NeedleinA

I understood the intent of the image.  But I was puzzled by how that was the reaction given my intent for my post.
This had nothing to do with tribal pride.  I specifically explained that this was not just a "bunch of Mormons" who did this.  Everyone did this. By everyone, I mean all people in the field of expertise regardless of religious affiliation.  That alone should have been enough express that it was not about an isolated sector of society.  It was the wisdom of the age.
My intent was to point out that if we were in the same position as they were, no one (and I'd include you) would have thought that what they were doing was wrong.  It is very easy to judge others based on 20/20 hindsight and the benefit of 50 years of societal development.  But if you'd been raised then, and you were a researcher, you wouldn't have known any better.
I wasn't trying to lionize them or support them.  But I was trying to defend against undue slander.  I spoke facts.  And the facts will speak.  But if all people care about is characterizations, then that is their choice.
I don't know everything that actually happened.  And neither do you.  I've avoided judging ANY researcher of the time for doing what they thought was accepted practice.  But you seem to be ok with running in guns blaring.

Careful, Jamie.  You're getting into treacherous territory.
This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened.
1) This was done at MANY institutions all over the country.
2) This was a "study" done by many research facilities (including higher learning facilitites) all over the country. So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own).
3) It was done with the common wisdom at the time. And they followed all the nationally sanctioned methods of research.
BACKGROUND:
This was done in the 1970s.  We were just getting comfortable with the idea that this was a "real thing".  The medical wisdom of the time categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder.  And electroshock therapy was emerging as a promising method of "aversion therapy."  Many methods of aversion therapy were studied.  Electic shock was only one such method studied.  AND homosexuality was only ONE trait that was in a long list of test traits for their subjects.
All volunteer subjects were told exactly what they would be getting into and why and the theories behind it.  And they could choose to leave the study at any time.
Also understand that the shock used in these experiments are nowhere near as dramatic as those that are horrifically depicted/maligned on large and small screens.  They were a mild "reminder" basically.
Such research has produced some modern treatments (using MILD electric shock) to change people's behaviors.  Damond John of Shark Tank credits such therapy for his quitting smoking.
So, before you make such a slanderous statement, get all the facts.

Thank you. Your response was incredibly insightful. You, my friend, just showed all of us what 'true' Christlike empathy and understanding is all about.
 

Just the Old Republic 

Thank you. Your response was incredibly insightful. You, my friend, just showed all of us what 'true' Christlike empathy and understanding is all about.
 

Just the Old Republic 

I wonder if next year they will invite a 'sister wife' to speak to the audience as well, I mean in the spirit of inclusiveness and such.


 

Blowing the impressionable and confused young minds of the Church right along with it. 
Luckily for us at least woke members of the Church aren't blowing right along with culture. Oh wait. They are. Never mind.
Cute. 
Why was the Sister even brought on stage to share 'her story' if not to fight off intolerance in the Church.
@JohnsonJones (won't link?) said:
Sounds a little like "intolerance" to me. 

That’s awesome.
And imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thank you. 
 
:: takes a bow ::

The sister's words:
While she made sure to use the kindest most diplomatic words possible (and I honestly give her credit for that effort) it still expresses that she has been the victim of intolerant people.  i.e., she has been hurt by intolerant people in the Church.  And that is what you were asking about.

Just the Old Republic 

Look at this plagiarism. What, do you write for the New Republic or something? 
 
(seriously everyone, Google “Ruth Shalit” . Major drama there in the 90’s)

Perhaps if we compared it to the subject that it is most comparable to (in the context of the LoC): Heterosexual Lust.  And here, I merely mean "powerful sexual desire" not necessarily going into actual activity or indulging fantasies in our minds.
Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the sister who called herself "queer", the best interpretation would be that she experiences same sex attraction, but she's committed to not acting on those impulses.  If that is so, then what is the closest parallel to heterosexual attraction?
*************************************************
If she were a married woman, would anyone ever ask her to come to a forum such as the Women's Conference and express in an equally matter of fact manner that she often finds herself lusting after other men (even though she remains faithful to her husband) ?  Why not?  It is just stating that she has a weakness.  But she's never crossed the line. 
I don't think anyone would be asked to do that.  I don't think many women would be willing to come out and say that publicly. 
What about a single heterosexual woman?  Would she be asked to come to a public forum and express that she has a craving for the flesh (but she never acts on it)?
Similar for men.  In fact, I've seen videos on the Church website where men are asked to talk about their struggle with pornography and self-abuse.  But their voices are not real, they are actors (as far as I can tell) and they show no image of the speaker.
This is what makes me go "huh?"  Why are these men given privacy in the discussion?  Yet this woman proudly stands in front of the whole world and announces her struggle with sexuality?
*************************************************
It is the "normalization" of SSA that is disturbing.  So, why is it that we seem to be going out of our way to "normalize" same sex attraction?  And if it is by its nature sinful, normalizing it would be worse than expressing simple heterosexual (sexual) attraction.  With heterosexual attraction, it can be expressed within the bonds of marriage.  So, as long as it is controlled within the boundaries that the Lord has set, then it can be the source of strengthening the bonds of marriage.  So, if anything, we SHOULD be encouraging the normalization of heterosexual attraction.
NOTHING good can come from same sex attraction.  Because of that one quality, it is by nature sinful.  Don't misinterpret me here.  I'm NOT saying that simply having the attraction necessarily means one is committing sin.  I believe the words of prophets and apostles have characterized this "trait" as something that is in its own category.  The trait is something that has no spiritually beneficial side.  But it has a strong propensity to drive one towards sinful behavior.  As such, if possible, one should fight and struggle to be rid of that trait.  Yet, merely having the trait is not, in and of itself, sinful.  I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is like that.
But why the normalization of proudly declaring SSA.  But hide and protect the identity of a man struggling with pornography and self-abuse?

Thank you. Your response was incredibly insightful. You, my friend, just showed all of us what 'true' Christlike empathy and understanding is all about.
 

Not sure we are on opposite sides, NT. I agree with everything you wrote, with the caveat that I disagree that, in order to try to show people that we don't hate gays, we need to minimize the appearance that we reject homosexual conduct.
And to reemphasize, I agree that we should be loving toward those who are sexually attracted to small children and animals. Good luck getting the Woke Saints to agree.

A somber warning given by Elder Quentin L. Cook back in 2008 as the Church actively fought to keep marriage between a man and a woman - only. 
Welcome to 2021 my friends.
A time where members of the Church, a mere 13 years later, now label other members of Church who don't cater to the LGBTQ community as being intolerant, behind the times and unloving to all of "God's children". 

 

Yes. Though participating in a "BYU" Women's Conference the guest is on stage with the entire RS Gen. Presidency, and by association endorsed by them 'all'. 
So, it is beyond the point of what was BYU thinking, but rather... what was the RSGP thinking? No really... what were they thinking?

They could have brought any of the other 30,000 YW presidents from around the world, BUT they specifically brought her there like some kind of show pony because she is "Queer". 
She didn't say anything about hoping to overcome her queerness with the help and strength in the Lord, rather she wore it like a badge while the other two just stood there and one gave her praise. Unfortunately, this was like watching the RSGP give Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage award. 

I'm saddened by their actions and troubled by the direction I'm afraid some individuals in the Church think we should go.  I'm saddened by members who feel they need to push our leaders to go this direction. 
I feel like I've crossed a moment where I can still be a "Fidei Defensor" but I don't have to agree with the actions of some leaders, especially from those who don't hold any priesthood keys for the actual Church itself.

Well, hang on a sec. I think there’s a subtle difference between “I have a sinful nature, but I have faith that in Christ Jesus I can overcome it; and I look forward to a day when my nature is no longer sinful” versus “I have a sinful nature, and that’s basically OK, and while I will leave it ambiguous as to whether I plan to ever act out or not, I will under the guise of ‘testimony’, pooh-pooh the idea that the sinful elements of my nature need to or can change whether now or in the eternities”.
Your hypothetical bad husband/alcoholic (or your real-life Brigham Young) are firmly in the first category.  Where does the BYU speaker fall?
“Queer” can have a lot of meanings, and as near as I can tell the speaker here doesn’t specify the term’s definition as it applies to herself.  As I understand it, it can run the gamut from “sort of bisexual, sometimes” to “heterosexual and cisgender, but into cross-dressing” to “likes kink” to “basically normal, but too Woke to be ordinary and therefore desperately engaging in drama queenery in hopes that someone will Notice Me.” 

This was poorly thought out. In fact, my beef is not with the woman who announced her homosexuality. She was simply doing as she had been asked to do. My beef is with the BYU faculty and administrators who thought it would be a wonderful idea to have this woman stand in front of the student body in a women's conference and announce it. What were they thinking? And what is wrong with the BYU administration that would allow such a thing to happen rather than being nipped in the bud?

I wonder if next year they will invite a 'sister wife' to speak to the audience as well, I mean in the spirit of inclusiveness and such.


 

It's sad that so many of the rising generation equate acceptance and tolerance for love. That when a parent tells their child they are doing something wrong, that they do not really love them.
I have a family member who smokes...a lot. If I truly love him, should I allow him to smoke in my home as much as he wants, whenever he wants, around anyone that may also be in the home. Of course not...and he does not expect me or anyone else to. The same scenario applies to homosexuals. But they just can't seem to get over the idea that we can not tolerate their behavior, and yet still love them at the same time. The adversary is cunning and disguises many of his worst works as love.

"I'm queer" was said in the same sentence as "I'm a daughter" and "I'm a child of God" and "I'm a young women's president". It was merely a morally neutral descriptor of just another part of her personality.
I don't expect this sister to go around apologizing for her lesbian impulses. That's none of my business, and I don't want it to be. Rather, I expect her to do what everyone else does: Not talk about her weaknesses in public unless they're actually relevant to the discussion. And when she does feel the need to discuss her weaknesses, she should take care not to try to portray those weaknesses as acceptable or herself as a victim of everyone else because of her weaknesses. I would expect no less of the reformed alcoholic, the smoker, or the guy who swears a lot.

Then what is it saying? Is it not saying, "I am a woman who likes to romantically kiss and rub genitals with another woman"? Or does "queer" have another 21st-century meaning that I missed?
And as I have said many, many times before, if non-practicing homosexuals (that is, celibate homosexuals who live the law of chastity by abstaining from sexual gratification) are to be not merely embraced, but encouraged to talk about their proclivities, then the same must be true for non-practicing pedophiles. If homosexuals comprise 2% of the population, I bet pedophiles are not far removed from that number. Where is the demand for tolerance and love for our brothers and sisters who might happen to be attracted to prepubescents?
Which goes to show: This is not about tolerance or love or being Christ-like. This is about demanding acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. And if it continues, the pedophiles need not despair, because their turn in the victim seat is fast arriving.

It's high time we dropped our silly prejudice and bigotry toward those who sin differently from us, or who just love differently from us. Why shouldn't we have a sister wife explain the glory and subtle, humanizing attraction of being married to a man with other wives? Who are we to say such a thing is "bad" or "wrong"? When will we be enlightened?

"At the end of the day, we are all children of God...The heavenly Father I know and the Savior I believe in would never tell a mother to turn her back on their [sic] child."
True words. True for lesbian children, and equally true for rapist children, murdering children, children who feel the urge to molest babies, children who bite off their own fingers, children who torture small animals, and so forth. Mother love is not stopped by such things; on the other hand, such things are not sanctified by mother love. So what, exactly, was her point? Do we have a problem in the Church with mothers not loving their children because of their children's moral struggles? I doubt it.
"I am queer [i.e. a lesbian]." She was thanked for saying that. What if she had said, "I am sexually attracted to little girls"? "I like to have intimate relations with dogs"? "I masturbate continually, as much as I possibly can, even in public (but I try to be discreet)"? What would have been the response? "I'm so happy you said that. I just loved your introduction."
And this is at BYU, folks. Brigham Young University. I am left shaking my head and pretty much speechless.