- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lds-church-lgbtq-minors-conversion-therapy-utah-ban-opposes/ https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-releases-statement-opposing-proposed-conversion-therapy https://ksltv.com/423714/church-speaks-out-against-lgbt-conversion-therapy-ban/ https://www.katc.com/news/national/mormon-church-opposes-proposed-conversion-therapy-ban-in-utah https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/10/16/lds-church-opposes/ LDS church issued a statement in opposition to a proposed ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy in the state of Utah.
I am scratching my head on this one. Why does the church even want to get involved?
Article quotes a tweet from Equality Utah:
Quote:“Let’s be clear. Studies have found that more than 60% of children subjected to conversion therapy attempt suicide. It’s long past time to protect youth from this dangerous practice.”
Is the church really this homophobic or am I missing something here? Does anyone know what specifically the church is objecting to in this ban?
Quote:As detailed in the comments submitted by Family Services, the Church is concerned that the proposed professional licensing rule is ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others. For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children.
It does not protect individual religious beliefs? Is that religious beliefs of the therapist or the patient that need protecting? As written, it sounds like individual religious beliefs themselves deserve protecting. Does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children? What does that mean? Does anyone have access to the “comments submitted by Family Services” to state officials?
***Update – According to an LDS Daily article that I read 10/17/19, the comments submitted by Family Services to state official and referenced in the statement by the church have not been released publicly. ***
From a March statement by the church: Quote:The Church denounces any therapy that subjects an individual to abusive practices,” said Eric Hawkins, spokesman for the Mormon Church, in a statement. “We hope those who experience the complex realities of same-sex attraction find compassion and understanding from family members, professional counselors and church members.
Whatever you’re missing Roy, I’m missing the same thing.
Their reasoning is super vague but sounds a lot better than saying, “we think gays are icky.” “Ambiguous and overreaching” it is. “Ambiguous and overreaching” is coincidentally how I feel about the TR interview.
Quote:protect individual religious beliefs
This phrase is quickly becoming triggering for me. IMO the church likes to trot out this card and play the role of victim in cases where they come off more as being in the role of the aggressor. Besides, does everything under the sun have to come back to “religious freedom?” We’re setting the speed limit on this road to 55mph. I dunno… religious freedoms… we’ll have to think about this one.
Ugh. Doesn’t help that we recently had a SM where the theme was “they’re after our religious freedoms.”
🙄 🙄 🙄 Sorry, this is a pretty hot button issue for me.
Does this surprise anybody that the same church that owned the school that attached electrodes to the gentiles of gay men and then shocked them when they looked at Gay porn would oppose conversion therapy? Sheldon wrote:
Does this surprise anybody that the same church that owned the school that attached electrodes to the gentiles of gay men and then shocked them when they looked at Gay porn would oppose conversion therapy?
I was unfamiliar with the particular case. Turns out this is in reference to an aversion therapy experiment performed at BYU in 1976. Considering that 1976 was two years before the 1978 revelation permitting black of African descent to receive the priesthood and go through the temple – I would hope that there has been a world of evolution of thought since that time.However, Elder Oaks for example graduated high school in 1950 and was president of BYU from 1971 until 1980. It is possible that the advanced age of the church’s top leadership may not be helpful on this issue.
Does the proposed law prevent therapists from supporting religious standards with clients, even if clients are asking for that help? I think our society has made a drastic shift in the last 10-15 years from a slim majority of people opposing gay marriage and being less accepting of gay relationships to a sizeable majority favoring both gay marriage and accepting gay relationships. This was the shift the Church tried to fight every step of the way. Things that were generally acceptable 15-20 years ago now seem barbaric, like conversion therapy (which I oppose BTW, it doesn’t seem to work and yields harmful results). I feel like our leaders are still fighting this fight and see the battle lines drawn between LGBT rights and religious freedom, with religious freedom being the right to hold fast to not accepting gay marriage or gay relationships. The problem (for our leaders) is that more and more Church members, and a majority of younger Church members have made the societal shift and see these kinds of stands as backward and mean-spirited. The Church leaders are trying to rally the troops and stand firm and keep getting less support. I think the Church has gotten hyper-paranoid that conceding any ground on gay rights will eventually lead to court-ordered gay temple sealings. These seem like real threats because gay marriage was the bogeyman in the 80s and 90s and it is here to stay.
I think the Church membership is going to keep being more and more accepting of gay relationships and the leaders may dig in more. I think that change is inevitable and will come with new generations in Church leadership. I think the change will be pretty late and we will be embarassed and try to downplay how much we fought this.
felixfabulous wrote:
I think that change is inevitable and will come with new generations in Church leadership. I think the change will be pretty late and we will be embarassed and try to downplay how much we fought this.
I agree with those thoughts…it seems inevitable…and surprising to me that “prophets, seers, and revelators” also cannot see it is inevitable.
Of course, I could be wrong, and they could be right. Time will tell. But I hold my views in line with yours.
Heber13 wrote:
Does the proposed law prevent therapists from supporting religious standards with clients, even if clients are asking for that help?
It sounds like the proposed change would prevent therapists from acting to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of the patient. If a patient or the patient’s parents wanted the therapist to help the patient maximize their heterosexuality or cisgender self then I understand that the therapist would be required to refuse.https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/10/18/robert-gehrke-dont-follow/ The above is a very helpful analysis. Under the change, a therapist can help a patient try to look at less gay porn as a goal that coincides with their religious preference. A therapist could help a young LGBT youth keep a personal goal to abstain from a sexual relationship with another youth. The key here is that the therapist would be required treat the child in the same way that they would treat a heterosexual person seeking help abstaining from porn or sexual relationships.
Reading between the lines, I do
speculatethat the church may be wondering about young people whose gender identity may not be completely firm or fixed. The church statement references “important realities of gender identity in the development of children.” Suppose a child was gender “confused” and the parents wanted the therapist to help the child better conform to the birth gender. Some children, I imagine, can be adamant that they are of an opposite gender stuck in the wrong body. But what of those young people that maybe feel like a mixture of male and female and that could be still in a state of flux and development? Does that exist? I imagine that under the change the therapist would be prohibited from trying to lead this patient back towards their birth gender even if that is what the patient and the patient’s parents want. (the rationale behind this restriction against the therapist doing this would be IMO that starting from a position that the patient’s birth gender is the ideal and the goal is inherently damaging) https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/10/16/lds-church-opposes/ Part of the church’s problem is that they can release a carefully worded statement about self determination, protecting religious beliefs, and “important realities of gender identity in the development of children” but then people supportive of the church’s stance speak with much less polish.
Quote:On the other side of the political spectrum, Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Eagle Forum of Utah, praised the church’s stance.
“We have opposed the ban on conversion therapy since it was introduced in the House,” she said. “This is the licensing board going around the Legislature behind its back and taking away therapists’ rights.”
She added, “Parents have a right to take their minor children to a therapist and get real honest therapy from that therapist, not muffled conversation only affirming the child’s concerns. I mean that’s just wrong.”
Taking away therapists’ rights? To try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person? “Parents have a right to take their minor children to a” liscenced health care professional and pay that person to try to change their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
Gayle seems to discredit and minimize the importance of “affirming the child’s concerns”. Isn’t it the child that the therapy is supposed to help?
I just worry laws written to correct some social problem could introduce unintended consequences or just swap one inequality for another inequality and not increase true freedom. I haven’t read enough of these issues to know how hey are written, but that is my concern, and I think the prophets may be somewhat right that we should protect our freedom of religion.
I want to promote equal rights for LGBTQ+ and improve therapy and practices, but not at all costs.
I should get more educated on the issues, but not sure I have time. There are lots of worries in our society right now. But I hope the church is also protected along with the rights of others.
More often than not when someone says their religious freedoms are under attack it usually stops at “but my religious freedoms” with no specifics. It would be easier for me to get on the religious freedom train if people would cite specific laws or ways in which religious freedoms are being eroded. Without specifics I’m left thinking: 1) The call for religious freedoms are rooted in fears of what’s at the bottom of some imagined slippery slope.
2) It has less to do about religious freedom and more to do with fear over religion losing influence over society.
3) A desire not to be judged by society for the position one has taken.
Heber13 wrote:I just worry laws written to correct some social problem could introduce unintended consequences or just swap one inequality for another inequality and not increase true freedom.
That’s always a risk with any law. Also, if that’s the standard we wouldn’t have any laws at all. It’s like Alma’s seed analogy. Plant the seed (experiment/roll the dice) and if it works out, great; if it doesn’t work out, change it to something else and reevaluate. We’ve made it this far doing that.
I’m not sure how to state this, bear with me. When it comes to “freedoms”:
With gay marriage it was one group attempting to prevent another group from doing something. With this law it’s one group attempting to prevent another group from doing something… but with the sides of the debate flipped with respect to which group is doing the preventing.
But what does freedom mean? No having laws that prevent people from doing something they want to do? Should affinity fraud be legal because someone out there want’s to commit fraud? Do laws making certain substances illegal to consume/possess infringe on someone’s freedom to use those substances or does it give them freedom to be free from addiction to those substances. “Freedom” is a tricky thing.
nibbler wrote:
“Freedom” is a tricky thing.
Good response, nibbler. It is a tricky thing.For all those reasons you stated…doesn’t it make sense, then…that any proposed change in the political arena we operate in should consider rights of all and weigh the options…not just one group that may have legitimately been wronged?
My point I guess is that the church may be wrong, I don’t know, but just because the LGBTQ+ issue is raised doesn’t necessarily mean the law proposed is doing it the right way. I haven’t read the details but church lawyers have and may have a legitimate issue with the proposed law, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are against the LGBTQ group…just that the law proposed is the wrong way to deal with it.
How does the church protect it’s rights without being demonized as hate towards others? Why can’t they say they want to protect rights of LGBTQ families and church freedoms to practice what they believe?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
This is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today: https://www.deseret.com/2019/10/17/20919022/guest-opinion-the-church-does-not-support-conversion-therapy-but-that-doesnt-fit-in-some-headlines ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.deseret.com/2019/10/17/20919022/guest-opinion-the-church-does-not-support-conversion-therapy-but-that-doesnt-fit-in-some-headlines It is another point of view, but does, in my own opinion, try to dance around the subject. I think it does however explain the point Family Services is trying to make.
Heber13 wrote:
For all those reasons you stated…doesn’t it make sense, then…that any proposed change in the political arena we operate in should consider rights of all and weigh the options…not just one group that may have legitimately been wronged?I believe they are doing exactly this. I guess that’s the arena of lawmakers and lobbyists and the church is just another lobbyist.
Heber13 wrote:How does the church protect it’s rights without being demonized as hate towards others? Why can’t they say they want to protect rights of LGBTQ families and church freedoms to practice what they believe?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
There’s a lot to unpack there, but the abbreviated response is: The church takes a position on something, society reacts. That’s life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.