Fether

I remember in the essay the church released, there was a section that said they do not know the origin, but I can’t seem to find it right now.

I’d point out that we did t really stop. We sent people to Mexico and continued to practice it there. It wasn’t till later that we official stopped it as a church. We do the same in other countries today. We change the way we worship based on Laws of the land. This is different simply because there is no known revelation that started it. It was clearly instituted because of racist ideologies and the collision of slave owners and anti slave believers in Utah. The social movement only sparked the question to be examined critically. You don’t get revelation till you ask the question This seems totally fine to me. If I had a pendent depicting the Indian symbol of divinity, I would certainly stop wearing it once WWII started. I don’t get this one. What is the issue here? Culture… this isn’t dictated by leaders.

Should the church preemptively start telling its members to not participate in new treatments for cancer? Or tell us to avoid certain brands of supplements or diets? Should the church start telling us to not get solar because they have dangerous chemicals in them? Or maybe should they tell us to stop shopping at X store because the owner is an immoral person? How much foresight do you believe the church needs?

I get your question, but your comparison doesn’t hold up. One is a dangerous trend, the other was an accepted medical treatment

So the issue is that the church issued the use of a n accepted and commonly used medical treatment that was later discovered to be harmful in the long run. That seems to be the issue you are having right?

Just for the sake of locking down this conversation, tell me, what specifically is wrong with electro-shock therapy?

It isn’t us judging. It is God. there is a difference between a societal movement that doesn’t fight against church doctrine and a societal movement that does. For one to expect the church to embrace homosexuality, they would either have to believe (1) it is not the true church or (2) marriage between a man and a woman is not essential and that our understanding is purely based on societal norms that we are clinging to.

I believe whole heartedly on the Family Proclamation, and if Elder Holland’s recent talk at BYU told me anything, it’s that the first presidency still backs it 100% and is concerned with the direction many Saints are going in. As for your question. I do always leave room in my heart for any changes. I can see, doctrinally, how homosexuality may have room in the church doctrine and is perhaps just a current issue of the times that needs to be over come. However, I don’t think this is the case. (AGAIN. I don’t believe this to be so (and just one more time, I believe the family proclamation to be the word of God)). So what if they changed it? Then cool 👍 if they don’t… also cool 👍 truth is truth and this is a living church with continuing revelation. I would be foolish to think my current understanding of the gospel and the nature of celestial glory is fully understood.

I would add that, from what I found in interviews, this was all voluntary too (though social pressure probably had an affect). BYU wasn’t kidnapping people and electrocuting them. And this was done across the US. It was a tool used to help people stop being gay (which today we see as being ridiculous. Additionally, we still use aversion therapy today, just not with electricity. Here is an interview with a guy who went through it while at BYU.

I remember the BYU woman’s conference, they brought out a lesbian to share her experience. What she said was not all that different from what Matt said.

There was a point in his talk where he talked about the sacred tithing funds that the church puts toward the school and how they are very deliberate about where to put that money and how they don’t want to waste it, then went on to talk about the failings of the professors and student body at the school.

Your brother is either creating a straw man out of desperation, or deeply misunderstood the gospel and that is why he left.

I find more and more that my opinions on things are lacking and often times just plain wrong. So often times I come here and to other forums where people have more experience than I do and I put up my views to be challenged in an attempt to fill in the gaps in understanding I have, or to correct a view entirely. Thats what I did here. I wanted to see if anyone could over a counter argument that would change my view or if the arguments I was familiar with were the only arguments available.

I would point out that our government said the Taliban took over more quickly than they thought. Meaning the US knew the Taliban would take over. They knew the Afghan army was not equipped enough to fight the Taliban. We left them to their demise. And when it fell, the response was “that was quicker than we thought”. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/16/politics/biden-afghanistan-speech/index.html And as for the army itself, I think it was more complicated than a strong nation helping a small nation become strong and they refusing to. From what so understand, Afghanistan isn't really a United nation, but rather groups of warlords that rule different areas. There is no sense of nationality. It’s full of corruption, lack of proper schooling, a corrupt view on morality, and many other issues. I don’t know why this all happened the way it did, but we can’t treat Afghanistan like little America.

I’m asking insights because there seems to be this strong feeling against healing a deaf newborn and I have not been convinced of it. All the examples and analogies given have been great, but always fall short right where it matters. Frankly speaking, this ideology in the Deaf community… it looks like a bunch of crabs in a bucket.

It’s a good thing I never suggested strangers should have a say. That would be ridiculous. You are 100% correct in all you just said. I just can’t help to think you are saying this on the premise that being deaf is not a disability, but rather a personal choice that has little affect on our experience in life.

Side note: this is what is believe the resurrection looks like for different abnormalities- deaf: will hear blind: will see left/right handed people: ambidextrous autistic: mind will be enlightened and expanded and any abnormalities will be removed Non-autistic: mind will be enlightened and expanded and any abnormalities will be removed Homosexual: made heterosexual color blind: see correctly

Its a good thing I never said that then. I’m more concerned about the newborn situation

The this is a great comparison. If there is something about the “Latter-day Saint culture” that makes it more difficult for us to thrive spiritually, we ought to fix it. Same thing with our ability. If we can fix a disability at birth so that a person can live a more full life, we ought to do it. I understand adults may have a very different experience, but in children, fix it 100% if the time.

The Deaf community is great. I have been around quite a few and been able to speak to them. Wonderful people.

@Jane_Doe Then the big question is about the argument behind cochlear implants to new borns. I have no qualms with adults refusing it. But there is a large portion of the Deaf community that is against this corrective implant on a newborn. now to address your other comment: I understand experience makes us stronger, and personal experience brings us to where we are today. But If you knew a child was going to be sexually assaulted and abused in a home, you would not let them go to that home in the logic of “this will give them experience”.

Is this not the case? Are you saying that a deaf person can function in society just as well as a hearing person without any hinderance? If you were happy the way you are, no. But to refusing to correct a correctable disability in a child seems more akin to child abuse than correcting the disability. Adults: if they do wished newborns: absolutely Nope These are all completely different and cannot all be compared as if they were one on the same. I’m not talking about normalizing, I’m talking about enhancing someone who is born disabled.

But I can’t help but feel the Deaf would still feel hurt if we did have a way to completely eradicate deafness. Would you disagree? These benefits you mention are not unattainable for the hearing. Additionally, the benefits they miss out on are astounding. Music, basic communication skills with the rest of the world, an added level of safety and awareness, and I’m sure much much more. Frankly, I don’t see any value in being deaf. I simply do not understand why anyone who has experienced hearing would chose to be deaf. To which the natural response is “it’s because your hearing that you don’t understand”. To which I bite back, “it’s because they are ignorant that they are against healing the deaf”. they are gripping tight to this community that is built on a weakness that they, seemingly, would refuse a fix or overcome. Even to the point of wanting to deny newborns of the ability to hear at least a little, let alone completely. I would have to see statistics to believe that any majority of deaf born children regret the cochlear implants at any point in their life. And if they do, I imagine it has more to do with being associated with the Deaf community and being around the anti-cochlear implant idea.

I want to preface this with stating I’m extremely ignorant on this topic and there may be things I’m missing in the argument. And I come from a pro-cochlear implant stance without any understanding as to why it would be wise to refuse a cochlear implant to a child. I’m going to speak my mind, so if someone is offended, I apologize. I’m only somewhat familiar with the deaf culture. I took two years of ASL in school and met one ASL family on my mission and spoke to someone who was studying to be an interpreter for the ASL. But like all cultures, they are very tight knit and are very concerned about things that may harm their culture. They even differentiate between being deaf and being Deaf (capital D). One is a condition, the other is an identity. I remember in ASL class, we had a discussion about cochlear implants. My teacher tried to stay neutral on the topic, but he was visibly disturbed by it and we was unknowingly breathing heavily and making more aggressive sounds as he spoke on the topic. He Was clearly against the idea of giving deaf children the closest thing to a cure to their deafness. Since then, I have periodically looked up articles on it just to see how the community views it. To this day, many are against cochlear implants for the reason that it harms the culture they have developed. What is most interesting here is the fact that, from what I can tell at least, there are no other people that have formed a such a strong identity and culture behind their disability. Offer prosthetics to a man without legs and he accepts immediately . Offer to give even partial eyesight to a blind newborn and it is accepted with open arms and tears by all. Offer to provide full and complete hearing a deaf baby and you trigger a controversial discussion. On genocide, child abuse, and culture war. Why does this happen? Is it not obvious that a partially hearing person is better off than and deaf person? Has this same mentality been the culprit behind the forming of other sub-cultures? https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/76154/deaf-culture-cochlear-implants/%3famp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/why-deaf-people-turn-down-cochlear-implants-2016-12%3famp

I actually agree. I was looking through other church announcements. Some are stamped by being from the first presidency, others are just church declarations and announcements. I wonder if it is worth greater consideration since the first presidency put their stamp on it this time as oppose to just making it a general church statement