Is this True? Gay Electroshock Therapy within the Church

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, clbent04 said:

Is it possible we revert back to the lesser law? Are we headed in that direction? Does that contradict statements about how these are the latter days, and we are preparing for the end of times? 

You are the one asking for hypotheticals and what ifs.

The simple fact is God is in control and his plans will roll forth with or without us as individuals.  God has also told us that things will get bad enough to deceive even the elect.  So we each have a choice we can look to God and work on developing our ability to "Hear Him" or we can look to the world and try to make sense of it...

[Fether]

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?

[clbent04]

20 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The simple fact is God is in control and his plans will roll forth with or without us as individuals.  God has also told us that things will get bad enough to deceive even the elect.  So we each have a choice we can look to God and work on developing our ability to "Hear Him" or we can look to the world and try to make sense of it...

I think it's important to question the evolving nature of the Church because if some of us don't, we might feel blindsided as it unfolds before us. 

One of the pitfalls many of the elect will be susceptible to is assuming that the Church is this immovable, non-evolving, static organism that is and always will be as we know it today. 

It won't affect you until it does.  

We don't have to make sense of the world, but we do need to make sense of how the Church is influenced by the world. You and @MrShorty helped answer my question of why the Church allows society to shape it.  The Church has to be malleable to influences like society in order to carry forth the greater good. 

God doesn't expect perfection of us, but He has to start somewhere. Just because God's goals for us move forwards or backwards depending on our levels of obedience, doesn't mean anything other than God is trying to work with us. 

Whether we've advanced from slavery to equality or we regress from the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman to more of a free-for-all, God is working with us wherever our levels of obedience allows Him to.  

Edited August 25, 2021 by clbent04

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I think it's important to question the evolving nature of the Church because if some of us don't, we might feel blindsided as it unfolds before us. 

One of the pitfalls many of the elect will be susceptible to is assuming that the Church is this immovable, non-evolving, static organism that is and always will be as we know it today.  It won't affect you until it does.  

We don't have to make sense of the world, but we do need to make sense of how the Church is influenced by the world. @MrShorty helped answer my question of why the Church allows society to shape it.  The Church has to be malleable to influences like society in order to carry forth the greater good. 

God doesn't expect perfection of us, but He has to start somewhere. Just because God's goals for us move forwards or backwards depending on our levels of obedience doesn't mean anything other than God is trying to work with us. 

Whether we've advanced from slavery to equality or we regress from the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman to more of a free-for-all, God is working with us wherever our levels of obedience allows him to.  

The first principle of the gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...  Not Faith in the Church (even his church)...  If you a placing your Faith in the wrong thing you are practicing idolatry, and you will get blindsided.  People who conflate the two (Christ and the Church) have always struggled when the Church shows that it made up of flawed and sinful humans. 

[clbent04]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The first principle of the gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...  Not Faith in the Church (even his church)...  If you a placing your Faith in the wrong thing you are practicing idolatry, and you will get blindsided.  People who conflate the two (Christ and the Church) have always struggled when the Church shows that it made up of flawed and sinful humans. 

This is something that isn't easy for everyone to understand, nor is it intuitive to understand. It takes thoughtful contemplation to separate the Church from Jesus Christ when the Church is named after Him.

[clbent04]

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

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?

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?

Edited August 25, 2021 by clbent04

[MrShorty]

47 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So you are saying you are seeing a change like going from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Law of Moses...   God pretty much saying ok you will not live the higher laws so here is a lesser law...  There is some precedence for that at least... But we would also have to recognize it as a step backwards, a condemnation, a loss of light because of disobedience, rather then an advancement.

 

Would we "have to recognize it as a step backwards...rather than an advancement?" It really depends on which is the higher law and how much society influences our sense of right and wrong. As already noted, electroshock therapy for homosexuals was a result of the underlying belief across broad swaths of scientists and society that homosexuality was an illness to be cured. According to Wikipedia, it took a couple of decades for scientists to decide that it was not a mental illness, followed by another decade or two before the first governments started to legalize same sex marriage. Of course, conservative Christianity is still arguing against SSM. Our current cohort of prophets and apostles would have been, at the youngest, teenagers/YSAs during those early years. How much did broader society's rejection/pathologization (is that a word?) of homosexuality influence our current leaders beliefs about homosexuality, and how much of what they believe is pure revelation from God?

Would condoning SSM be more like Israel wanting a king, or would it be more like our attitudes towards race? Either scenario seems possible to me.

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

This is something that isn't easy for everyone to understand, nor is it intuitive to understand. It takes thoughtful contemplation to separate the Church from Jesus Christ when the Church is named after Him.

Then it seems like people have some work ahead of them...  future safety is going to be found in having solid grasp of the fundamental of the gospel.. Not in debating the actions the church took 100 years ago.. 60 years ago... or even yesterday.

[LDSGator]

3 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?

The church isn’t run by fools. They see that there has been a fundamental shift in how society views homosexuality and they are doing their best to adapt to it. 
 

You must accept reality on her terms. To argue that young people (even religious young people) view the LGBT community the same way as their parents did shows that you don’t really understand that the times aren’t a-changing. They’ve changed. The door is already closed. The church knows this, and they are still juggling with how to adapt to it. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Would we "have to recognize it as a step backwards...rather than an advancement?"

That would depend on how much of the Proclamation of the Family and our understanding of what God is and why he does what he is doing.. we throw out.   If we throw out light and truth it has to be a step backwards...   To expand and advance... it would have to be that is all still true... here is more to help you make sense of it.... Like how the doctrine of Heaven and Hell still exist and work... and the Three Degrees of Glory add to it and clarify it.  Is this possible with Homosexuality?  Maybe.. I can't see it..  But that would be expected both if it is not true, or if God has not reveled it yet.

[clbent04]

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Then it seems like people have some work ahead of them...  future safety is going to be found in having solid grasp of the fundamental of the gospel.. Not in debating the actions the church took 100 years ago.. 60 years ago... or even yesterday.

If you don't understand how society shapes the Church, and you incorrectly assume the Church is uninfluenced by society, there's your problem.  An obvious correlation exists with the trends of society and what positions the Church takes. The sooner that's accepted, the less chance of having it blindside you later on. 

And more importantly, figuring out the "why" can help save your testimony if you're bothered by Church leadership being influenced by society. 

PS - @estradling75 when you gonna revert back to happy Care Bear? I remember the day you changed to grumpy Care Bear.  Sad day for all of us. Happy Care Bear making a comeback any time soon?

Edited August 25, 2021 by clbent04

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If you don't understand how society shapes the Church, and you incorrectly assume the Church is uninfluenced by society, there's your problem.  An obvious correlation exists with the trends of society and what positions the Church takes. The sooner that's accepted, the less chance of having it blindside you later on. 

I think maybe you're missing what's being meant by "fundamentals".

[clbent04]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think maybe you're missing what's being meant by "fundamentals".

The fundamentals, the core gospel, ancillary issues to the gospel, church culture... I'm questioning how all of it can be influenced by society.  If what we previously thought to be impenetrable from societal influence all of a sudden becomes subject to it, where does that leave us with our testimonies?

Edited August 25, 2021 by clbent04

[Fether]

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 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, clbent04 said:

The fundamentals, the core gospel, ancillary issues to the gospel, church culture... I'm questioning how all of it can be influenced by society.  If what we previous thought to be impenetrable from societal influence all of a sudden becomes subject to it, where does that leave us with our testimonies?

When we speak of fundamentals we mean eternal truths. An eternal truth isn't an eternal truth if it isn't eternal and can be altered by societal trends.

So which fundamental truth (I'd say "core gospel" is the same thing) has been altered by societal influences? We can speak in theoreticals all day, right? But let's get specific if you want to. What core fundamental gospel truth has ever changed because of the way society views things?

[estradling75]

48 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If you don't understand how society shapes the Church, and you incorrectly assume the Church is uninfluenced by society, there's your problem.  An obvious correlation exists with the trends of society and what positions the Church takes. The sooner that's accepted, the less chance of having it blindside you later on. 

And more importantly, figuring out the "why" can help save your testimony if you're bothered by Church leadership being influenced by society. 

PS - @estradling75 when you gonna revert back to happy Care Bear? I remember the day you changed to grumpy Care Bear.  Sad day for all of us. Happy Care Bear making a comeback any time soon?

And if you do not understand how the church is not the gospel Jesus Christ.. but a modern framework delivery of the gospel then you will always have issues.

When you can stop conflating the Church with the Gospel then things get a lot clearer..

PS... NOPE

[clbent04]

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When we speak of fundamentals we mean eternal truths. An eternal truth isn't an eternal truth if it isn't eternal and can be altered by societal trends.

So which fundamental truth (I'd say "core gospel" is the same thing) has been altered by societal influences? We can speak in theoreticals all day, right? But let's get specific if you want to. What core fundamental gospel truth has ever changed because of the way society views things?

In the sense of eternal truths, nothing has changed at all.  Our levels of obedience are what changes, and God's Church sometimes has to pivot to help us better digest and learn obedience to God's eternal truths.

Edited August 25, 2021 by clbent04

[clbent04]

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

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

Medical treatments have been known to be dangerous trends. 

[estradling75]

Just now, clbent04 said:

Medical treatments have been known to be dangerous trends. 

True...  but there is a huge gulf between...

Trying to help some one.. and doing what believed to be the right thing... and getting it wrong..

And 'I am going to do something life threateningly stupid'... because it is popular.

[clbent04]

Just now, estradling75 said:

True...  but there is a huge gulf between...

Trying to help some one.. and doing what believed to be the right thing... and getting it wrong..

And 'I am going to do something life threateningly stupid'... because it is popular.

Mankind has proven ignorant with what we claim to know.  It's sometimes hard to see where that dividing line is between trying to do the right thing and doing something life-threateningly stupid, although history shows we are getting better.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, clbent04 said:

Mankind has proven ignorant with what we claim to know.  It's sometimes hard to see where that dividing line is between trying to do the right thing and doing something life-threateningly stupid, although history shows we are getting better.

True...  but our intentions also matter...

Here is an example...  Someone gets cut open... has their ribs cracked and separated... and then their internal plumbing rearranged.   
Did I just describe the next serial killer that @mirkwood will post a Halloween picture of?... Or did I just describe my neighbors triple bypass?

And 60 years from now will our triple bypass operations, seem as crude and horrific as attaching electrodes to someones genitals are to us now?

 

[clwnuke]

There continues to be a modern day debate as the whether it is even ethical to search for a medical cause of homosexuality or other related conditions. The concern is that if a "cause" is discovered, then potential "cures" could become available and present several ethical quandaries for parents, teens, and adults.  It's not entirely clear that even if a "pill" or "cure" to change homosexual desire to heterosexual desire existed whether people would use it.

In the meantime, we can show love and respect for everyone we interact with.

[Fether]

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?

[MrShorty]

58 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That would depend on how much of the Proclamation of the Family and our understanding of what God is and why he does what he is doing.. we throw out. 

As a lifelong, active member of the Church, as long as I can remember the Church had an emphasis on seeking Truth (with a capital T). I think you are right, that condoning SSM would require some rethinking about what is in the Proclamation on the Family and what we believe about the nature and purposes of God. The only reason I can see to assume that this process must be a step backward is to assume some kind inerrancy to the document or our understanding.

I hope that, in our quest for truth, if we find things in our understanding of God or the Proclamation on the Family that are not True, we would discard those things. If/when we find new Truth that overrides our previous understanding, we would be willing to adopt it. Moving forward, to me, means discarding old, False ideas and replacing them with new, True ideas. I think that's what would make this a forward moving venture. Of course, the difficulty with this is always trying to discern Truth from Error.

[clwnuke]

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

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?

Kinda like re-creating a bunch of modern-day hedges around the law??