Fether
-
Posts
3690 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by Fether
-
-
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:
Polygamy: “Stop or we will exterminate you.” “Okie dokie, we comply.”
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.
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:Blacks and the Priesthood: yes, I know the apologists’ defense on this, but societal influence seems obvious nonetheless
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
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:Men to be clean shaven: Seemed to largely stem from the 60’s and 70’s era of long hair and facial hair being associated with drugs, orgies, and that dang rock n roll
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.
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:Word of Wisdom and “hot drinks”
I don’t get this one. What is the issue here?
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:Church culture has drastically changed around even just approaching topics like homosexuality
Culture… this isn’t dictated by leaders.
-
37 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
Medical treatments have been known to be dangerous trends.
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?
- mordorbund and clwnuke
-
2
-
47 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
I'm more so questioning why the Church is influenced by society the way that it is and wondering what we might want to be prepared for in the coming years regarding society's influence on the Church.
As an example, if the whole world embraced the Tide Pod challenge, would you question the Church if it endorsed it? How far off is the Tide Pod challenge from hooking up electric wires to gay men's genitals and shocking them and inducing vomiting at the sight of erotic gay images?
I get your question, but your comparison doesn’t hold up. One is a dangerous trend, the other was an accepted medical treatment
-
26 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
Like I was stating above, I really should have just made one OP about societal influences within the Church, but instead it's branched out into two involving gay electroshock therapy and homosexuality as a sin. Societal influences in the Church is the main topic of interest I'm addressing.
I have no idea what kind of voltages they did or didn't use. I've also read that in addition to the shock therapy, BYU would induce the patient to vomit whenever shown a picture of something homosexual. Patients reported issues of PTSD-like symptoms later on in life when faced with a sexual situation.
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?
-
1 hour ago, clbent04 said:
Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay?
I get that the Church is a living, breathing thing, but the gospel is the gospel, right?
Just for the sake of locking down this conversation, tell me, what specifically is wrong with electro-shock therapy?
-
3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
I've seen that as well. But it's easier to embrace a softer stance on how we judge others when society is already headed that direction.
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.
-
9 hours ago, clbent04 said:
If the prophet said tomorrow that being gay or acting out on homosexual tendencies when legally married was no longer sinful, would you still support the Church?
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.
-
14 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
When is it not okay for God’s church to behave like a science experiment over being a divinely inspired institution?
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.
-
8 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
I get how authenticity and agenda pushing can overlap, but can’t authenticity in a case like Matt’s not have an agenda other than the guy just sharing a part of who he is?
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.
-
3 hours ago, Grunt said:
Is the Church looking a little closer at BYU?
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.
-
-
34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
s Fether trying to convince others that he’s right? Or just trying to work out a space in which he can continue to hold to his opinion after it has been challenged? I know that often my posts to this forum fall more into the second category
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.
- Vort, Just_A_Guy and dprh
-
3
-
1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:
I may be wrong but I blame the Afghan Security Forces for just giving up and not even putting up a decent fight with the Taliban. They had over fifteen years to get their act together and they did not.
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.
-
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:
You mean like he imputed from mine? I suppose that is fair then. Last I checked he was the one asking for insight on why people behave a certain way... But his responses are more about proving himself 'right' rather then trying to understand.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Right but who decides that we are thriving spiritually? Us? Absolutely! Our Parent when we are young? Absolutely! Some stranger? No way!
Adults get the choice... For children their parent/guardian get the choice... that is how it should work for everything... implants are no exception.
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
- Jedi_Nephite and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:
As a general rule you do not convince someone to make major changes in their sense of self, and the way they live by basically calling them stupid, or short sighted (Aka an attack even if you do not see it that way yourself)
Its a good thing I never said that then. I’m more concerned about the newborn situation
-
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:
While questions where asked about Deaf culture and its response to Implants... But it is just a subset of how people embrace Culture Identities and embrace them as personal identities.
Case in point there is a LDS culture, many have embraced this as a personal identity (aka 'I am LDS'). So what happens when a persons sense of self is attacked? Generally the same kind of response to a physical attack. Heightened emotional state, lashing out (Verbally/physically), and trying to destroy/remove/defeat the attacker. We occasional see this here when an Antis comes calling. Some (not all) respond just like this.
This is not an LDS thing but a Identity thing. We saw this when we tried baptize for the dead some Jews. We saw it as harmless to beneficial but they saw it as an attack on their fundamental identity. In their minds we were making them not Jews any more so they protested it strongly.
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.
-
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
I think Jane_Doe is at the heart of the matter. Giving hearing to a deaf person is more than adding a sense - it is a core alteration to their very existence. It changes who they are. I sit here with my totally accurate screen name and think "yeah, but being able to hear is better", but I have to understand that many in the deaf community don't see it that way.
Similarly, I think of someone close to me with PTSD, major depression, and an entire childhood full of horrible trauma which she was forced to survive and grow from. When she thinks about a hypothetical where she could have avoided all those traumas, she wouldn't say yes. Removing her past traumas would have resulted in her growing into a totally different adult. She would have never have developed the wisdom she has, or the toughness she has. She never would have been as useful to others going through similar traumas. There are lives she could not have saved, testimonies she could not have saved. There would be 5 minute hallway conversations, where some troubled soul went away with lightened burdens and a whole new positive outlook on the world, that would never have happened. She likes who she is, and would not trade it for the world. The prospect of being innocently ignorant to the evils of the world, is horrifying to her - she dislikes clueless people.
At the same time, I've encountered a dozen videos of adults and children, trying on glasses that let them see colors for the first time, or actually see for the first time. I've seen videos of kids and adults get their hearing turned on for the first time in their lives, and hearing their mom's or husband's voice for the first time. The absolute wonder and joy in those videos is something I may not ever experience in this life.
At the end of the day, if someone wants an implant, I'm not going to stand in their way. And if someone refuses one, I'm not going to judge. Seems like a choice people have to make for themselves.
@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”.
- Backroads and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
54 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
You're still approaching tings from the perspective of "a deaf person is disabled and less able to communicate".
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?
54 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:Would you likewise try to "cure" me of being autistic?
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.
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:Or Traveler's brothers for being color-blind?
Adults: if they do wished
newborns: absolutely
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:Or a left-handed person such as myself?
Nope
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:Do you likewise see these as ailments that need to be fixed and you don't understand why anyone in those boats won't jump at the chance to be "normal"?
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.
-
7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
Likewise, a deaf child is beautiful. Yes, she/he is different than a standard hearing kid, but still beautiful. Deafness often brings a great eye for beauty, a composite nature, a deep awareness of how others are feeling, etc. A deaf person is are not "broken" and don't need "fixed". And cochlear implant hearing is not true hearing either. And there can be a lot of resentment if somebody approaches them or their kids that way.
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.
- Vort and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
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
- clbent04, NeuroTypical, Backroads and 2 others
-
5
-
1 hour ago, dprh said:
I think if it had been PR, they'd have done it back in April or May. Having it come out after they've had their own time to study it makes me think the opposite, that it isn't (just) PR.
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
Is this True? Gay Electroshock Therapy within the Church
in General Discussion
Posted
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.