Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/17/19 in all areas

  1. Here is what I found: 1) The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter: "Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... " 2) The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS. 3) The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here. 4) The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter." 5) Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be: "If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts": * Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria) * Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions) * Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices. * Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality) * Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way) * Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease. * Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria. * Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and development." Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule. If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it.
    3 points
  2. So to summarize... The legislature did not pass the law.. Being pressured to do "Something" rules and regulation are proposed. The church's mental health experts review the proposals... and find a small subset of the rules that are not supported by Science. They point them out and recommend that they be altered or changed to match current scientific understanding. The church is called hateful, and accused of supporting barbaric practices and killing youth. It is really not that hard to see what is really happening here.
    3 points
  3. The reporting on this story is abysmal. Take a look at the headlines: Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’ MySanAntonio.com: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban Oil City News: LDS CHURCH AGAINST PROPOSED UTAH BAN ON ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ CBS News: Mormon Church urges Utah not to bar "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors ABC4 News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes rule that would ban conversion therapy KJZZ: LDS Church releases statement opposing proposed conversion therapy ban Fox13 News: LDS Church raises objections to proposed rule banning conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah The Guardian: Mormon church strikes blow against Utah ban on conversion therapy Longview News-Journal: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban Jackson Hole News Guide: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban The Alpena News: Mormon church opposes LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban The Columbian: Latter-day Saints oppose Utah LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban Gephart Daily: LDS Church opposes ban of conversion therapy for LGBTQ youths Texarkana Gazette: Mormon church opposes 'conversion therapy' ban GV Wire: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban Daily Miner: LDS church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban KNPR: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ 'Conversion Therapy' Ban Now read this article from DesNews: Conversion therapy rule draws statement of opposition from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints How many articles that we're reading actually mention that tidbit?
    3 points
  4. The story goes that Thomas Moore, the famous 19th-century Irish poet and composer, married a beautiful woman named Elizabeth who contracted smallpox. She survived the dread disease, but as was common with smallpox survivors, was left badly scarred. She subsequently locked herself in her room, refusing to come out for shame of her face being so disfigured. Thomas then wrote this poem to reassure her. I hope the story is true; it's a nice story, in any case. This is one of a few poems I have actually bothered to commit to memory. Believe me, if all those endearing young charms Which I gaze on so fondly today Were to change by tomorrow and fleet in mine arms, Like fairy gifts fading away, Thou wouldst still be ador'd as this moment thou art, Let thy loveliness fade as it will; And around the dear ruin, each wish of my heart Would entwine itself verdantly still. It is not while beauty and youth are thine own And thy cheeks unprofan'd by a tear That the fervor and faith of a soul can be known To which time will but make thee more dear. No, the heart that has truly lov'd never forgets, But as truly loves on to the close As the sunflower turns on her god, when he sets, The same look which she turned when he rose. (For those my age or older, this might seem familiar if you hear the tune the song has traditionally been set to. Think Saturday morning cartoons.)
    3 points
  5. Just_A_Guy

    Adam and Eve's purpose

    I have wondered lately: did they not “know” those concepts, as in, they didn’t know they existed? Or, were Adam and Eve perhaps aware of them on a philosophical or logical or “intellectual” level, but had no personal experience that gave those concepts any significant meaning? I sort of lean towards the latter. At some point Adam and Eve must have understood, pre-fall, opposing concepts like “good” and “bad”, “obey” and “disobey”, “do” and “don’t do”. Otherwise, how could they be justly held accountable for their choice to eat the fruit?
    3 points
  6. Vort

    Adam and Eve's purpose

    The short answer: We don't know. The slightly longer answer: Our prophets and apostles have taught us that Adam and Eve were unable to conceive and produce children while in the garden of Eden, though we do not know the reason why this was so. There has long been a belief in Christianity that "the forbidden fruit" was a euphemism for sex. Our leaders have explicitly taught us that this is not the case; whatever the forbidden fruit was, it wasn't sexual experience. Adam and Eve were married by God, so sex could not have been forbidden.
    3 points
  7. There’s a difference between a “rule” and a “bill”. The bill you cite came up in this year’s legislative session in January/February. The Church didn’t oppose it, but it died anyways—I believe more for procedural reasons than anything else. The Utah legislature only sits from late January to early March of each year (unless the governor calls them into special session), so that was basically the ballgame for the next 12 months and everyone knows the legislature will probably pass a new version of the bill in 2020. But, the LGBTQ lobby decided that this wasn’t Fast Enough; so they squawked and Governor Herbert eventually asked the state licensing boards governing mental health, to go ahead and propose “administrative rules” that would accomplish more or less the same thing as the bill would have. This is common with any licensed profession—the legislature creates an oversight board which has the authority to create additional licensure rules implementing best practices and preventing abuse. The board has to submit proposed rules for public comment before approving them, and if the legislature thinks the board has gone too far, they can pass a bill revoking the rule the board has adopted. It’s particular provisions within the proposed *rule*, not the bill, that the Church has misgivings about. (Two rules, actually; one applying to psychologists specifically and the other to mental health providers generally). When I did some preliminary sniffing on this yesterday it looked like the Church’s Newsroom statement announced its opposition and referred to a comment that LDS Family Services had submitted—but as I recall, Newsroom didn’t link either to the proposed rule or the LDSFS comment; and I still don’t know exactly what’s in either document. (They should be publicly available somewhere on the Internet; I just haven’t found them yet.)
    2 points
  8. I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion, but it sounds reasonable to me that Trump and Turkey sort of had this whole thing planned out from the beginning. Power vacuum? Make a deal to have an ally fill it. And last I checked, Turkey is (kinda) an ally. What I find fascinating, is the entire antiwar part of the left wing basically died and came back as nevertrumper zombies in love with George Bush foreign policies. People on the peacenik/no blood for oil/US is bad because we get into wars/Bush lied people died/militaryIndustrialComplex is evil left, whom I've been arguing with for years, now are apoplectic that we're ending a war and bringing troops home. And they don't even seem to realize they're doing it. It's just a gut reflex - Trump sez A, therefore B is the only good and decent thing, and A is the most evil thing ever. Hey folks on the left - read up on some A. You sure you haven't heard this coming out of your mouth since the mid-90's?
    1 point
  9. A short take of my own off the top of my head... They weren't really held accountable for eating the fruit, or at least Adam was not. This is why it is called a Transgression instead of a Sin. This is similar to children under 8, they cannot sin. They can transgress a law, but they cannot sin in breaking it. Because they can transgress the ramifications still can affect them, however, due to the atonement, it covers them in all cases and they are held sinless and not accountable for those mistakes. Another way to look at it. The Lord could heal physical ailments when he was here on Earth (and still can). In the New Testament he repeatedly showed this ability. Now imagine that a child is driving a car. They shouldn't be, but let's suppose a 6 year old is driving a car. They are driving down the road at 90 miles an hour and hit a stone wall. The car is smashed and the child is seriously injured. The child may not have realized all the ramifications of what they were doing, but nonetheless, they still suffer the consequences. In this parallel, the Lord then comes and heals the child completely. The child has no ramifications for what they did previously. The Lord points out in a situation in the New Testament how he can heal physical hurts, but it is actually a lot more to be able to heal Spiritually, and he is also able to do this. In a similar manner, a transgression, or the things a child does, even if it breaks laws, is covered by the atonement. They are not held accountable. In the same way, what Adam did was to break laws or commandments. There are repercussions to that. However, due to the atonement, that is taken out of the equation and neither he nor us suffer from the long term effects that naturally come from it (Physical and Spiritual Death). However, we can still do things that will affect us spiritually. A great Majority will not have to suffer the natural consequences of the Spiritual Death that came from Adam's Transgression, though some will cause their OWN spiritual deaths due to their own choices in this life. There may be a brief separation, but never a total and permanent Spiritual Death unless one makes that choice for themselves. None will suffer a permanent Physical Death, though we have a temporary period of it. The Atonement is the counter to the Transgression. Thus, we believe men will be punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression.
    1 point
  10. Jonah

    Adam and Eve's purpose

    The contents of this thread are significantly different than what I learned in Catholicism. In respect to having children, were Adam and Eve impotent (their bodies were not physically capable), lacking knowledge (they did not know how), or both when God said be fruitful and multiply? Thanks Jonah
    1 point
  11. 😢 I'm pretty sure he posted this after General Conference. But from the date it says it was posted, it doesn't look like it.
    1 point
  12. The 1980 GC had President Kimball speaking from the Whitmer Farmhouse, where the Church was restored in the original Whitmer home.
    1 point
  13. My wife and I thought that maybe the General Conference would be broadcast from Palmyra, NY however the hotel rates in the area don't appear too extravagant at this point so probably not. Our other thought was that maybe multiple worldwide General Conferences could be held? It will be interesting to see, but the more important matter is the Saint's spiritual preparation for the Conference. That's where President Nelson's main concern seems IMHO.
    1 point
  14. However beautiful the poem/song is, I can't hear it without thinking of Bugs Bunny and dynamite!
    0 points
  15. No tears, I was traveling that day.
    0 points