Church opposes ban of conversion therapy

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I'm just glad that Mormonism and science aren't in conflict.

It appears that approximately 85% of Utah supports the ban on conversion therapy. It looks like the Church has already lost on this one.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46656330/ch ... ly-amended

[_Finn the human]

The DesNews, which we all know is the Lord’s newspaper, states that the church denounces “abusive forms of conversion therapy.” But doesn’t support the proposed licensing rule in Utah because it is too broad and ambiguous and will “dissuade many responsible therapists from providing much needed therapy to minors.”

https://www.deseret.com/2019/10/15/20916360/conversion-therapy-rule-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

The article is worth a read to get a full picture of what the Mormon church is thinking on this issue.

[_Philo Sofee]

Our beloved Brethren and Sisters,
We do not want to have to actually shock the living SH*T out of you to make sure you want to keep those feelings of your under control, but if you really can't abide the shocking treatment, we are going to have to resort to beating the absolute SH*T out of you with the Triple Combination large print style, so that we can beat the absolute hell out of you so you can at least make it to our sacred Telestial Kingdom,
Thank you for understanding this very difficult position you have put us through,
With much love and prayers,
Your beloved brethren in the Holy Lord Jesus Even the Redeemer, Even the Creator, Even the Miracle Worker, Even the slayer of American evil Civilization, Even the Christ, Amen.

[_sunstoned]

In its news release Tuesday, the church stated that the proposed rule "fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children."

What a bunch of weenies.

Studies have found that more than 60% of children subjected to conversion therapy attempt suicide

If true, the Church continues fighting for that which is wrong.

Nothing has changed. Oaks is still an intolerant promoter of hate. It is still recent history that Oaks condoned electric shock therapy. Maybe if there would have been some safeguards in place (like what the church and Oaks are opposing now) in the 1970's and 1980's there would have been much less damage done in the name of religious freedom.

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin Oaks[36]:32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[89] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Y ... BT_history

[_Physics Guy]

A TBM commented to me that banning conversion therapies would prevent good honest people who don’t want to be gay from having access to help if they wanted it.

Doctors aren't allowed to offer leeches as medical treatments, nor are they allowed to offer any kind of treatment for curses. Anybody can call themselves a shaman, however, and offer leech rituals as cures for curses. And then anyone who is convinced that they are under a curse is perfectly free to go to a shaman shack and get leeched. They just won't be getting their leeches from doctors.

In other words, I don't think this proposed ban would stop any adult from having gay conversion therapy if they wanted it. They just couldn't get it as a medical treatment from a licensed mental health care professional.

[_Gadianton]

In the last year, Interpreter has taken to offering medical advise, namely to those going through a "faith crisis". We are aware of one place, then, for unlicensed treatment.

The question naturally arises, "Will Interpreter publish articles defending conversion therapy?"

I think this is a fascinating question. If Interpreter is unwilling to defend it, then that is a real problem for both Interpreter and the Brethren. It's somewhat apostate for Interpreter to remain silent here. Especially, when there is nobody else to back the Brethren.

There is a real chance here for Interpreter to contrast their orthodoxy with the New MI by a staunch defense of the Brethren on this point, and no doubt the Brethren will take notice. Interpreter could score more points with this than anything else they've published in the last year at minimum. In addition, the very core of this matter according to Oaks, is religious freedom -- perhaps the most favorited topic over at Sic et Non. To allow secularism to win an important battle in the war against religious freedom would be an additional, serious oversight on the part of Interpreter. To fear the backlash from publishing on this topic is to admit that secularism has already taken the hill, and now all that's left is to complain, while they are still allowed that luxury.

[_Doctor Scratch]

In the last year, Interpreter has taken to offering medical advise, namely to those going through a "faith crisis". We are aware of one place, then, for unlicensed treatment.

The question naturally arises, "Will Interpreter publish articles defending conversion therapy?"

I think this is a fascinating question. If Interpreter is unwilling to defend it, then that is a real problem for both Interpreter and the Brethren. It's somewhat apostate for Interpreter to remain silent here. Especially, when there is nobody else to back the Brethren.

There is a real chance here for Interpreter to contrast their orthodoxy with the New MI by a staunch defense of the Brethren on this point, and no doubt the Brethren will take notice. Interpreter could score more points with this than anything else they've published in the last year at minimum. In addition, the very core of this matter according to Oaks, is religious freedom -- perhaps the most favorited topic over at Sic et Non. To allow secularism to win an important battle in the war against religious freedom would be an additional, serious oversight on the part of Interpreter. To fear the backlash from publishing on this topic is to admit that secularism has already taken the hill, and now all that's left is to complain, while they are still allowed that luxury.

This is a good point. It really represents a weird confluence of belief and science: the Mopologists are normally hostile to science--or, at least, a science that refuses to be subservient to faith. And yet, I bet they are holding out all hope that "science" can eventually find a means of eliminating same-sex attraction.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

This is a good point. It really represents a weird confluence of belief and science: the Mopologists are normally hostile to science--or, at least, a science that refuses to be subservient to faith. And yet, I bet they are holding out all hope that "science" can eventually find a means of eliminating same-sex attraction.

I would love for Stephen Smoot to take a stand on this issue. Stephen was very brave coming out while knowing his decision was not going to be viewed well by his fellow Mopologists.

Stephen could do some real good here by letting his fellow Mopologists know that he does not have a disease or condition that needs to be, or can be changed by this barbaric "torture" therapy.