensing. The church will oppose the rule unless it protects therapists who are parents, grandparents or religious leaders from losing their licenses for giving spiritual, religiously based counsel. I sure would like to be proven wrong, but I don't think we'll see much in the way of corrections or clarifications. Many journalists these days are often too busy crafting preferred narratives (usually favoring their sociopolitical ideology, or opposing sociopolitical ideologies they personally dislike) to be bothered with accurately and dispassionately gathering reporting the news. Quote Currently, the rule does not include those protections. Language that would provide those protections was included in a failed House bill in the most recent full Utah Legislative session. For that reason, the church did not oppose the bill. Stephens said the church would support the proposed rule if it simply added the language from HB399 as introduced in the Utah Legislature in February. He said the church has consistently denounced conversion therapy and has not changed its position. “Back in 2016 we had a statement on this where we said the church denounces any therapy that subjects an individual to abusive practices,” Stephens said. “When House Bill 399 this year was at the Legislature, we issued this statement: ‘The church denounces any therapy, including conversion and reparative therapies, that subjects an individual to abusive practices, not only in Utah but throughout the world.’” So the Church's position on this issue has been publicly established since at least 2016, and was once again clarified in the last few days. And yet the above statement (the last sentence) has not been published by any other news outlet except the Deseret News. That is, at least not recently. The statement, or something like it, was picked up and published by a few news outlets earlier this year (see here). Quote Stephens expressed frustration that some news outlets equated the church’s opposition to the proposed lack of protections in the rule for people of faith as support for conversion therapy. “It has been concerning that a number of stories have been written that do not accurately reflect the church’s position that we are opposed to conversion therapy, and our therapists do not practice it,” he said. I wonder if the Church's media relations folks failed to disseminate the above statement ("The church denounces..."). Quote The church is worried the rule does not include protections that had been part of HB399 for parents and grandparents who are licensed therapists. Stephens said there is concern that if they counseled their children or grandchildren differently than the rule directs, they could lose their licenses to practice. He said the same is true of a therapist serving as a Latter-day Saint bishop. HB399 specifically said a licensed therapist acting in a pastoral or religious capacity would not lose state licensing for providing spiritual guidance. “They would be threatened with license revocation if they even talked about spiritual ways to cope with life’s challenges,” he said. HB399 excluded from the definition of conversion therapy discussions between a therapist and a client about the client’s moral or religious beliefs or practices. That protection does not exist in the proposed DOPL rule. “So if a client comes in and says, ‘I identify with this religion and I want to try and have my treatment reflect that,’ ‘I want to abstain from premarital sex’ or ‘I want to abstain from extramarital sex, because that’s part of my religious beliefs,’ under HB399 counselors could counsel to that,” Stephens said. “Under the rule, they cannot.” Wow. These seem like real and meaningful concerns about the rule. Quote Stephens anticipated some will say the church is raising consequences that are unlikely to happen. “If that’s the case,” he said, “put the exception in the rule so it is clear, because the way it’s drafted they could. And there’s no reason that those protections shouldn’t be in there, if they really don’t intend to do that, because the way it’s drafted they could.” That's a very fair point. Quote DOPL’s process for considering the rule includes public comment. It received nearly 2,500 comments, including the Family Services comments the church filed before the comment period ended last week. A decision on whether to adopt the rule could come next week or take up to four months, DOPL spokeswoman Jennifer Bolton told the Associated Press. The Utah Legislature convenes again in January. Stephens said the church either would like the protections added to the rule or have the process return to the Legislature, where it would lobby for them. “We don’t really care whether the rule is fixed or whether it goes to the legislature as long as we get good public policy,” he said. Again, good points. The article also includes (for the first time, at least that I could see) the complete text of the 13-page letter that Family Services sent to DOPL. Thanks, -Smac 2
Recommended Posts