SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints raised objections to a proposed rule that would ban conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah.

https://fox13now.com/2019/10/15/lds-church-raises-objections-to-proposed-rule-banning-conversion-therapy-on-lgbtq-children-in-utah/?fbclid=IwAR1hddgVHI_AK6emZFcmIV1jXspove5CygAtdaBPVyzYhiZHzVgV-jSipLk

Here's a Google revealed definition:

"Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological or spiritual interventions."

Notice that word, 'pseudoscientific' in the first line?

And from my perspective, this 'conversion therapy' relies on:

"Aversion Therapy: a type of behavior therapy designed to make a patient give up an undesirable habit by causing them to associate it with an unpleasant effect." And from the reading I've done, burn lesions to delicate skin are an unpleasant effect.


It's a wonder some mormon quack hasn't started a conversion therapy practice based on hypnosis. It worked in Office Space!

I know, I know... putting mormon AND quack in the same sentence...

"Aversion therapy" - isn't that like old-fashioned spankings?

I can remember my father blistering my backside, and telling me, "Don't ever let me catch you doing (whatever) again!"

I took him at his word. I got very sneaky, and he didn't catch me very often.

The main thing he hated was the incessant bickering between me and my mother. She was a very difficult, bossy person, and it was probably from her that I learned to be very resistant to authority figures. If there was any way to stall, avoid, hide, evade, or passive-aggressively resist an order she gave me, I did it. Poor guy. He died YEARS before our bickering ended.

The difference between spanking and aversion therapy is two-fold: the punishment is delivered during the activity and it is engineered by the punisher. It would be like a child's parent stimulating him/her sexually and then punishing the physical response.

It is difficult to imagine anything more psychologically destructive to the person going through the "therapy."

Why are the upper ranks of Mormon leadership occupied by sociopaths? What is it about Mormonism that produces sociopaths? Maybe I’d rather not know.

My thoughts: it doesn't produce them so much as it attracts and promotes them. They are usually the strongest supporters of the leadership structure, and so the leadership structure welcomes them into their ranks, and the institution then calcifies itself. Then anybody who has alternative suggestions are shoved out into the cold.

Many Mormons, including Oaks, have this notion that children who "suffer from same sex attraction" just need an authority figure, like Oaks, to tell them what to be.
What baloney!

"Suffer" from being who one really is?

Suffering is being forced to be who one is not, and not being accepted for who one is.

Conversion therapy leads to more suicides

Facts are Mormon “fake news”.

They're all into fake stuff. Imaginary BoM, revered charlatan, the idea that you can beat attraction into someone's mind is right up their alley.

I cannot help think that people creating this “therapy” or “conversion” have watched A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut a few too many times.

Or they DIDN'T watch Clockwork Orange and hence haven't thought through the moral dilemmas.

...Droogs?...........same as SCMC???????

I seem to remember a post about a psychologist, Dr. Robert Card in SLC being a leading proponent of conversion therapy. He is from Lethbridge and was an uber Mormon and humorless prick when I knew him.

This just blows my mind how any member could think conversion therapy is ok when other people are trying to ban it.

It's the ambiguities in the bill that the Church questions. "For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children,” the Church’s statement said."

So the real problem is deciding if children should be steered towards a gender. There is a whole movement right now that is trying to erase that, and create a gender neutral society. They are lobbying for creating a whole new language almost as complicated and silly as the one Brigham Young tried to invent. They let males children as young toddlers to wear dresses, and they aren't explaining to their kids the different way humans differ. From the research I've done in this area it looks like it's spear headed from the radical feminist and lesbian camp. They want to tear down the patriarchy, elevate the weaker sex, but in the attempt to do so they are creating a system that wont protect women. They aren't acknowledging that women have certain frailties men don't.

watch this video made by some of these feminists. Hear it from their own mouths. Good morning Britain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1pW6r9kjiw

Calm down and realize that gender is just what society thinks is appropriate costuming and role playing depending on biological sex. Gender is nothing more than clothing and what activities you are allowed to participate in. For instance, boy people can absolutely never wear a pink polo shirt or dance ballet, because those are girl colors/activities. That's just dumb. Because ballet needs boy dancers, too, and why can't you wear the color you want? Or a skirt for that matter? Kilts look pretty great on boys. As a lesbian feminist, I must have missed the meeting about the erasing gender movement. But you're a stunning example of the problems of the patriarchy. As for me being the weaker sex and my frailties, you can take a long walk off a short pier.

If masculinity is that all-important and intensely ingrained biologically, I'm pretty sure it can handle a male toddler choosing to wear a dress if he wants. I never understand these arguments. So on one hand, gender roles are extremely important, biologically determined, and set in stone from birth, and denying that is a complicated lie.

Yet these fundamental biological realities can't survive a little boy saying "I want to wear a dress like my sister" and parents not saying no?

Nonsense.

I truly find this argument so confusing. No, I don't agree with allowing kids to medically transition. But people on the super-right side of this equation don't realize how much they're reifying exactly what they're claiming to hate.

If you tell me "Most women, barring any sort of genetic abnormalities or anomalies, have vaginas, ovaries and uteruses. Most men, barring genetic abnormalities and anomalies, have penises and testicles. Statistically, they tend to be less physically strong than men. Statistically, girls also tend to get slightly better grades than boys across all subjects, an overall trend that continues in college. Men are likelier to commit suicide, while women are likelier to be diagnosed with depression over the course of their lifetimes. Men tend to speak less than women in an average day and to have a slightly higher sex drive. Women are somewhat likelier to be bisexual and to have more taboo sexual fantasies."

OK, cool. Great. Data-based trends. Not true for everyone. True on average. Helpful, useful info in terms of public health and our GENERAL understanding of what we're likely to encounter in everyday life.

But if you start telling me that baby boys are born preferring blue teddy bears and football onesies to nightgowns with pink bunnies on them, or that men inherently love flannel shirts and women just naturally gravitate to high heels, that is CLEARLY cultural. (Look no further than the gender-neutral baby gowns in the past and the fact that men wore heels first, that pink and blue used to be switched in terms of gender associations, and that football didn't even always exist.) Nothing wrong with cultural norms. But to conflate culture and biology is pure fantasy. It's no different from suggesting that "gender neutrality" is a thing and that gender difference doesn't exist. These are costumes, trends, things we do because we belong to a 'tribe' of sorts.

And it sure as heck starts confusing people. Let's say you're a boy and you hate sports and love painting or reading quietly. Let's say your favorite book has a female heroine. Or a girl who has no issues with or confusion about her gender identity enjoys building things and reading about sharks and hunting and isn't interested in makeup or fashion. If you aggressively drill it into them that sharks and hunting= boy and dresses and makeup = girls, won't it cause gender confusion that doesn't need to exist? I would be incredibly confused if I was a boy today who simply felt like wearing a skirt because my sister did and my parents angrily refused because that was for GIRLS, or a girl who enjoyed watching or playing sports and people judged me because that was for BOYS. If you're afraid of kids getting confused and transitioning unnecessarily, well, that sure will cause it.

Gender difference DOES exist. And it's so biologically driven that an outfit or a choice of hobby can't change it nearly as easily as conservatives are claiming.

over 30 years (well, he was gone 9), I KNOW without a doubt that he will never be straight and, as I've said before, if he became straight, he would not be the unique (yet difficult) person that he is. He would disappear. He is GAY, plain and simple. And I KNOW IT. If there is anything I know for a fact in life, it is that.

I raised boy/girl twins. My son got jealous of the pretty colors my daughter had in clothes and coats. He loved her dresses that he could twirl in like she did and I let him. I made sure I found coats that were brighter colors so that he didn't feel like he always had to wear "boy" colors--like light blue, etc. Just because he liked light colors doesn't mean a damn thing. Then he went to only black in middle school and high school. P.S. He isn't gay.

Conversion therapy is evil. Pure evil.

My "husband" knew at a very young age that he is gay.

I hope the church gets sued for using conversion therapy. I have watched a YouTube video of a male describing what cruel things they did to him at BYU!

to have this done. It should be illegal.

It should be illegal. Like trying to change someone's gender against their innate identity. We are all so different and sexuality and gender are so not black and white.

Remember, when it comes to the aversion therapy that the Y tried back in the 70s, they had the complete cooperation of the 'patients', as in, "If you don't comply, we'll kick you out of school, send you home a failure and the consequences will reverberate till the end of time! So, no pressure; you've got 30 seconds to decide!"

And when they decided to comply, they first had to sign a number of releases, confessions, acknowledgments, and pinky-swears. The people conducting these torture sessions made sure that neither they nor the church could be sued. That's how ghawd rolls.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's
> how ghawd rolls.

He is a judge who was probably a corporate lawyer in his mortal existence.

> He is a judge who was
> probably a corporate
> lawyer in his mortal
> existence.

Wow! You're calling ghawd soulless!!!

Nope. God has a Corporate Sole.

Trying to control someone's sexuality with conformity doesn't seem like a bad idea to religious people?

Whatever happened to leaving well enough alone and letting their gods sort it out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A8HRqQ4NgY

He was 15 years old and the church went behind his parents back and made him sign release forms at 0506 minutes into the video.

Parents and churches are not allowed to hit minors, harm them physically, or sexually assault them, or withhold medicine, etc. These parents or churches can go to jail, or face heavy fines and pay millions in damages from lawsuits.

However, Parents and churches have for the most part always been legally allowed to screw over a child or youth's mind: Damage their self esteem, make them feel worthless, punish them for being themselves, and even sign them up for some "free electricity" or heavy duty conversion therapy administered by who knows who. This way the bruises are on the inside. This way the kids kill themselves and everyone can say they feel bad and claim they have no idea why.

The laws are necessary to protect the whole child, not just their flesh, bones, and private parts.

Guilt is a tool the Mormon church can't afford to stop using. They have already lost too much. They will hang on like junk yard dog with a bone.

In mediaval times they did it by way of "the inquisition"