(The wide wide range of reactions to things like cross-dressing and drag has always interested me. Particularly since there are so many more cases of cross-dressing in both directions in Hong Kong cinema)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does aversion therapy that was pioneered and practiced by a BYU professor on the BYU campus count as "sanctioned by the church"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
That's not what's being imagined here, nor is it what is being discussed here. You're welcome to bring that easily-rejected idea into the discussion in service to your overall ideas, though. I think there's a term for that sort of method, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember discussing the mormongulag thing; IIRC, I thought that the proof that Church's opponents so readily saw wasn't really there.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
Could you please at least take the time to figure out what's actually being discussed here, even if you're still going to reject those discussions out of hand?
You did almost identically this exact same thing last time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Does aversion therapy that was pioneered and practiced by a BYU professor on the BYU campus count as "sanctioned by the church"?
Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded. IIRC the trials did not last long and were discontinued by general authorities.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded.
posted
Yeah I seriously doubt that the aversion therapy thing would count as much more as misguided and regrettable experimentation, by probably even the church's own admission.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was pretty ironic when someone on the last page mentioned stealing futures. As far as I'm concerned that's exactly what happens to thousands of of gay kids in this country.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded.
In other words, no.
After looking into it it appears the trials that allegedly took place happened in the 70's when homosexuality was still listed as an illness by the WHO. Aversion therapy fairly quickly showed itself to be ineffectual, and so interest at BYU and the church disappated. (edit: It's not even clear general authorities of the church were notified of plans to attempt it, no documentation seems to be available.)
posted
You're answering the specific case. But the answer to the general case, which is what Dana asked, is "no".
Just because something is done by a BYU professor on the BYU campus doesn't mean that it's "sanctioned by the church".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You're answering the specific case. But the answer to the general case, which is what Dana asked, is "no".
Just because something is done by a BYU professor on the BYU campus doesn't mean that it's "sanctioned by the church".
Right, I was trying (poorly apparently) to say as much.
edit: Did you get my PM btw Porter?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a buddy that told me that he had a friend who had a friend who had a friend that was taken by the Mormon church and forced to watch pornographic movies in order to make him straight.
Yeah! It must be true! And the Illuminati secretly runs every religion. Promise.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I have a buddy that told me that he had a friend who had a friend who had a friend that was taken by the Mormon church and forced to watch pornographic movies in order to make him straight.
Yeah! It must be true! And the Illuminati secretly runs every religion. Promise.
That's not entirely charitable Geraine. There are certainly Mormon boys who have been coerced by their families into undergoing that sort of treatment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Let me get this straight, they think some guy who's in a room full of girls dressed mostly in tights, who gets the opportunity to grab and lift them to his hearts content, and do so in an activity that is more dangerous, exhausting, and prone to injury (other than wussy brain injuries) than football--may be gay? I think its the most macho thing imaginable.
I think the response is, "Oh, I understand that you fear turning your son gay. (many closeted gay men do) Why some of my best friends fear becoming homosexuals. I don't hold it against them any more than one should."
I was going to point this out. Not to mention that most sports involve crashing into sweaty scantily clad men.
Mostly I find that stereotype to be a bit... well, silly, really. I don't think an activity or a colour has the power to change someone's sexuality. And again, you're a danger, living up GIRLS in scanty underwear! Dancing is where it's at if you want to meet nice girls.
And guys for that matter. But there's a lot of girls.
In collage me ex was a dance major and out of a dozen guys he was the only gay one. Of all the gay stereotypes dancer=gay is just about the least true. yet almost every straight man I know thinks all male dancers are gay. But then they go crazy in denial if you suggest a male actor is gay even though there are usually a lot more gay men in acting than in dance.
It's just one of those things and of course the greatest irony has already been pointed out. male dancers get to be very intimate with beautiful women all the time and get laid a lot. Actually that's true of male cheerleaders as well. Another very often incorrect "gay" stereotype that men seem to have.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there a such thing as "dance-aphobic"?
Seriously, I think that fear of (or repulsion from) effeminacy is something that isn't identical to homophobia. The two are often associated and sometimes confused, but they aren't the same. One can be completely comfortable with homosexuality, yet find effeminacy repulsive. I know gay men who are turned off by effeminacy.
distinct something I've been wondering about for a while.
I think if anything the fear of being seen as effeminate is the source of homophobia not the reverse. There are many men in the world who wouldn't blink twice at being the "man" with another man but the very notion of being the women sends them into a panic. Heck a trip to a bar in Mexico or almost anywhere in the Middle East can be a real eye opener in that regard.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also, selfishly, would love to see my own, incredibly flawed, genes carried on into another generation. Since my son is my only child, that's another reason why I hope he isn't gay.
I know several homosexual couples that have managed to pass their genes on.
Oh, it's obviously POSSIBLE, it just severely decreases the likelihood. As I said, I know this is a selfish desire, and he may not reproduce even if he's heterosexual, so it's not like I'd hold it against him or anything. If we're talking about HOPES though, it is somewhat relevant.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
If those beliefs are actively harmful to the childs mental health? Absolutely. Family comes first.
I have no doubt that most LDS parents in this situation also want to do that which is best for their children's happiness and well-being.
You just happen to disagree with them about what will effect that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: I was going to point this out. Not to mention that most sports involve crashing into sweaty scantily clad men.
Mostly I find that stereotype to be a bit... well, silly, really. I don't think an activity or a colour has the power to change someone's sexuality. And again, you're a danger, living up GIRLS in scanty underwear! Dancing is where it's at if you want to meet nice girls.
And guys for that matter. But there's a lot of girls
Speaking from the experience of participating in a yoga class I can attest that the appeal wears off fast.
IP: Logged |
quote: You just happen to disagree with them about what will effect that.
I don't think its that simple.
When the choices are:
1) Live your whole life suppressing your sexuality. 2) Marry a woman you have no sexual or romantic attraction to. 3) Live openly as a homosexual.
How many psychologists and and other mental health experts are going to suggest 1 or 2? I would imagine very very few.
It's not just that aeolusdallas disagrees with you, its the entire body of psychological research that disagrees with you, isn't it?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
People here are suggesting that believing LDS parents do that which they believe will cause more pain and suffering for their children in the short and long run. As ScottR pointed out, that is a monstrous thing you're asking them to do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be that as it may, in order for you to get LDS parents to act like you want them to regarding homosexuality, you need to first get them to believe what you do about homosexuality.
Pointing fingers at them and calling them wrong isn't likely to do much. Most of us are pretty darn immune to that by now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, in elementary day care we had this dumb flag football game where the boys played football and the girls cheered. Like mthe third year I asked to be a cheer person because I was sick of playing and not doing shit. (I think I took someone flag off when he wasnt holding the football just out of boredom in the second year)I asked like in front every kid in the school and it was pretty funny.
I turned out straight.
(Also Basketball for life)
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem?
Come around to the correct way of thinking, of course.
quote:deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
This doesn't even make sense. Assuming, of course, that these parents really do believe what they believe and are doing what they think is best for their children's well-being and happiness.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) One thing I agree with OSC about is that "phobic" is a specific word with a specific, scientific meaning. "Being squicked out by" isn't that meaning. A phobia is an "irrational, intense and persistent fear." Using the word "homophobic" to describe everyone who's weirded out by homosexuality is a diservice to the scientific term, as well as to people who have a genuine, crippling fear of homosexuals, as well as the people who just get squicked out a bit.
I DO think those people need to get over themselves, and admit that their fear is irrational, admit that they DO have a fear (even if it's not a phobia) and that it is contributing to a world in which homosexuals feel ostracized and unsafe.
I don't have a suggestion for what adjective to use to describe those people. I'm not sure that it's necessary. Framing the question in terms of "are you [racist/sexist/whatever]?" is about the least helpful way to do it. People are less rational when they feel attacked.
I consider myself a little bit racist. It's a bad thing I need to be aware of. It's not an awful thing though. I think most other people are a little racist too, but associating them with a powerful, evil sounding word really doesn't help.
I don't think I'm squicked by homosexuality that much, but I'm squicked sometimes by cross dressing and related things. (That was a good point by Rabbit).
2) Okay as it turns out this post didn't neatly divide itself into two points. Whatever.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank-you for your post Raymond, I found it quite insightful. Even if you numbering ended at 1. [ETA: I posted this before you edited ]
There seems to be a theme of people thinking that (in this case) LDS parents are somehow perfectly aware that their Church's teachings are wrong and outdated and thus must balance the knowledge of that truth against their loyalty to some antiquated tradition. The fact that you (in the general sense) are convinced that common sense and truth will win out in the end is not flattering, the base assumption is, instead, rather insulting.
Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Be that as it may, in order for you to get LDS parents to act like you want them to regarding homosexuality, you need to first get them to believe what you do about homosexuality.
No. If I wanted to get LDS parents to act like I want them to act regarding their children's possible homosexuality, I would only need to get them to believe what I believe are the limits to what parents should do to enforce their desires or beliefs on their children as well as the extent to which children should be allowed to exercise their own free will, for better or worse.
Changing your own beliefs regarding homosexuality wouldn't strictly be necessary.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What has been said here by various posters that LDS parents should do goes waaay beyond merely not "enforcing beliefs" and allowing the exercise of free will.
It would require a change in beliefs about homosexuality.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, some of the suggestions might require a change in belief or attitude regarding homosexuality, but many possibilities do not require such a change. I think that's a useful point to recognize.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Light, if there is an absolute truth - something I do consider possible, obviously - then some of the things you're saying don't sound very sensible.
If there is an absolute truth, and it's eternal and thus hasn't changed...it's pretty straightforward to see the Church does one of at least two things. There are other possibilities, I think, but these are the two most relevant to this discussion. (This goes for many religions, really, but we're talking about LDS here.)
One, it simply doesn't have an alignment with absolute truth, whatever that may be. This can be evaluated as a simple test of rationality-some rules have changed over time, plain and simple. Some things which authorities who were supposed to be in tune with that absolute, eternally unchanging truth once said were bad, are now acceptable or even good. (Hello, minority priesthood.)
That's one possibility. A more charitable possibility is that it does have an alignment with 'absolute, eternal truth' but that that every one of those words - absolute, eternal, and truth - don't mean what we think they mean. So then the question becomes, aside from making yourself feel better (and I do understand the appeal of affirming one's affinity with an absolute truth), what's the point of asserting it?
Because the Church has changed over time. That's not open to argument as a question of fact. Once you throw in the qualifier 'as revealed to the world etc.', there's really not much point in bandying about terms like 'absolute eternal unbending truth'...because you've just introduced some huge bendiness there with the whole 'as revealed to...' portion.
quote:Until that happens (which I find unlikely), no amount of badgering or persuading or heckling or protesting is going to get you anywhere. We're not changing, and we're not leaving.
It sounds to me like you're feeling very defensive about something you care a lot about (your faith), and so you're doing a bit of understandable - if I'm right about your motivation - chest thumping here. But this doesn't make much sense either, also as a statement of fact. The church has changed in response to pressure...heck, it's even left in response to pressure. I'm not saying it would this time, in this case, necessarily, but this is what happens when you start throwing around absolutes like you're doing: it's a lot easier to be quite badly, obviously mistaken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. If I wanted to get LDS parents to act like I want them to act regarding their children's possible homosexuality, I would only need to get them to believe what I believe are the limits to what parents should do to enforce their desires or beliefs on their children as well as the extent to which children should be allowed to exercise their own free will, for better or worse.
You would "only" need do that?
Frankly, changing their beliefs about one specific concept (homosexuality), seems to me arguably easier than changing their entire mode of parenting habits, plus all their concepts about how personal ethics and social behaviour ought interact.
If they believe homosexuality to be bad and/or harmful and/or unhealthy, then to understand their position you ought treat it as you would treat your children smoking (at best), or doing drugs, or participating in armed robberies (at worst).
How easy would you find it to convince non-smoking, non-drugusing, non-criminal parents to be supportive and non-worried of their children doing these things?
I think it'd be easier to just change their belief that homosexual behaviour is bad/harmful/unhealthy.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You would "only" need do that?
...
I think it'd be easier to just change their belief that homosexual behaviour is bad/harmful/unhealthy.
Sure, although, I do think that changing someone's belief regarding the eternal consequences of an action as compared to the short-term effects is quite a challenge itself.
I mean 'only' in the sense that the way a parent treats a child's sexuality does not specifically require compromising a personal belief.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
No. How does it relate to my question? (honest question)
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
(The wide wide range of reactions to things like cross-dressing and drag has always interested me. Particularly since there are so many more cases of cross-dressing in both directions in Hong Kong cinema)
I forgot to mention how HOT that guy looks as a woman. Wow.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean 'only' in the sense that the way a parent treats a child's sexuality does not specifically require compromising a personal belief.
In the LDS religion, a parent is obligated to teach their children correct moral principals. This is an extremely serious obligation. It is so serious that a parent who does not properly teach their child will be considered guilty of the sins the child commits.
Teaching doesn't mean coersion. It does mean nagging or beating the person over the head, but it does mean that a parent must be clear and consistent about what is right and wrong.
An LDS parent can love and support a child no matter what they do, but a faithful LDS parent has to be clear to their children that homosexual behavior is sinful. Failure to do this would be compromising a personal religious belief.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
In practice, what did that mean though? Same-sex partners in a sexless relationship? Living in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal? A marriage with a self-sacrificing spouse?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: An LDS parent can love and support a child no matter what they do, but a faithful LDS parent has to be clear to their children that homosexual behavior is sinful. Failure to do this would be compromising a personal religious belief.
Hmm, perhaps the disconnect here is that I think that merely teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful is not necessarily a display of homophobia. Obviously people are going to disagree with my view. But I do think that it's entirely possible to teach that something is 'sinful' without instilling an irrational fear of it. Likewise, I think that it's possible to accept what you perceive to be a sinful condition in others without compromising personal beliefs.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
In practice, what did that mean though? Same-sex partners in a sexless relationship? Living in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal? A marriage with a self-sacrificing spouse?
No, no relationship. It meant being single. He understood the sacrifice was to be by himself and decided it was worth what he thought to be true.
quote:Sure, although, I do think that changing someone's belief regarding the eternal consequences of an action as compared to the short-term effects is quite a challenge itself.
It can be, but we're pretty darn good at rationalizing essentially anything we choose to believe even if it's in apparent contradiction to other beliefs. I think the pro-ssm stance of many LDS is an excellent example.
LDS theology is somewhat unique in Christianity in that it anticipates spiritual progress after this life. I've seen people come to terms with loved ones who strayed from the church, it's teachings, and standards of behavior by asserting that they are in some way handicapped in this life but will have opportunities to overcome these problems in the next.
ETA: To be clear, rationalization is ubiquitous to mankind. There's nothing unique about LDS in this regard, but that's the context we're working with here.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without getting into too many spoilers, I'm thinking of a certain scene on a boat that sort of illustrates that the faithful put nothing before "doing what's right". Insofar as believing in and following dogma constitutes "doing what's right", it's hard to tell someone that they must love their child enough to condone sin.
One of the biggest reasons I will probably never become LDS is that I think they're flat wrong on this one. I don't believe there is anything sinful about one man's love for another man (or woman/woman). I think such desire goes beyond mere lust, and therefor isn't comparable to adultery since a homosexual couple currently has no opportunity for marriage withing the church.
However, that doesn't mean that I believe a parent should ever condone sin in their children. I personally feel very strongly that casual sex is deeply sinful. If my son were engaging in casual sex it would be my duty to make sure he knew the risks of what he was doing and to never EVER let him believe I thought it was ok. That doesn't mean I stop loving my son, but it does mean that I show disapproval with his actions.
That makes it very hard for me to know what a parent should do in this case. Honestly, I don't know how someone could be the parent to a good hearted homosexual child without having a serious break with LDS doctrine. It very much seems like they're going to be put into a place where they either have to believe that their otherwise good child is, for some reason, insisting on taking on a life of sin or they'll have to decide that living in a homosexual relationship is not sinful. In a very real way that's going to make them choose between their child and their church, and that's a very sad position to be in.
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
No. How does it relate to my question? (honest question)
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Rakeesh, I don't exactly see what the contradiction is. Like I stated in my post, the Church will only change its policies according to what the Lord reveals to them. Are you familiar with the Articles of Faith? The ninth one says:
"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."
We are held accountable according to what degree of truth that we've been given so far. We don't have everything yet. Nobody does. But what we do have is true (according to our beliefs).
As to changes in the Church's policies: you state that it's because the Church gave in to social pressure. Umm, no. Fail. Research that more. That was not the reason for it. Try reading the Official Declarations of the Church (found rather conveniently at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants). The only reason anything changed is because the Lord commanded it. And the Church does what the Lord tells it to.
As Wilford Woodruff writes (concerning the Manifesto--the abolishment of polygamy):
"I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do."
It's not social pressure. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you believe that we are personally directed by God. If you don't, then you'll find a lot of things we do difficult to believe or understand.
LIGHT - It's extremely hard for outsiders not to observe that God tends to reveal things at rather socially convenient times.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I don't exactly see what the contradiction is. Like I stated in my post, the Church will only change its policies according to what the Lord reveals to them. Are you familiar with the Articles of Faith? The ninth one says:
The contradiction is that if there is an absolute, unchanging eternal truth and the Church is aligned with it, but the Church only gets access to it in little dribs and drabs over generations, there's not much point in asserting the moral authority of being in line with that AUET (absolute, unchanging, eternal truth).
quote:We are held accountable according to what degree of truth that we've been given so far. We don't have everything yet. Nobody does. But what we do have is true (according to our beliefs).
Case in point. There are times - and this is a matter of factual record, LIGHT - where Church policies that were supposed to be founded on this AUET changed over time. Perhaps it was because people changed, meaning we reached a new level of 'rules' or something. (Thinking of minority priesthood specifically here-also an older change, polygamy.) But if that's so, if that's the explanation, then the AUET doesn't mean what we think it does. Rendering its moral authority less shiny and powerful.
quote:
As to changes in the Church's policies: you state that it's because the Church gave in to social pressure. Umm, no. Fail. Research that more. That was not the reason for it. Try reading the Official Declarations of the Church (found rather conveniently at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants). The only reason anything changed is because the Lord commanded it. And the Church does what the Lord tells it to.
That's actually not what I said. "Because the Church has changed over time," is what I said-if the Church is aligned with the AUET, and the AUET obviously doesn't change, why does the Church change over time? I specifically didn't say it was caving in to social pressure, though the truth is I do believe that played a role.
You'd believe it to, were it about any organization other than your own.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
] ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
