Jake Starkey Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 The Church's mishandling of LGBTQ+ issues since the Proclamation of 2015 has been the worst since the 1940's. The 15 have good people advising them, but they are not listening to those who are wiser.
Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 59 minutes ago, california boy said: Your only instinct is to defend the church rather than address what I actually wrote Bsjkki is able to criticize the Church when she sees error in my experience, so I think you are misreading her motives here. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 33 minutes ago, california boy said: 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. You make it sound like there are some "good guys" out there in the midst of all this hubub. I don't agree at all, and see a lot of hamhanded nonsense from all sides. In my preferred world, the Utah State Legislature would not have a supermajority of either party, would take into account the widest possible set of considerations before writing a bill, and the LDS Church would have at least one guy like yourself on PR staff to be a kind of gadfly-ombudsman. Otherwise they engage in self-defeating group think. Guess what? Ain't gonna happen. It's turtles all the way down . . . I love Gov Herbert's approach, which is to seek a viable form of the legislation, instead of casting aspersions. Herbert has always been willing to say "no," when legislation doesn't meet his high expectations. I just hope his successor will be as alert and courageous.
Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: Do you know what changes in language the church supports? Don't we have the bill that was originally acceptable to the Church? 1
bsjkki Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 Original https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399.pdf Revised https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399S04.pdf
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Don't we have the bill that was originally acceptable to the Church? Yes. And if the Church would have quoted the lines they wanted put back in or stated the lines they wanted out and been very clear what they wanted done, this bill would have probably been passed. The "we don't like the language" says nothing. And while the Church might have been happy with the original bill, obviously others were not. The Church can't expect to be the only voice in these kinds of situations. Nor should their opinion be the only opinion that matters. It is a secular government after all. 1
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You make it sound like there are some "good guys" out there in the midst of all this hubub. I don't agree at all, and see a lot of hamhanded nonsense from all sides. In my preferred world, the Utah State Legislature would not have a supermajority of either party, would take into account the widest possible set of considerations before writing a bill, and the LDS Church would have at least one guy like yourself on PR staff to be a kind of gadfly-ombudsman. Otherwise they engage in self-defeating group think. Guess what? Ain't gonna happen. It's turtles all the way down . . . I love Gov Herbert's approach, which is to seek a viable form of the legislation, instead of casting aspersions. Herbert has always been willing to say "no," when legislation doesn't meet his high expectations. I just hope his successor will be as alert and courageous. I have to admit, having worked in advertising and PR all my life, I find the Church pretty inept at how they get their point across. But it seems to me, that the leaders are unwilling to listen to others. They just plow ahead, and then do damage control when the inevitable happens. 2
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 37 minutes ago, Calm said: Bsjkki is able to criticize the Church when she sees error in my experience, so I think you are misreading her motives here. That still doesn't mean she didn't write a post that had nothing to do with what I was addressing.
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes. And if the Church would have quoted the lines they wanted put back in or stated the lines they wanted out and been very clear what they wanted done, this bill would have probably been passed. The "we don't like the language" says nothing. And while the Church might have been happy with the original bill, obviously others were not. The Church can't expect to be the only voice in these kinds of situations. Nor should their opinion be the only opinion that matters. It is a secular government after all. But they did include that language in their letter, which was quoted here and in the Desert News. 2
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 1 minute ago, california boy said: That still doesn't mean she didn't write a post that had nothing to do with what I was addressing. But you were factually incorrect about the situation. 3
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 14 minutes ago, kllindley said: But they did include that language in their letter, which was quoted here and in the Desert News. I read the letter. What specific language did they want included in the bill before it got their blessing. Cause I never saw anything but vague areas they were unhappy with.
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, california boy said: I read the letter. What specific language did they want included in the bill before it got their blessing. Cause I never saw anything but vague areas they were unhappy with. Maybe part of the problem is that you are still talking about a bill! This is about a "rule." Huge difference. They say: "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. • Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. • Therapies that discuss the client's moral or religious beliefs or practices. • Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. • Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. • 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. • 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." Edited October 26, 2019 by kllindley 1
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 Yes I am talking solely about the bill, because that is the press that people are reacting too and complaining how unfair it was. Some people are blaming "fake news" for a problem the Church created. I have not commented on what has happened since the bill did not pass.
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 25 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes I am talking solely about the bill, because that is the press that people are reacting too and complaining how unfair it was. Some people are blaming "fake news" for a problem the Church created. I have not commented on what has happened since the bill did not pass. No. People are talking about a proposed rule that was very recently covered. Back in the spring, the Church supported the bill. 1
bsjkki Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes I am talking solely about the bill, because that is the press that people are reacting too and complaining how unfair it was. Could you site sources for this viewpoint? Because the church came out against a rule change proposed by the state licensing board Oct. 15th. The bill failed in March and was tabled. Are you referring to the March time period? The church advocated for a legislative solution instead of a rule change by fiat. Which would you prefer? "We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule and acknowledge the hard work and good faith behind it. Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons Family Services believes the Proposed Rule falls short and should be withdrawn to allow the Legislature to address these challenging issues. Alternatively, the Proposed Rule should be amended to accommodate the concerns discussed above." From this letter to state licensing board dated October 15th. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf Again here is the rule change https://dopl.utah.gov/laws/Prop_R156-61_OAR_44032.pdf House Bill 399 and its revision out of committee were tabled in March. After this happened, the Governor tasked the State Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing with proposing a rule change. The Church in their family services letter mentioned this could be done by fiat. "DOPL's proposed rule making would inappropriately cut short the legislative process by making conversion therapy a matter of regulatory fiat. Edited October 26, 2019 by bsjkki 1
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Could you site sources for this viewpoint? Because the church came out against a rule change proposed by the state licensing board Oct. 15th. The bill failed in March and was tabled. Are you referring to the March time period? The church advocated for a legislative solution instead of a rule change by fiat. Which would you prefer? "We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule and acknowledge the hard work and good faith behind it. Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons Family Services believes the Proposed Rule falls short and should be withdrawn to allow the Legislature to address these challenging issues. Alternatively, the Proposed Rule should be amended to accommodate the concerns discussed above." From this letter to state licensing board dated October 15th. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf Again here is the rule change https://dopl.utah.gov/laws/Prop_R156-61_OAR_44032.pdf House Bill 399 and its revision out of committee were tabled in March. After this happened, the Governor tasked the State Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing with proposing a rule change. The Church in their family services letter mentioned this could be done by fiat. "DOPL's proposed rule making would inappropriately cut short the legislative process by making conversion therapy a matter of regulatory fiat. Sadly, it seems that he is so convinced that the Church is terrible, he hasn't bothered to actually check facts or understand what is being talked about. He doesn't fully read posts, them asks questions I've directly answered. He ignores my answers and just repeats the same unending criticisms of the Church. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) On 10/16/2019 at 9:13 AM, california boy said: Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy. Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly know more about mental health issues than Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly think they know more about mental health issues than the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others—have issued public statements opposing the use of conversion therapy because it is harmful and ineffective. American Professional organizations that have issued statements opposing reparative therapy American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Pediatrics American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American College of Physicians American Counseling Association American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Nursing American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists American Counseling Association American Medical Student Association American Psychoanalytic Association National Association of Social Workers The Professional School Counselor and LGBT Youth The Association of LGBTQ Psychiatrists Clinical Social Work Association Why would the Church listen to these professional organizations. I don't know how any times we have to point out that science knows nothing about what is right and wrong. Ask any scientist what is the purpose of the earth if you want to hear dumbfounded silence and possible semi-angry, stuttering. Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski 2
Jake Starkey Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 The church leaders have made it clear they are not there to be counseled by those who disagree with them.
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, kllindley said: Sadly, it seems that he is so convinced that the Church is terrible, he hasn't bothered to actually check facts or understand what is being talked about. He doesn't fully read posts, them asks questions I've directly answered. He ignores my answers and just repeats the same unending criticisms of the Church. Do you have such a hatred for people who choose to have a same sex partner that you can't see that I have been talking about how the church handled their objections to conversion therapy bill/rule change rather than about the bill/rull change itself? Is that a fair comment? Edited October 26, 2019 by california boy
california boy Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 10 hours ago, bsjkki said: Could you site sources for this viewpoint? Because the church came out against a rule change proposed by the state licensing board Oct. 15th. The bill failed in March and was tabled. Are you referring to the March time period? The church advocated for a legislative solution instead of a rule change by fiat. Which would you prefer? "We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule and acknowledge the hard work and good faith behind it. Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons Family Services believes the Proposed Rule falls short and should be withdrawn to allow the Legislature to address these challenging issues. Alternatively, the Proposed Rule should be amended to accommodate the concerns discussed above." From this letter to state licensing board dated October 15th. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf Again here is the rule change https://dopl.utah.gov/laws/Prop_R156-61_OAR_44032.pdf House Bill 399 and its revision out of committee were tabled in March. After this happened, the Governor tasked the State Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing with proposing a rule change. The Church in their family services letter mentioned this could be done by fiat. "DOPL's proposed rule making would inappropriately cut short the legislative process by making conversion therapy a matter of regulatory fiat. Thanks for clearing this up. I have not really been addressing the issues the Church has brought up. I have been addressing the way they handled their objections and why the press reported the way they did.
kllindley Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 53 minutes ago, california boy said: Do you have such a hatred for people who choose to have a same sex partner that you can't see that I have been talking about how the church handled their objections to conversion therapy bill/rule change rather than about the bill/rull change itself? Is that a fair comment? Not at all a fair comment. There is zero hate. Are you talking about the Church's response to the bill or to the rule change? Why not address the answers you are given? Why not acknowledge that you get information factually incorrect in your criticism? 2
california boy Posted October 27, 2019 Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) Actually I was referring to the snarky remark you made about me not liking the church. The issue that I have been addressing is how the Church handled the press. What issues is there to discuss? I don't think anyone is surprised by the Church's position and what they want changed. Edited October 27, 2019 by california boy
Duncan Posted October 27, 2019 Posted October 27, 2019 So, kind of germane to this is our ward has a Trans person attend and identify as a woman, hormone therapy , everything except the surgery. Literally, nobody cared, happy to have them and hear their comments. Anyways, the missionaries didn't want to eat there and so they got upset and stopped attending. Well, apparently they had a change of heart or something and now identify as a man and want to be called a new name, came today in a white shirt, suit, haircut and wants to learn more.So, I dunno, we'll see what happens. 1
Recommended Posts