"Conversion Therapy" in Canada: Apparently a One Way Street

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Thousands of clergy in North America devoted their sermons on Sunday to affirming biblical sexual morality in response to a new Canadian law some warn could effectively criminalize such teachings.

An initiative begun by Liberty Coalition Canada and promulgated in the United States by Pastor John MacArthur of Los Angeles secured the support of more than 4,000 Christian pastors who publicly expressed their willingness to protest from the pulpit regarding Bill C-4, Fox News Digital has confirmed.

The controversial legislation, which went into effect Jan. 8 after being fast-tracked through the Canadian Parliament in December without extensive debate, describes as a "myth" the belief that heterosexuality and cisgender identity are preferable. Counseling that does not align with such a worldview now carries a potential five-year jail sentence.

Wow.

Quote

Critics claim the language of the bill is overly broad and could even encompass private conversations. Several pastors, including some who have recently been imprisoned in Canada for keeping their churches open in defiance of government health orders, explained to Fox News that they believe the scope of the new law could open the door to religious persecution.

Another take:

Quote

There’s a new law in Canada, called C-4, that bans “conversion therapy.”

 

According to the law’s preamble, conversion therapy causes harm to society because, in part, “it is based on and propagates myths and stereotypes about sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, including the myth that heterosexuality, cisgender gender identity, and gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned to a person at birth are to be preferred over other sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions.”

But, what does the law define as conversion therapy?

Definition of conversion therapy
320.‍101 In sections 320.‍102 to 320.‍104, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to
(a) change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;
(b) change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;
(c) change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;
(d) repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or
(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

Read that definition again. Did you notice that based on this definition, it is perfectly legal in Canada to influence a child (or adult) to be LGBTQ, but if you’re a parent of a child who is experiencing any kind of sexual confusion and you advocate heterosexuality or cisgendered identity you could face up to five years in prison.

The definition does indeed seem to create a one-way street. 

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual" is prohibited, but there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's sexual orientation to homosexual.

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s gender identity to cisgender" is prohibited, there there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's gender identity to non-cisgender.

And so on.

Quote

“Everyone who knowingly causes another person to undergo conversion therapy — including by providing conversion therapy to that other person — is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction,” the law reads.

The law’s broad definition of “conversion therapy” has generated significant concern.

“The bill’s wording is sufficiently broad to allow for the criminal prosecution of a wide variety of individuals,” says Rev. Michael Thiessen, president of advocacy group Liberty Coalition Canada.

“So if your kid feels insecure or confused with their gender or sexuality, you can only get ‘therapy’ if they convert to the identity that is anything BUT the biological norm,” notes Freedom Forever CEO Landon Starbuck. “That’s not therapy, that’s conversion coercion.”

Some background on how this bill passed:

Quote

The minority federal Liberal government says it is proposing a complete ban on so-called “conversion therapy” — even for adults who purport to consent — as there is an emerging international and domestic consensus that such “well-documented” harmful practices are tantamount to “torture,” to which no one can validly consent.

On Nov. 29, Justice Minister David Lametti introduced Bill C-4 in the House of Commons, a more sweeping version of two previously introduced bills (C-8 and C-6) which made it an offence to cause a child or youth to undergo “conversion therapy” but only criminalized coerced conversion therapy for adults (i.e. if it was “against the person’s will”) — due to perceived potential constitutional problems if the government enacted a blanket ban on conversion.

“We felt that a competent adult could conceivably defend the right in a court to consent to this kind of activity and … we felt that we … couldn’t move ahead with that ... case scenario, simply because of the Charter of Rights,” Lametti told reporters in a March 2020 scrum on Parliament Hill, after he introduced, with fanfare the first of two previous iterations of the bill (C-8), which both died on the order paper.
...
“No matter your age, torture is something you cannot consent to,” Lametti explained. “Just consider what these so-called therapies do. Their goal is to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity or expression to match the sex they were assigned at birth. In other words, change a person into something or someone they are not. Think about what it must be like to go through something like that. The consequences are well documented.”

Lametti said that, if necessary, he is prepared to go to court to defend the constitutionality of the proposed law — whose previous versions were opposed by some Conservative MPs, including on constitutional grounds implicating freedom of expression and religion.
...
“The basic fundamental premise is still the same, that this practice is torture,” Lametti said, noting the experiences of conversion therapy survivors who testified to their profound pain before MPs during the previous Parliament. “We saw the devastating impact ... and that really is one of the main factors — which is why we're going further this time,” he explained. “The second factor is a greater emerging international consensus, in addition to the consensus that’s emerging within Canada, that this is a practice that needs to be banned.”

I'm sort of confused.  If "conversion therapy" is analogous to torture, why craft a law that allows for it?

More here:

Quote

C-4 ... goes much further, banning even consenting adults from receiving such counselling or treatment. And whatever one thinks of that idea, Canadian adults should demand Parliament establish what exactly changed Lametti’s mind. Just 12 short months ago he was very clear that he and his department viewed the idea as unconstitutional.

“I do fear a Charter challenge” Lametti told the justice committee on Dec. 1, 2020. “For an adult capable of consenting and who is not … being subjected to duress, it (a ban) would be a difficult thing to defend in court. The best minds in my department tried to wrap their heads around it and couldn’t.”

“Various other provisions in the (Criminal) Code require that there be an absence of consent in order for the offence to have been committed,” C-6’s legislative summary notes , citing for example Section 266: “a person commits assault when without the consent of the other person, he applies force intentionally to that other person.”

I think the "torture" analogy persuaded him.

Quote

Advocates for religious freedom still have every right to be as concerned about C-4 as they were about C-6. A common argument among proponents, such as MacEwan University professor and LGBTQ activist Kristopher Wells, is that people simply can’t “consent to what is inherently a fraudulent practice” ( as he put it to the justice committee last year). “There isn’t scientific evidence that supports (conversion therapy’s) efficacy.”

But that same reasoning impugns not only alternative medicine, but much of the religious and spiritual counselling that millions of Canadians rely on. “There is a real danger that Christian and other religious and ethical teaching with respect to human sexuality would be interpreted as criminal acts,” the Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in its brief on C-6. It might be easy to dismiss that as hyperbole or paranoia, except many proponents of this legislation would applaud such a development.

And those proponents hold considerable sway. They managed to get Dr. Ken Zucker fired as chief psychologist at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, because he believes gender transition should be discouraged until after adolescence. Zucker warned the justice committee last year that the language in C-6 defining conversion therapy was “vacuous.” The definition includes “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s … gender identify to cisgender,” Zucker noted, but not “a practice, treatment or service that relates … to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.” No one has any idea where the line is.

There remains ample scope here to ban the worst kinds of conversion therapy — if kidnapping, forcible confinement and brainwashing really need further outlawing, which Lametti claimed as recently as 2019 that they did not . It can be done without the government pretending to know better than trained medical professionals what’s best for gender-questioning children and without impacting Canadian adults’ right to run their lives the way they see fit, even if it seems goofy to other adults. 

These are some fair points.

More backstory:

Quote

The bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Lametti Nov. 29 and was passed Dec. 1. The Senate approved it Dec. 7. In neither case was there any debate, deliberation, or even discussion.

Most confounding to many onlookers is the fact that not one of the 62 Conservative MPs who had opposed the bill during Parliament’s summer session stood up against it this time. And it was a Conservative MP, justice critic Rob Moore, who made the motion that the bill should be adopted unanimously.

The Liberals had attempted to achieve this result twice before. Earlier versions died when Parliament was prorogued in August 2020 (Bill C-8) and when the election was called earlier this year (Bill C-6). Opponents of Bill C-4 say it extends further than the earlier bills.
...
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), in its Dec. 7 weekly newsletter, stated:

“Senators passed a new bill to ban conversion therapy late this afternoon with minimal debate and without sending it to committee for further study. Bill C-4 bans conversion therapy for both adults and minors. The bill will take effect 30 days after the bill receives royal assent.

The EFC is concerned that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and we will continue to study the bill’s impact on freedom of expression and religion.”

The EFC had posted a sample letter December 3 for supporters to send to their Senators. (ARPA Canada put out a similar ‘call to action’ Dec. 6 and said followers sent thousands of emails to Senators in a 24-hour period.)

The EFC agreed in a Nov. 29 statement that “Coercive or abusive efforts to a person’s change sexual orientation or gender identity have no place in our communities,” but also explained its concerns with the bill:

“A key concern is that the definition of conversion therapy include efforts to repress or reduce sexual behaviour. With previous versions of the bill, the Justice Department said the legislation would not criminalize private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity [emphasis added].

“In a media Q and A on previous Bill C-8 in March 2020, Justice Minister Lametti was asked if it would be legal for religious leaders to speak about homosexuality. He replied that if it’s an open-ended and exploratory conversation, it is not prohibited for religious leaders, parents, or others. He went on to say: “What is covered by this legislation are practices that attempt to change one’s orientation towards a predefined goal.”

“These qualifiers (private, personal, open-ended, exploratory) are not included in the legislation itself, and also raise serious questions about whether a sermon series or a youth Bible study or other programs on sexual ethics offered to those wanting to order their sexual lives in accordance with their religious conscience would be construed to fit the definition of a practice, treatment, or service.

This entire article merits a read.  It outlines a number of reasonable concerns about the potential impact of this law on religious liberty in Canada.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

I have never heard of any of this and I live here. My understanding is the Church essentially banned talking about sexuality at the pulpit anyways

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I have never heard of any of this and I live here.

I wonder why this story is not getting much press coverage.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

My understanding is the Church essentially banned talking about sexuality at the pulpit anyways

The Church supports a ban on conversion therapy:

Quote

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert announced Tuesday night that church leaders back a regulatory rule his office helped craft after legislative efforts for a ban on the therapy failed earlier this year.

The faith known widely as the Mormon church opposed a previous version of the rule because it wanted assurances that church leaders and members who are therapists would be allowed to provide spiritual counseling for parishioners or families — which were included in the latest conversion therapy ban plan.

The faith opposes gay marriage and teaches that intimidate same-sex relationships are a sin. The religion has stuck to that belief while urging members to be kind and compassionate to LGBTQ people.

Conversion therapy is a practice used to try to change peoples’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

The rule would ban Utah therapists from subjecting LGBTQ minors to the practice that the American Psychological Association has said is not based in science and is harmful to mental health. The Utah rule proposal is set to go to a 30-day public comment period beginning Dec. 15 and take effect as soon as Jan. 22, Herbert said.

The law in Canada is far more expansive, and appears to be a one-way street.  

By way of example:

Quote

A viral video shocked Twitter users this week as a young child admitted in a TikTok live that his mom pressures him to be a part of the LGBTQ community.

“My mom doesn’t matter if I am gay or if I’m a lesbian or any of that, she doesn’t care. All she cares about is I’m a part of it. And if I’m not a part of it, she’ll try to convince me to join it, cause I -” the little boy said.

“What are you saying right now?” the mom interrupted.

“Facts,” the kid responded. 

“That I would convince you to join what?” she asked.

“The LGBTQIA+ community,” the child answered.

Here's a link to the video on YouTube that has the kids' faces blurred out.

It seems like this mom, if in Canada, would be at risk of facing five years in prison if she was trying to influence her son to "part of" the heterosexual community, but there is no such risk to her if she tries to "convince {him} to join" the LGBTQ community.  Why?  Because the statute is crafted to expansively criminalize the former and fully allow the latter.

I'm concerned about A) the expansive working of the statute (that it creates a real risk of infringing on religious liberty and free speech), and B) the one-way-street nature of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder why this story is not getting much press coverage.  

The Church supports a ban on conversion therapy:

The law in Canada is far more expansive, and appears to be a one-way street.  

By way of example:

Here's a link to the video on YouTube that has the kids' faces blurred out.

It seems like this mom, if in Canada, would be at risk of facing five years in prison if she was trying to influence her son to "part of" the heterosexual community, but there is no such risk to her if she tries to "convince {him} to join" the LGBTQ community.  Why?  Because the statute is crafted to expansively criminalize the former and fully allow the latter.

I'm concerned about A) the expansive working of the statute (that it creates a real risk of infringing on religious liberty and free speech), and B) the one-way-street nature of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

well, covid has essentially taken over  items in the news-this type of thing i've never seen. One thing too is that I don't know if the current Canadian Government will survive the next election, so all of this could be for naught

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Wow.

Another take:

The definition does indeed seem to create a one-way street. 

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual" is prohibited, but there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's sexual orientation to homosexual.

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s gender identity to cisgender" is prohibited, there there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's gender identity to non-cisgender.

And so on.

Some background on how this bill passed:

I'm sort of confused.  If "conversion therapy" is analogous to torture, why craft a law that allows for it?

More here:

I think the "torture" analogy persuaded him.

These are some fair points.

More backstory:

This entire article merits a read.  It outlines a number of reasonable concerns about the potential impact of this law on religious liberty in Canada.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

This law aligns with my new understanding of the counterfeit plan of salvation proposed by Lucifer in the pre-earth Council in Heaven. I used to naively believe that Satan’s strategy was to use compulsory means to force the entire human family into obeying the laws of righteousness. I now reject this notion and believe Lucifer’s plan would legalize sin, with condemnation reserved only for those who attempt to teach that sin is real and the sure road to death and hell. We are now witnessing “converted” modern-day disciples of Lucifer as they implement his plan of spiritual destruction and the attempted dethronement of God and Christ. As prophesied, the world is rapidly ripening in iniquity and soon the only way to stop the onslaught of total spiritual destruction will be the divine intervention of an offended God.

Edited January 20, 2022 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Several pastors, including some who have recently been imprisoned in Canada for keeping their churches open in defiance of government health orders, explained to Fox News that they believe the scope of the new law could open the door to religious persecution.

Ya think?

[Duncan]

In my province we've had pastors who were or openly defiant but none have been imprisoned, they just owe a ton of cash. If they would be religiously persecuted it's because they are being stupid. Our Church remains open and we follow the rules so we aren't being persecuted whatsoever

[JustAnAustralian]

I have a simple test that I use to judge conversion therapy bills/laws based on one I've seen used in a religious amicus brief.

"A" is a cisgender male solely attracted to males (homosexual). After reading/hearing/seeing something, "A" thinks that they might actually be transgender. If "A" transitions, they will be a transwoman solely attracted to males (heterosexual).

"A" goes to discuss the matter with a supportive medical professional (let's call them "B").

1. If "B" suggests "A" to transition immediately, they will be counselling them against being homosexual.
2. If "B" suggest "A" not to transition immediately and to wait and see, they will be counselling them against being trans.

If a law is worded such that "B" is breaking the law regardless of what they do, it's a bad law.

 

Using the Canada bill in the opening post

Quote

Definition of conversion therapy
320.‍101 In sections 320.‍102 to 320.‍104, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to
(a) change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;
(b) change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;
(c) change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;
(d) repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or
(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

If practice, treatment, or service covers simply discussing it and giving suggestions, then

case 1 could possibly be covered by  a and/or d

case 2 could possibly be covered by b and/or e,

Depending of course on the laws definition of change and repress, and whether the law recognises the current (homosexual cis male) or possible (heterosexual trans woman) sex and gender pairing as the "true" case.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

In my province we've had pastors who were or openly defiant but none have been imprisoned, they just owe a ton of cash. If they would be religiously persecuted it's because they are being stupid. Our Church remains open and we follow the rules so we aren't being persecuted whatsoever

In Nazi Germany, local Church members followed a practice of accommodation to keep from getting in trouble with the government. A group of three young Church members, though, were part of the resistance, and one was eventually executed. I regard them as heroes. 
 

Sometimes, for the sake of liberty, good people have to stand up for principle, even if it’s not under the auspices of the Church. 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In Nazi Germany, local Church members followed a practice of accommodation to keep from getting in trouble with the government. A group of three young Church members, though, were part of the resistance, and one was eventually executed. I regard them as heroes. 
 

Sometimes, for the sake of liberty, good people have to stand up for principle, even if it’s not under the auspices of the Church. 

If the church broke the rules and got shut down or the Bishops imprisoned, as allegedly happened (which I have never heard of in this time) you wouldn't have any liberty then or death due to your idiocy you permanently lose your liberty. What Helmut Huebner did was stupid and not surprising he paid for it with his life. My father grew up in Nazi Germany so I know how the Nazis operated

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I regard them as heroes. 

Would you have felt the same way if by their actions they had brought the rest of the branch under enough suspicion that they were imprisoned as well? Not baiting, sincere question as there is often a very high tragic cost for rebellion against tyranny from those who were not given a chance to choose whether or not they wanted to be involved  

A book about the three is downstairs. It has been too long since I read it and I should go check, but my memory is the branch president had to work hard to ensure no one else was held responsible for the youths’ actions as the pamphlets had been produced on a machine of the branch. 
 

Found this:  https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15057340

Also:  https://www.bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/27/helmuth-hubener-on-the-day-of-his-execution/

I don’t think they did wrong, but they could have been wiser in their actions and perhaps have been more effective.  Perhaps not.  But I also view them as heroes.  Heroes are often stupid in some ways Imo. Wise and heroic is the better combination Imo. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

In my province we've had pastors who were or openly defiant

"Openly defiant" of what?

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

but none have been imprisoned,

They are at risk of being imprisoned for doing what?

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

they just owe a ton of cash.

"Just"?

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

If they would be religiously persecuted

"If"?

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

it's because they are being stupid.

How are they "being stupid"?

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Our Church remains open and we follow the rules so we aren't being persecuted whatsoever

I concur.  But I think religious liberty is as important for our neighbors as it is for ourselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you have felt the same way if by their actions they had brought the rest of the branch under enough suspicion that they were imprisoned as well? Not baiting, sincere question as there is often a very high tragic cost for rebellion against tyranny from those who were not given a chance to choose whether or not they wanted to be involved  

It's a fair question.  "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" comes to mind.

In the end, we must each of us follow our conscience.  Hopefully one's conscience will be informed by both facts and reasoning and revelation.  But even then, doing what is right can still have seemingly adverse consequences.  I think that is part of the injuries and injustices that the Atonement is intended to heal.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

A book about the three is downstairs. It has been too long since I read it and I should go check, but my memory is the branch president had to work hard to ensure no one else was held responsible for the youths’ actions as the pamphlets had been produced on a machine of the branch. 

The branch president, Arthur Zander, was apparently both a devoted Latter-day Saint and an ardent National Socialist.  This article tactfully characterizes him and other members of the Church who were like him as being "on the wrong side of history."  From a comment to that article:

Quote

I’m sure that Zander in America was a nice man, but he wasn’t very nice to Jews in Germany. From pages 293-4,

Arthur Zander was the leader who erected the sign, “Juden ist der Eintritt verboten,” on the St. Georg meeting house door, a proscription aimed at Salomon Schartz, the sole Mormon of Jewish heritage who visited. Zander also refused baptism to another man of partial Jewish lineage who desired to become a Mormon, Rudolph Kaufmann. Otto Berndt, who had the authority to override that decision as the acting president, baptized Kauffman into the church.

Zander, whose church typewriters Hubener eventually used to produce his anti-Hitler handbills, also saw to it that no enemy propaganda contaminated his congregation….he ripped the leaflet from her hand and started shouting. ‘If you ever bring enemy propaganda literature into this branch house again, I will see to it that you are brought to a concentration camp.”

One member of the branch was shipped to a concentration camp for remarking about a Nazi statue, “Another statue for one of those Nazi butchers!” From page 295,

While in the camp, Worbs had been treated, in Berndt’s words “worse than an animal.” Worbs came back with a swollen mouth, missing all of his teeth. On several occasions, guards had chained him outside in winter temperatures, stripped naked, knee deep in snow for periods of up to forty-eight hours. They positioned him so that water would drip on his hands, which would then freeze. Periodically, a guard would appear with a rubber hose and sadistically beat Worbs hands in order to remove the ice and “warm you up,” as the guard would say. That broke his fingers.

Six weeks later, Worbs died. The last weeks of his life were not pleasant. According to Rudi Wobbe: “What upset Helmuth and me the most was the way the other members of our congregation treated Brother Worbs upon his return. Rather than rally to his defense to comfort him, many turned a cold shoulder, refusing to speak to him. He was ostracized because he ‘kicked against the pricks’ by opposing the government. Many, I suspect, were afraid to be seen with him for fear the Nazis would suspect them as well.

That last sentence merits some attention, I think.  See here:

Quote

It is well known that the Branch President of the St. Georg Branch in Hamburg, Arthur Zander, excommunicated Helmuth Hübener at the time for his treasonous behavior and that the Church ultimately nullified the excommunication, reinstating his membership, after the war. The excommunication of Hübener is a perplexing episode. It is true that Arthur Zander was “enthusiastic in his support of the Nazi regime” (Minert, 128), which Rudi Wobbe claimed was very rare among the Mormons in the Hamburg District. But regardless of Zander’s own political leanings, when Hübener was arrested it put the whole branch in great danger. The branch came under the scrutiny of the Gestapo, which was a terrifying prospect, especially for any in the branch who sympathized with Hübener. After the arrest agents frequently attended meetings, taking notes. The Gestapo naturally believed that adults in the branch had influenced Hübener and his friends to act (ibid., 129). In fact, the acting District President of the Hamburg District, Otto Berndt, was interrogated for four days by the Gestapo following the Hübener arrest (ibid.). Berndt miraculously survived the interrogation without incriminating himself in the eyes of the interrogators by accidentally contradicting himself as he answered questions not only about the Hübener group’s activities but also “about the teachings of the Church, the relationship of the Church and the state, the philosophy of the Church regarding Jews, and several other topics” (ibid., 130). Apocryphally, Berndt is said to have been told after these four days of relentless interrogation that “after the Jews, the Mormons are next.”

And here:

Quote

Of course, it is well known that Hübener’s Branch President was a member of the Nazi party and had Hübener excommunicated after his arrest. This is fertile subject matter for plenty of criticism in the Bloggernacle. But in truth, the Branch President was placed in a very difficult situation of either supporting Hübener and thereby putting his congregation in danger, or acting in the interest of the congregation and trying to gain favor in the eyes of the government. Whether his decision was just or not, only God can judge. But Hübener’s fate with the Gestapo was sealed regardless of any ecclesiastical action taken by the Branch President against him.

This Sunstone article also includes some useful context.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Found this:  https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15057340

Also:  https://www.bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/27/helmuth-hubener-on-the-day-of-his-execution/

I don’t think they did wrong, but they could have been wiser in their actions and perhaps have been more effective.  Perhaps not.  But I also view them as heroes.  Heroes are often stupid in some ways Imo. Wise and heroic is the better combination Imo. 

Nazi Germany was a terrible time.  Helmut was following his conscience, and perhaps Zander - the branch president charged with the welfare of the entire branch - was following his.  Perhaps Helmut can be both lionized for his bravery, but also faulted for his recklessness and putting others at real risk.  Perhaps Zander can be both faulted for his support of the Nazi regime and his propping up anti-semitism, but also admired for his service and efforts on behalf of the Saints during extraordinarily difficult and dangerous times.  

Fortunately, we are not really called upon to truly adjudicate such matters.  Moroni's wise words in Mormon 9:31 again come to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by smac97

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Openly defiant" of what?

They are at risk of being imprisoned for doing what?

"Just"?

"If"?

How are they "being stupid"?

I concur.  But I think religious liberty is as important for our neighbors as it is for ourselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

oi, you brought all this up so I would assume you know what you are talking about

openly defiant of the health measures

I don't know any pastor who has been imprisoned. It was you who said, 

"Several pastors, including some who have recently been imprisoned in Canada for keeping their churches open in defiance of government health orders"

I know of several pastors who owe fines for defying provincial health orders but none have been imprisoned

religiously persecuted i.e. society being fed up with people who won't follow the rules and thereby making covid drag on and on. In the Southern Health region, south of where I am they have low vaccination rates, and people won't shop there because they don't want to get infected, business drops or fails and because of them we had to modify our church operation here, i.e. only so many people in the building and you can't ask where people are from or if they have had any contact with anyone from that area. So, they are in part prolonging the problem because they won't follow the orders. There have been several legal challenges from them and they all lost. The courts decided if other churches in your area and other parts of the province can go on zoom then why can't you? or why can't you follow the "faith based restrictions" and they can't come up with an answer. In the meantime these knuckledraggers pastors are flaunting the rules and people are sick of it and that's how they are being stupid-it's effecting every church in the province.

Just an FYI our lawyer Mayor today is fundraising money to challenge Bill 21 in Quebec so religious liberty, as it pertains to clothing, there can be worn in governmental occupations

https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/bill-21/

Edited January 20, 2022 by Duncan

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

doing what is right can still have seemingly adverse consequences.

There may also be multiple rights of varying value. Choosing something right that has little impact…would it not be better to choose something right that has a greater impact?  Easier to see in hindsight of course  

I am grateful I tend to have very easy questions when it comes to what is morally right to do in my view. 

[kimpearson]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Wow.

Another take:

The definition does indeed seem to create a one-way street. 

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual" is prohibited, but there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's sexual orientation to homosexual.

Any "practice, treatment or service designed to ... change a person’s gender identity to cisgender" is prohibited, there there is no corollary prohibition against a "practice, treatment or service designed to" change a person's gender identity to non-cisgender.

And so on.

Some background on how this bill passed:

I'm sort of confused.  If "conversion therapy" is analogous to torture, why craft a law that allows for it?

More here:

I think the "torture" analogy persuaded him.

These are some fair points.

More backstory:

This entire article merits a read.  It outlines a number of reasonable concerns about the potential impact of this law on religious liberty in Canada.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Your posts show over and over that you dismiss any negative stories the LGTBQ community shares about their experiences.  I sense a certain anger towards any effort to secure LGTBQ rights or efforts to prevent abuse.  Your source (Fox news has shown over and over that it slants news to the point of dishonesty) article is questionable and one sided.  I thought I would share some other articles on the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/world/canada/canada-conversion-therapy-law.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062720266/canada-bans-conversion-therapy

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/house-of-commons-unanimously-agrees-to-pass-bill-to-ban-conversion-therapy-1.5688481

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/590200-religious-leaders-push-back-against-canadas

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/conversion-therapy-is-now-illegal-in-canada-1.5731911

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/canada-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-ban-law/

I think it is clear from these articles that the only ones upset are the religious right and their fear that teaching that LGTBQ people are evil and enemies of God might result in some form of government restriction although there is no evidence that will occur.

Your posts demonstrate over and over your fear that governments will limit or condemn teachings against LGTBQ people that cause emotional harm, fear, threats of bodily harm, murder and limitations of their  rights.  You seem to view those rights as less important than your right to publicly voice beliefs that cause such hurt.  You seem to believe it is OK for religions to advocate practices that cause such harm under the guise of "religious freedom".  There is no doubt that the current teachings and words of many on the religious right are harming LGTBQ people, innocent of any wrongdoing under the laws of a country, in a serious way almost without exception.  That is not an appropriate use of religious freedom in God's eyes in my opinion.

[Duncan]

One thing too, we don't have a "Fox News Canada" you can probably get Fox News here but it would be what you see in the States

[Fether]

25 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Your posts show over and over that you dismiss any negative stories the LGTBQ community shares about their experiences.  I sense a certain anger towards any effort to secure LGTBQ rights or efforts to prevent abuse.  Your source (Fox news has shown over and over that it slants news to the point of dishonesty) article is questionable and one sided.  I thought I would share some other articles on the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/world/canada/canada-conversion-therapy-law.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062720266/canada-bans-conversion-therapy

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/house-of-commons-unanimously-agrees-to-pass-bill-to-ban-conversion-therapy-1.5688481

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/590200-religious-leaders-push-back-against-canadas

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/conversion-therapy-is-now-illegal-in-canada-1.5731911

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/canada-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-ban-law/

I think it is clear from these articles that the only ones upset are the religious right and their fear that teaching that LGTBQ people are evil and enemies of God might result in some form of government restriction although there is no evidence that will occur.

Your posts demonstrate over and over your fear that governments will limit or condemn teachings against LGTBQ people that cause emotional harm, fear, threats of bodily harm, murder and limitations of their  rights.  You seem to view those rights as less important than your right to publicly voice beliefs that cause such hurt.  You seem to believe it is OK for religions to advocate practices that cause such harm under the guise of "religious freedom".  There is no doubt that the current teachings and words of many on the religious right are harming LGTBQ people, innocent of any wrongdoing under the laws of a country, in a serious way almost without exception.  That is not an appropriate use of religious freedom in God's eyes in my opinion.

I think we sometimes need to get our heads out of our own ideological butts.
 

There was a similar event in UT a while back where there was some amendment to a law that was marketed as being “anti conversion therapy”. The church came out against it almost immediately and then that was used as proof that the church wants to electro shock it’s gay members.

The reality was that, even though the marketing for this change was to be only about anti conversion therapy, it would make it completely illegal for therapists to help Latter-day Saint with SSA or gender dysphasia remain active in their faith. It would make it so the ONLY course of action a therapist could take is to help them become trans gender or help them live a homosexual life style.

If a Saint came to a therapist and asked for help dealing with these emotions while staying true to the principles they believed in, it would be illegal for the therapist to assist them in that.

Such bill would be appropriate if all saints experiencing SSA or gender dysphoria wished to act on their desires… but such assumptions are asinine. there are countless saints who value their religious beliefs over their sexual preferences and gender identity. denying those saints the medical help they need through passing laws would be bigotry and abuse.

No body is denying the struggles of the lgbtq, we are just fighting harmful and stupid laws (excuse my coarse language) that are built to destroy Christianity.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Fether

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think we sometimes need to get our heads out of our own ideological butts.
 

There was a similar event in UT a while back where there was some amendment to a law that was marketed as being “anti conversion therapy”. The church came out against it almost immediately and then that was used as proof that the church wants to electro shock it’s gay members.

The reality was that, even though the marketing for this change was to be only about anti conversion therapy, it would make it completely illegal for therapists to help Latter-day Saint with SSA or gender dysphasia remain active in their faith. It would make it so the ONLY course of action a therapist could take is to help them become trans gender or help them live a homosexual life style.

If a Saint came to a therapist and asked for help dealing with these emotions while staying true to the principles they believed in, it would be illegal for the therapist to assist them in that.

Such bill would be appropriate if all saints experiencing SSA or gender dysphoria wished to act on their desires… but such assumptions are asinine. there are countless saints who value their religious beliefs over their sexual preferences and gender identity. denying those saints the medical help they need through passing laws would be bigotry and abuse.

No body is denying the struggles of the lgbtq, we are just fighting harmful and stupid laws (excuse my coarse language) that are built to destroy Christianity.

it's illegal to be homosexual in Oman, do you have a problem with that? homosexuality has been around for a very  long time and christianity hasn't been destroyed-or if it has it's been because of themselves as per Alma 4

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's illegal to be homosexual in Oman, do you have a problem with that? homosexuality has been around for a very  long time and christianity hasn't been destroyed-or if it has it's been because of themselves as per Alma 4

I do have a problem with making homosexuality illegal.

I hold Alma 30:7-9 close to my chest when it comes to these dialogues

“Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.”

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Fether

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

I do have a problem with making homosexuality illegal.

I hold Alma 30:7-9 close to my chest when it comes to these dialogues

“Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.”

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

you had mentioned "stupid laws" and yes, you can "serve God" whilst being homosexual-either in the church supposedly but in other churches

[pogi]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's a fair question.  "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" comes to mind.

What is "right" is not always the right thing to do. 

We are taught that lying is immoral, and telling the truth is right.   Classic moral dilemma:  

You are hiding and protecting Jews from being murdered by Nazi soldiers.  A couple Nazi soldiers knock on your door and ask you if you are hiding, aiding or abetting any Jews.  Do we do as our mother taught us and tell the truth - do what is right and let the consequence follow - or do we violate a moral principle and lie to save our own life and the Jews we are protecting? 

In other words, sometimes it is better to not let the consequences follow by avoiding a classic moral "right" all together. 

I agree with you about following your conscious in the end and seeking revelation. 

[The Nehor]

Thanks, I needed a daily dose of outrage porn.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

What is "right" is not always the right thing to do. 

Alternatively, what is "right" is not always the popular thing to do.

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are taught that lying is immoral, and telling the truth is right.   Classic moral dilemma:  

You are hiding and protecting Jews from being murdered by Nazi soldiers.  A couple Nazi soldiers knock on your door and ask you if you are hiding, aiding or abetting any Jews.  Do we do as our mother taught us and tell the truth - do what is right and let the consequence follow - or do we violate a moral principle and lie to save our own life and the Jews we are protecting? 

A few thoughts:

1. Such "Jews in the attic" or "Sophie's Choice"-style conundrums are not, in my view, valid examinations of morality because in those contexts agency has been undermined and corrupted. 

2. Where X is generally considered a wrongful act, and where a person is coerced into doing X, that person will not, I think, be held accountable to God for having committed X because he (the person) cannot be said to have exercised his agency.  He did not make a knowing, volitional decision to do X.  He was forced.  He was coerced. 

3. Sexual assault is a good example of how the foregoing concept works in the real world.  The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but also teaches that the victime of sexual assault has not done anything requiring repentance (from a manual for bishops re: helping abuse victims) :

Quote

Help the Individual

As you provide help or support to the victim, consider the following suggestions. Remember to be empathetic and loving in your suggestions.

Help the person understand how to gain healing through the Savior and His Atonement (see Alma 7:11–12; 2 Nephi 9:21; Doctrine and Covenants 88:6).

Commend him or her for using courage to share about the abuse.

Reassure the victim that he or she has no need to repent for being a victim of abuse.

...

(Emphasis added.)

4. I think moral dilemmas, such as what you present here, have very limited utility in the real world.  I have previously addressed this point here:

Quote

Quote

What Would You Do If God Did Something You Felt Contradicted the Bible?

A few thoughts:

1. I would write out my thoughts and concerns.  Simply theorizing in my head about a purported contradiction between God doing something and passages in the Bible would not be sufficient.  I would need to be more systematic and organized in my thinking / analysis / research / findings / conclusions.

2. I would give the matter some real thought, study, pondering, and prayer.  I would visit, and re-visit, and re-visit again, my perspective on the scriptural passage(s).  Am I being more exegetical or eisegetical in my understanding of them?  Are there learned treatises/commentaries that may shed light on the meaning and significance of the passages in question?  What have modern prophets and apostles said about the matter?  Are there translation issues that may be pertinent?  Presentism issues?   How do the passages in question fit into a broader scriptural context?  Is this issue significant enough to warrant further action and inquiry, or is it just a curiosity itch that I'm trying to scratch?  Are the issues essential for my salvation?  Are they within my stewardship to adjudicate?  

3. I would, if appropriate and necessary, seek out guidance from trusted sources.  My wife.  My father.  My brother.  A few friends.  Ecclesiastical leaders (maybe).

4. In all this I would keep in mind these passages:

• "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  (2 Peter 1:20.)
• "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)
• "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill;' at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire...."  (Joseph Smith)

5. The chances of me encountering a "Jews in the attic"-style conundrum, wherein I am forced to choose between obedience to the precepts of the Restored Gospel (including those in the Bible) versus my own informed and reasoned personal conscience, seem pretty darn remote.  

 

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, sometimes it is better to not let the consequences follow by avoiding a classic moral "right" all together.

I think we ought to gauge a moral precept by its general application, and not by extraordinary "what if" situations.  None of us has ever been called upon to hide Jews from Nazis.

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with you about following your conscious in the end and seeking revelation. 

I would hope my conscientious decision would be based predominantly on reason, evidence, and revelation.  Candidly, I think a lot of us (myself included) are prone to conflating "conscience" with emotions and social conformity.

I previously worked on a real estate dispute where my client was pretty clearly in the "right" (both factually and legally).  However, there were a few snide/snarky things she said to the opposing party that made the case more difficult.  In hindsight, my client admitted that he felt that he was "in the right" overall, but that he let his anger and emotions get the better of him at times.  He said that "in the moment" he felt justified in saying these things (following his conscience, as it were), but that in hindsight he was not acting based on legal or moral justification, not because of his "conscience," but rather he was acting out of emotion (mostly anger and frustration).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Your posts show over and over that you dismiss any negative stories the LGTBQ community shares about their experiences.  I sense a certain anger towards any effort to secure LGTBQ rights or efforts to prevent abuse.  Your source (Fox news has shown over and over that it slants news to the point of dishonesty) article is questionable and one sided.  I thought I would share some other articles on the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/world/canada/canada-conversion-therapy-law.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062720266/canada-bans-conversion-therapy

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/house-of-commons-unanimously-agrees-to-pass-bill-to-ban-conversion-therapy-1.5688481

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/590200-religious-leaders-push-back-against-canadas

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/conversion-therapy-is-now-illegal-in-canada-1.5731911

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/canada-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-ban-law/

I think it is clear from these articles that the only ones upset are the religious right and their fear that teaching that LGTBQ people are evil and enemies of God might result in some form of government restriction although there is no evidence that will occur.

Your posts demonstrate over and over your fear that governments will limit or condemn teachings against LGTBQ people that cause emotional harm, fear, threats of bodily harm, murder and limitations of their  rights.  You seem to view those rights as less important than your right to publicly voice beliefs that cause such hurt.  You seem to believe it is OK for religions to advocate practices that cause such harm under the guise of "religious freedom".  There is no doubt that the current teachings and words of many on the religious right are harming LGTBQ people, innocent of any wrongdoing under the laws of a country, in a serious way almost without exception.  That is not an appropriate use of religious freedom in God's eyes in my opinion.

Please don't personalize this thread.

Beyond that, I decline to enter into discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac