Church opposes ban of conversion therapy

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, smac97 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.”

This is what I have been saying is my concern.  

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if the Church's media relations folks failed to disseminate the above statement ("The church denounces...").  

The initial newsroom article was not clear enough and the church's PR people failed. This could have been handled much better but the news media are quick to pounce on a negative headline about the church.  The church PR department should be well aware of this and a stronger initial statement would have helped.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The initial newsroom article was not clear enough and the church's PR people failed. This could have been handled much better but the news media are quick to pounce on a negative headline about the church.  The church PR department should be well aware of this and a stronger initial statement would have helped.

What is the rule which says that the more strongly and more articulately a position is defended, the stronger the denials will be from the other side?  Or, you can't win for losing.  Or, no good deed goes unpunished.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[bsjkki]

On 10/24/2019 at 2:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

What is the rule which says that the more strongly and more articulately a position is defended, the stronger the denials will be from the other side?  Or, you can't win for losing.  Or, no good deed goes unpunished.

No rule but some common sense.  This is the Church's own headline. Yep...clear as mud that they don't oppose conversion therapy. 

15 October 2019 - Salt Lake City  

Official Statement

"Church Issues Statement Opposing Proposed Utah Psychologist Licensing Act Rule

Concerns are expressed about proposed rules on Utah "Psychologist Licensing Act" and "Mental Health Professional Practice Act"

With this statement,

"The Church denounces any abusive professional practice or treatment."

Again, the church was not clear it opposed conversion therapy. Don't make a critical audience read between the lines. Duh.

Edited October 26, 2019 by bsjkki

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

No rule but some common sense.  This is the Church's own headline. Yep...clear as mud that they don't oppose conversion therapy. 

15 October 2019 - Salt Lake City  

Official Statement

Church Issues Statement Opposing Proposed Utah Psychologist Licensing Act Rule

Concerns are expressed about proposed rules on Utah "Psychologist Licensing Act" and "Mental Health Professional Practice Act"

With this statement,

"The Church denounces any abusive professional practice or treatment."

Again, the church was not clear it opposed conversion therapy. Don't make a critical audience read between the lines. Duh.

It really doesn't make a bit of difference what is true, the LDS Church will still be accused of doing something bad anyhow.  If, for example, the proposed law against conversion therapy goes too far and damages actual and reasonable professional conduct or procedures, there is no room for a nuanced and proper discussion.  The LDS Church must always be wrong on all counts, no matter what.  In fact, unless and until the LDS Church officially accepts all forms of sexual behavior (including LGBTQ) among consenting adults, it will always be in the wrong.  Conversion therapy is not even the ultimate issue here.  The dictatorship of the proletariat demands that all its demands be met unconditionally by all people and organizations.  Only then will social justice be achieved.

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It really doesn't make a bit of difference what is true, the LDS Church will still be accused of doing something bad anyhow.  If, for example, the proposed law against conversion therapy goes too far and damages actual and reasonable professional conduct or procedures, there is no room for a nuanced and proper discussion.  The LDS Church must always be wrong on all counts, no matter what.  In fact, unless and until the LDS Church officially accepts all forms of sexual behavior (including LGBTQ) among consenting adults, it will always be in the wrong.  Conversion therapy is not even the ultimate issue here.  The dictatorship of the proletariat demands that all its demands be met unconditionally by all people and organizations.  Only then will social justice be achieved.

With the press, I do agree they have an agenda and are not truth tellers but I felt this was a little egregious in the PR department. You don't have to give them softballs. The headlines by the press were completely misleading and I had to research to find the truth and then debunk the lies for people I know who were upset about this issue. It was a fiasco. I won't defend the press...the acted horribly in this matter. But, my opinion there is so low I expect no less.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

With the press, I do agree they have an agenda and are not truth tellers but I felt this was a little egregious in the PR department. You don't have to give them softballs. The headlines by the press were completely misleading and I had to research to find the truth and then debunk the lies for people I know who were upset about this issue. It was a fiasco. I won't defend the press...the acted horribly in this matter. But, my opinion there is so low I expect no less.

The law of low expectations applies.  And that is aside from the reality that journalism is now an ignoble profession practiced by some pretty shady graduates of journalism schools -- where the most important thing is proper ornamentation.

[smac97]

Here's an update re: the governor's comments on this issue:

Quote

Governor concedes LDS worries on 'conversion therapy' ban
By BRADY McCOMBS and
LINDSAY WHITEHURST Associated Press

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said Thursday that concerns from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about a perceived lack of safeguards for religious beliefs in a proposed ban on so-called conversion therapy raise legitimate questions, but he thinks they can be resolved.

The Republican governor said at his monthly news conference on KUED-TV that he’s hopeful a ban will be in place soon. It would prohibit the discredited practice of using therapy to try to change a LGBTQ person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
...
“The only question seems to be: Is it written in such a way that is too broad? Will it impact on parental rights inappropriately? Does it impact on religious beliefs inappropriately?” Herbert said. “Those are issues that I think are legitimate questions that I believe can be worked out.”
...
Church government affairs director Marty Stephens said Wednesday that the faith denounces conversion therapy and wants a ban. But he said the rule needs exemptions for religious leaders and parents and grandparents who are therapists so they can provide spiritual counseling to parishioners or their families.

The legislation had those exemptions, which is why the church did not oppose it, he said.

Stephens said the faith doesn’t ascribe to “pray the gay away” thinking but that prayer and religious teachings can be helpful to people trying to navigate life’s challenges.

The church said in a letter to regulators that it would support a “carefully tailored” rule to ban “abusive” practices but contended the proposal defines sexual orientation and efforts to change sexual orientation so broadly that it “would imperil legitimate and helpful therapies to the detriment of minor clients.”

For instance, the church claims the rule wouldn’t allow therapists to discuss strategies for avoiding same-sex intimacy when young people seek help to adhere to the faith’s teachings.

Cliff Rosky, an advisory council member for the LGBTQ rights group Equality Utah who helped draft the original legislation, said the church’s concerns about the rule not protecting clergy, parents and grandparents may not be necessary because they have protections in state law.

He said none of the 18 states with conversion therapy bans explicitly exempt conversations between a therapist and their child because it only applies when they are acting in a professional capacity.

“You don’t need a license to talk to your child or grandchild, so you can’t lose a license for doing that,” Rosky said.

Equality Utah has reached out to church leaders to discuss their concerns, he said.

I'm glad to see this development. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's an update re: the governor's comments on this issue:

I'm glad to see this development. 

Thanks,

-Smac

After researching this topic, the Governor bears a lot of responsibility for the mess this is in. Glad he’s trying to clean it up but it’s a little too late.

[Jake Starkey]

No, it is not "a little too late."  The LDS Church's public opinion and PR department needed to denounce more forcefully and clearly what and why it opposed the law.  Parental and religious feelings need to be protected.  Rick Turley and gang at the PR department should have been more attuned to the situation.  Good on the Gov for trying to clear and clean up the mess.

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

No, it is not "a little too late."  The LDS Church's public opinion and PR department needed to denounce more forcefully and clearly what and why it opposed the law.  Parental and religious feelings need to be protected.  Rick Turley and gang at the PR department should have been more attuned to the situation.  Good on the Gov for trying to clear and clean up the mess.

I agree. It’s not too late to fix the rule change that is too broad. But, it will not fix the ‘mess’ that was already made in the legislative process or the confusion surrounding the rule change. That process was not handled well by the Governor. 

My, ‘it’s a little too late’ refers to the public perception that the church opposes banning conversion therapy. Now, the headlines will be about the Governor caving to the Church. What a mess. 

Sorry for not being clear.

[Jake Starkey]

The 'not clear' aspect may be in my head, bsjkki.  You are right.  The Gov will take the hit, and he can easily absorb it.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It really doesn't make a bit of difference what is true, the LDS Church will still be accused of doing something bad anyhow.  If, for example, the proposed ing law against conversion therapy goes too far and damages actual and reasonable professional conduct or procedures, there is no room for a nuanced and proper discussion.  The LDS Church must always be wrong on all counts, no matter what.  In fact, unless and until the LDS Church officially accepts all forms of sexual behavior (including LGBTQ) among consenting adults, it will always be in the wrong.  Conversion therapy is not even the ultimate issue here.  The dictatorship of the proletariat demands that all its demands be met unconditionally by all people and organizations.  Only then will social justice be achieved.

I know it is fashionable these days to blame everything on the news. Fake news has become a thing in this country.  By doing so, organizations like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can blame the whole problem on the press and not take any personal responsibility for their own actions.  The Church is well known for opposing the LGBT community.  Coming out against a reversion therapy bill surprised no one. The Church for many years had as it's position that one could indeed become straight.  

So now a bill banning conversion therapy comes up.  And the Church opposes it.  They claim that now they do support conversion therapy. but the bill is too broad.  What does that mean?  Why didn't the Church state very specifically what they were against?  Why didn't the Church state very clearly that they are behind this bill one hundred percent if this one specific part of the bill would be changed or dropped.  

I get that members of the Church always want the Church to be represented in the very best possible light.  Well guess what, the press is not the PR arm of the Church.  If the Church wants to control what is written about them, then the least they can do is make an effort to make exactly what they object to clear instead of this "It's to vague" statement.  For most people, that sounds like a foggy excuse made by an organization that doesn't want change at all.  Just keep the law the way it is because "we don't like the vague language". 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by california boy

[bsjkki]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know it is fashionable these days to blame everything on the news. Fake news has become a thing in this country.  By doing so, organizations like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can blame the whole problem on the press and not take any personal responsibility for their own actions.  The Church is well known for opposing the LGBT community.  Coming out against a reversion therapy bill surprised no one. The Church for many years had as it's position that one could indeed become straight.  

So now a bill banning conversion therapy comes up.  And the Church opposes it.  They claim that now they do support conversion therapy. but the bill is too broad.  What does that mean?  Why didn't the Church state very specifically what they were against?  Why didn't the Church state very clearly that they are behind this bill one hundred percent if this one specific part of the bill would be changed or dropped.  

I get that members of the Church always want the Church to be represented in the very best possible light.  Well guess what, the press is not the PR arm of the Church.  If the Church wants to control what is written about them, then the least they can do is make an effort to make exactly what they object to clear instead of this "It's to vague" statement.  For most people, that sounds like a foggy excuse made by an organization that doesn't want change at all.  Just keep the law the way it is because "we don't like the vague language". 

 

California Boy...please read this. https://www.thedailybeast.com/utah-was-set-to-ban-conversion-therapy-then-it-didnt  The church did not oppose a 'Bill' banning conversion therapy. They supported both drafts of the bi-partisan Bill that was debated this year.

Because the "Bill" was tabled because it was watered down in committee and lost support by the original sponsor and the LGBTQ community, Governor Herbert requested the rules people for therapy licensing to take up the debate. Language included in this rule change is what is being debated. The church is against conversion therapy and has been for a long. The rule change uses language that was not included in either version of the "Bill." It is very broad and many people have concerns about it. 

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

So now a bill banning conversion therapy comes up.  And the Church opposes it.  They claim that now they do support conversion therapy. but the bill is too broad.  What does that mean?  Why didn't the Church state very specifically what they were against?  Why didn't the Church state very clearly that they are behind this bill one hundred percent if this one specific part of the bill would be changed or dropped.  

Most of the details of this statement are factually incorrect. The church did not oppose the bill banning conversion therapy. That church does not support conversion therapy and has not for a very long time. The bill was not too broad..the rule change was. The church issued a multi-page statement on the details of why they are against the rule change.    https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf    This is so detailed nobody reads it.

They were always for the proposed the bill so could not explain why they were not.

Fake news wins again.

Edited October 25, 2019 by bsjkki

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

The Gov will take the hit, and he can easily absorb it.

 

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know it is fashionable these days to blame everything on the news. Fake news has become a thing in this country.  

 

 

Should the Gov accept responsibility for conversion therapy remaining legal in Utah. Read The Daily beast article, and see what happened when a State Rep brought in a substitute bill which the Gov supported.

 

The current state of conversion therapy in Utah is that it set to be banned by the authority of the Executive Branch by way of a Rule...not a Bill (legislative branch)

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by provoman

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Should the Gov accept responsibility for conversion therapy remaining legal in Utah. Read The Daily beast article, and see what happened when a State Rep brought in a substitute bill which the Gov supported.

Yes, some. From the Daily Beast, "On Tuesday, as Deseret News reported, the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of a significantly-altered substitute bill introduced by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee that earned the surprise endorsement of Herbert." 

[Jake Starkey]

provoman, I did not say what you think I said.  I meant that the Governor is powerful to absorb criticism on this issue not that he is for conversion therapy.  His concerns, as I understand them, are for parental responsibility and as religious rights.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I know it is fashionable these days to blame everything on the news. Fake news has become a thing in this country.  By doing so, organizations like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can blame the whole problem on the press and not take any personal responsibility for their own actions.  The Church is well known for opposing the LGBT community.  Coming out against a reversion therapy bill surprised no one. The Church for many years had as it's position that one could indeed become straight.  

So now a bill banning conversion therapy comes up.  And the Church opposes it.  They claim that now they do support conversion therapy. but the bill is too broad.  What does that mean?  Why didn't the Church state very specifically what they were against?  Why didn't the Church state very clearly that they are behind this bill one hundred percent if this one specific part of the bill would be changed or dropped.  

I get that members of the Church always want the Church to be represented in the very best possible light.  Well guess what, the press is not the PR arm of the Church.   

the Church wants to control what is written about them

This notion of "control" is a pipe dream, and no one can do that.  Not even in a totalitarian dictatorship.  Not gonna happen in Utah.  The belief that Mormons always want their church to be presented in the best possible light, and that the anti-Mormons want it to be presented as fully diabolical, are basically irrelevant.  Journalism and journalism schools have descended into competition for fame, ratings, and money.  Facts be damned.  Transparency doesn't count for much -- except for fear and loathing.  The bottom line is that the LDS Church must be wrong, no matter what.  That is not a reasonable place to begin a discussion of anything.  If Jesus Himself were here, He would just get crucified again.  We do not live in an enlightened society.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 ...................... the least they can do is make an effort to make exactly what they object to clear instead of this "It's to vague" statement.  For most people, that sounds like a foggy excuse made by an organization that doesn't want change at all.  Just keep the law the way it is because "we don't like the vague language".

Legislation is often overly broad, the nuances ignored, on almost any issue.  That is the typical problem with getting any sort of legislation agreed upon in any legislature.  As a practical matter, legislation requires compromise, and the devil is in the details.  The average person just doesn't understand that reality, and problems are just that much more complicated with legislation on sensitive subjects.  So, instead of trying to understand one another, we see woke identitarian responses on all sides.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

The 'not clear' aspect may be in my head, bsjkki.  You are right.  The Gov will take the hit, and he can easily absorb it.

I  like Gov Herbert.  He often steps in to fix things, and he often opposes bad legislation (not afraid to use his veto).  I'm going to miss him.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The law of low expectations applies.  And that is aside from the reality that journalism is now an ignoble profession practiced by some pretty shady graduates of journalism schools -- where the most important thing is proper ornamentation.

It is fun to throw the press under a bus but they are dealing with several shocks. One is that no one is paying for news anymore with the proliferation of free news on the web. TV news still makes money but it is probably the most shallow form of journalism. TV journalism is suffering from the 24 hour news cycle which is useful for serious events that rivet the nation (9/11) but devolves into endless analyses, dragging in supposed ex-experts, and what amounts to entertainment criticism. I was in the office break room eating lunch and the news channel was covering a hearing I was interested in and it amounted to judging the drama level and who gave the most convincing performance. Surviving news companies are all combining so they are less of a check on each other. Funding is down so real investigative news just keeps getting rarer. The traditional model of mostly conservative owners and mostly liberal journalists checking each other broke down and you can now pick your view-point and never have to hear anything that might shake up your worldview. The purchasing of local news also means less local and even state news. If you ever wanted to be a corrupt local politician this could be a golden age for you.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is fun to throw the press under a bus but they are dealing with several shocks. One is that no one is paying for news anymore with the proliferation of free news on the web. TV news still makes money but it is probably the most shallow form of journalism. TV journalism is suffering from the 24 hour news cycle which is useful for serious events that rivet the nation (9/11) but devolves into endless analyses, dragging in supposed ex-experts, and what amounts to entertainment criticism. I was in the office break room eating lunch and the news channel was covering a hearing I was interested in and it amounted to judging the drama level and who gave the most convincing performance. Surviving news companies are all combining so they are less of a check on each other. Funding is down so real investigative news just keeps getting rarer. The traditional model of mostly conservative owners and mostly liberal journalists checking each other broke down and you can now pick your view-point and never have to hear anything that might shake up your worldview. The purchasing of local news also means less local and even state news. If you ever wanted to be a corrupt local politician this could be a golden age for you.

I agree with everything you said. The funding for news is broken. The local investigative journalist is rare bird. Hard news is often too co-mingled with with opinion. Also, I'm wary of the billionaire owners of major news sources. How much are they influencing the spin, to influence politics, to influence the politicians, to basically buy influence or favorable treatment or threaten elected officials with negative stories? 

Edited October 25, 2019 by bsjkki

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is fun to throw the press under a bus but they are dealing with several shocks. One is that no one is paying for news anymore with the proliferation of free news on the web. TV news still makes money but it is probably the most shallow form of journalism. TV journalism is suffering from the 24 hour news cycle which is useful for serious events that rivet the nation (9/11) but devolves into endless analyses, dragging in supposed ex-experts, and what amounts to entertainment criticism. I was in the office break room eating lunch and the news channel was covering a hearing I was interested in and it amounted to judging the drama level and who gave the most convincing performance. Surviving news companies are all combining so they are less of a check on each other. Funding is down so real investigative news just keeps getting rarer. The traditional model of mostly conservative owners and mostly liberal journalists checking each other broke down and you can now pick your view-point and never have to hear anything that might shake up your worldview. The purchasing of local news also means less local and even state news. If you ever wanted to be a corrupt local politician this could be a golden age for you.

Correct on all counts, Nehor, but the rot was already there decades ago.  My preferences were always more toward the deep analysis of Eric Severeid, Marvin Kalb, and Daniel Schorr.  At one time, we could trust AP and the NYT.  Now both of those mainstays are mere propaganda organs (witness their most recent lies on behalf of Hillary).  There are no more adults in the room.  Just dog eat dog.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

California Boy...please read this. https://www.thedailybeast.com/utah-was-set-to-ban-conversion-therapy-then-it-didnt  The church did not oppose a 'Bill' banning conversion therapy. They supported both drafts of the bi-partisan Bill that was debated this year.

Because the "Bill" was tabled because it was watered down in committee and lost support by the original sponsor and the LGBTQ community, Governor Herbert requested the rules people for therapy licensing to take up the debate. Language included in this rule change is what is being debated. The church is against conversion therapy and has been for a long. The rule change uses language that was not included in either version of the "Bill." It is very broad and many people have concerns about it. 

Most of the details of this statement are factually incorrect. The church did not oppose the bill banning conversion therapy. That church does not support conversion therapy and has not for a very long time. The bill was not too broad..the rule change was. The church issued a multi-page statement on the details of why they are against the rule change.    https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf    This is so detailed nobody reads it.

They were always for the proposed the bill so could not explain why they were not.

Fake news wins again.

I don't think you even read what I wrote did you.  You aren't addressing what I was talking about.  Your only instinct is to defend the church rather than address what I actually wrote.  Which is interesting since it is the exact same thing you are accusing newspaper outlets from doing.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This notion of "control" is a pipe dream, and no one can do that.  Not even in a totalitarian dictatorship.  Not gonna happen in Utah.  The belief that Mormons always want their church to be presented in the best possible light, and that the anti-Mormons want it to be presented as fully diabolical, are basically irrelevant.  Journalism and journalism schools have descended into competition for fame, ratings, and money.  Facts be damned.  Transparency doesn't count for much -- except for fear and loathing.  The bottom line is that the LDS Church must be wrong, no matter what.  That is not a reasonable place to begin a discussion of anything.  If Jesus Himself were here, He would just get crucified again.  We do not live in an enlightened society.

Legislation is often overly broad, the nuances ignored, on almost any issue.  That is the typical problem with getting any sort of legislation agreed upon in any legislature.  As a practical matter, legislation requires compromise, and the devil is in the details.  The average person just doesn't understand that reality, and problems are just that much more complicated with legislation on sensitive subjects.  So, instead of trying to understand one another, we see woke identitarian responses on all sides.

My point is, the thing that the Church damns the legislation for, they are in fact guilty of the exact same thing.  Just think of the difference this news cycle would have been if the Church would have made a statement that they "fully support outlawing conversion therapy and are ready to back this legislative bill if the following language is included to  make the bill more fair and clear.  Do you know what changes in language the church supports?  Did they offer any language that would make the bill acceptable?  No.  Just vague, we don't like it language.  News outlets were unable to point to exactly what language the Church would find acceptable so, WOW, they didn't report any.  Now all you members are blaming the news media and crying about how unfair they are to the Church.  

The vast majority of times when the Church is in the news for anti LGBT issues, the Church gets the coverage they earned.  There is a reason why people have attitudes towards how the Church treats LGBT issues.  It hasn't come in a vacuum.  

[bsjkki]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think you even read what I wrote did you.  You aren't addressing what I was talking about.  Your only instinct is to defend the church rather than address what I actually wrote.  Which is interesting since it is the exact same thing you are accusing newspaper outlets from doing.  

If you read my previous comments, I have been consistently critical of the church’s statement for not  being clear in stating they do not oppose a ban on conversion therapy. 🤷‍♀️

Edited October 25, 2019 by bsjkki