Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Church opposes anti conversion therapy bill

Recommended Posts

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399S05.pdf

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-proposed-rule-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-change

 

I am no lawyer so I couldn’t necessarily find any thing I’m the bill that is worth opposing.

It seems to me that the writing in this bill has the Church in mind and is seeking to allow its members and leadership  to continue to preach the sinfulness of homosexual skirt and the falsehood if the transgender movement and even still allow bishops to persuade those with transgender feelings to no change their gender. It only prevents professional therapists from doing any form of conversion therapy.

The only thing I can see this preventing is a bishop suggesting a youth who feels he/she is transgender to a therapist for the soul purpose of convincing them out of being transgender.

 Can someone explain to me what is vague about this bill that the church would want amended?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fether said:

If you find it let me know. I have quite a few friends and family members having a fit

Your wish is my command. ;) 

The proposed rule changes are in this document (do a test search on “mental health” and “psychology”, and you’ll find the rules). 

https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull_pdf/2019/b20190915.pdf

Still looking for the LDSFS comments, which were probably submitted separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Fether said:

If you find it let me know. I have quite a few friends and family members having a fit

This is from LDSFS per the Deseret news

“Although well intentioned, the proposed rule as written will strongly dissuade many responsible therapists from providing much-needed therapy to minors,” the letter said. “That is especially true of therapists whose counseling respects the religious identity and faith perspectives of Latter-day Saints and members of other faith communities with biblically informed beliefs about gender and sexuality.”

I am not an expert on this particular issue by any means, (I work in healthcare, but stay far away from mental health) but it seems to me that the church is worried that therapists will not be able to actually tell the child they are wrong; to be able to help them see that they were not "put in the wrong body". Rather, they will be forced to just go along with what the child is feeling and help them "transition" to whatever it is they want to do/be. Making a child believe that they are lgbtqmnop or whatever, when they really are not, is exactly what conversion therapy is...just from the other direction. The church is opposed to "abusive conversion therapy", whereas many on the radial left think that conversion therapy is anyone telling a person they are actually not gay, and not born that way. Therapists should not engage in abusive or harmful therapies, but they should be allowed to tell the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Quote

“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,” the letter stated. “Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.”

How many articles that we're reading actually mention that tidbit?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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

Side observation, not trying to 'totally' hijack the thread.
Of the 17 cited sources above... names used for the Church:
9 = Mormon Church
7 = LDS / Latter-day Saint Church
1 = Used "Jesus Christ" with our name

1 out of 17 willing to use Jesus Christ actually spelled out in our name. Still a (long) work in progress with the media I guess. (sigh)

I wonder how long ago it was...
17 for 17 = Mormon Church
Maybe progress is being made, perhaps I need more patience.
Thanks for the list @NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeedleinA said:

Side observation, not trying to 'totally' hijack the thread.
Of the 17 cited sources above... names used for the Church:
9 = Mormon Church
7 = LDS / Latter-day Saint Church
1 = Used "Jesus Christ" with our name

1 out of 17 willing to use Jesus Christ actually spelled out in our name. Still a (long) work in progress with the media I guess. (sigh)

I wonder how long ago it was...
17 for 17 = Mormon Church
Maybe progress is being made, perhaps I need more patience.
Thanks for the list @NeuroTypical

Interesting to see that the Salt Lake Tribulation still used LDS.  :)  Figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find most fascinating about this is that one of the techniques used in this process-in fact the one that most complain about is electro-shock therapy.

Everyone wants that banned for the LGBTQ+ crowd, yet electro-shock therapy is actually more commonly used as a treatment for mental issues.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ect

The reason why ECT was used for homosexuality is because homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder, therefore it was used as a technique upon those who are mentally "discorded". 

It is STILL used commonly today for bipolar, major depression, etc. . . .but you don't see a whole mess of people rushing to condemn it's use in these cases as "barbaric" or as "torture"; only when used on LGBTQ+.  There is a word for that-it's called hypocrisy. 

Edited by cat123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cat123 said:

What I find most fascinating about this is that one of the techniques used in this process-in fact the one that most complain about is electro-shock therapy.

Everyone wants that banned for the LGBTQ+ crowd, yet electro-shock therapy is actually more commonly used as a treatment for mental issues.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ect

The reason why ECT was used for homosexuality is because homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder, therefore it was used as a technique upon those who are mentally "discorded". 

It is STILL used commonly today for bipolar, major depression, etc. . . .but you don't see a whole mess of people rushing to condemn it's use in these cases as "barbaric" or as "torture"; only when used on LGBTQ+.  There is a word for that-it's called hypocrisy. 

Bipolar/severe depression/etc are mental disorders. Sexual orientation is not. Unless you can point me to some credible studies that show that electroshock therapy can change sexual orientation, I see no hypocrisy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

Bipolar/severe depression/etc are mental disorders. Sexual orientation is not.

Says who? The APA? It's a purely political motivation.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Unless you can point me to some credible studies that show that electroshock therapy can change sexual orientation, I see no hypocrisy here.

Do you honestly believe any journal in the world would publish a study that indicated positive "conversion" results of sexual orientation? I do not think you are that naive.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cat123 said:

What I find most fascinating about this is that one of the techniques used in this process-in fact the one that most complain about is electro-shock therapy.

Everyone wants that banned for the LGBTQ+ crowd, yet electro-shock therapy is actually more commonly used as a treatment for mental issues.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ect

The reason why ECT was used for homosexuality is because homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder, therefore it was used as a technique upon those who are mentally "discorded". 

It is STILL used commonly today for bipolar, major depression, etc. . . .but you don't see a whole mess of people rushing to condemn it's use in these cases as "barbaric" or as "torture"; only when used on LGBTQ+.  There is a word for that-it's called hypocrisy. 

My understanding is that in the US, ECT is typically done while the patient is under general anesthesia in order to induce a seizure that hopefully “resets” the brain, in a relatively pain-free way.  

I’m not sure whether that was the case with the ECT directed at homosexuals.  The stories one often hears suggests that electric shocks were used as a sort of aversion therapy (e.g., they were showing the conscious patient gay porn while using electric shock as a means to induce pain and create an association between pain and homosexual urges; sometimes even connecting the electrodes directly to the patient’s genitals).  If those stories are accurate, then we’re talking about two very different forms of treatment that were designed to use two very different physiological mechanisms.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Godless said:

Bipolar/severe depression/etc are mental disorders. Sexual orientation is not. Unless you can point me to some credible studies that show that electroshock therapy can change sexual orientation, I see no hypocrisy here.

I can’t speak for @cat123, but I don’t think he was saying homosexuality was a mental disorder. I think he was just pointing out that it is interesting that everyone is up in arms about it when it comes of LGBTQ, but don’t care if it is used in actual patients. He actually makes an effort in his comment to separate the two.

Now... if you ask me, being LGBTQ clearly is some sort of disorder. You would have to convince me that being gay or thinking your the wrong gender is a natural way of life to get me to change my mind.

Take God out of the picture and I don’t know that it is a disorder that needs to be “fixed” or “treated” as they aren’t aren’t a burden to society or themselves like others with different mental illnesses.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

I can’t speak for @cat123, but I don’t think he was saying homosexuality was a mental disorder. I think he was just pointing out that it is interesting that everyone is up in arms about it when it comes of LGBTQ, but don’t care if it is used in actual patients. He actually makes an effort in his comment to separate the two.

Now... if you ask me, being LGBTQ clearly is some sort of disorder. You would have to convince me that being gay or thinking your the wrong gender is a natural way of life to get me to change my mind.

Take God out of the picture and I don’t know that it is a disorder that needs to be “fixed” or “treated” as they aren’t aren’t a burden to society or themselves like others with different mental illnesses.

I think that is a common misperception of mental illnesses in general.  Most who have a mental illness are not a burden to society any more than many others.  There are many that contribute great things to society that we perceive as having a mental illness.

In regards to homosexuality or other attitudes or feelings that people have, I do not see them as needing to be treated nor cured necessarily.  It is as any other thing of the natural man which needs to be tempered with self control and a view towards being more holy than natural.

We all have feelings and attitudes in regards to sexuality and the natural lusts of humankind.  We have been given commandments on how to act upon those.  For some, even heterosexuals, they will NEVER act upon those emotions or desires.  They will never marry nor have the opportunity in many cases.  They are expected to remain chaste and true to the Lord.  In that same way, with homosexuality, no difference is expected between their actions in regards to being chaste than those who never marry as well. 

It is upon US to temper our natural desires with following the Lord.  That this has been disrupted and changed in our society (it is expected in may places that up to 95% of individuals do NOT wait until marriage for certain acts these days in regards to fornication), it should be no surprise that many expect or want acceptance of unchaste actions and attitudes to become the normal way we perceive things.  That this extends just as much to homosexuality and other LGBTQ items should be no surprise.  If one is willing to excuse all matter of other unchaste behavior, then there is no logical reason to exclude LGBTQ from exhibiting their behaviors in whatever fashion they also desire.

ON the otherhand, if one stands that they will be true to the commandments as we perceive them from the Bible and scriptures, that could be seen as the polar opposite of that attitude of acceptance of what we see as immorality.

Today, we still have a choice but in many instances what was once known to be good is now seen as evil, and what was once seen to be evil is now named good.  However, the commandments of the Lord still demand chastity regardless of whether one is hetero or homosexual or any other sort of degree or range in those regards. 

I see it more as a matter of choosing what one will do.  Will they choose to follow the natural man and the desires of their natural tendencies (and this applies equally today whether hetero or homo or anything else in that regards to gender, sex, and orientation), or subdue the natural man in pursuit of what they may see as some higher ideal (whether in Christianity or other religions that teach to quell the natural sexuality of the animal instinct to try to enlighten oneself into a higher understanding, plane, existence, or morality).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think that is a common misperception of mental illnesses in general.  Most who have a mental illness are not a burden to society any more than many others.  There are many that contribute great things to society that we perceive as having a mental illness.

I’m not saying they are a burden on society, I’m referring to their illness being a burden on them or how they act with the illness being a burden on society.

I worked with a house of mentally ill individuals. One of them had a job and is actually about to get married, but due to his mental disorder, he would have eruptions if anger and a slowed brain development. He received treatment for this and has learned to deal with it and control his emotions. 

Now why did he receive treatment? Because he suplexed an 8 year old girl when he was 25 (among other misdeeds caused by his illness). He was a productive dude, but his illness caused a burden on him and his society.

Thats my point. There are some mental illnesses that don’t need treatment (homosexuality) and some that do ( schizophrenia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

On a billboard off of I-95:

"We love our lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans kids".

What's the problem with this billboard?

You mean, besides the lack of an “and” with that Oxford comma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

You mean, besides the lack of an “and” with that Oxford comma?

There are other letters in the lgbtq alphabet... and would be too limiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SilentOne said:

As written, doesn't it just mean we love our kids who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans, all together?

Ok... this statement right here... what'S wrong with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Ok... this statement right here... what'S wrong with it?

It's ridiculous to call out specific sins and say "we love them".  Why not have a sign that says "We love our children who are druggies", "We love our children who are bullies", "We love our children who are pregnant".

It's pandering to the emotionally weak "woke" individuals who think that the mere profaning of words makes something true. It in effect states that prior to this sign being put up, we didn't love them.  It signifies that only by bloviating meaningless words to pander to the world that we love them.

Until people wake up and realize the absolute stranglehold the LGBTQ+ velvet mafia has on people's thoughts, their ideas, and how they have suppressed the righteous desire to help people overcome their weaknesses, this junk will continue.  This group is sacrosanct-they are the new religion, with their priests, alcoyates and high priests. 

It's why the story about Katie Hill is buried. She is a priestess in the new religion and cannot be touched.  As a people we have traded the One True God for a false god.  Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this