"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[UVACoug]

I think that both of these would allow a therapist to assist the person with bringing their behavior in alignment with their religious beliefs, as long as the therapist does not present it as a means to change sexual orientation.

The term "sexual orientation" in the rule is defined to include behavior relating to sexual orientation. It is literally impossible, under the plain language of the rule, to conduct any kind of therapy intending to modify behavior relating to one's sexual orientation without being deemed to have the goal of changing sexual orientation, which is explicitly prohibited regardless of the stated exceptions. If the rule is implemented, the only type of therapy that would be legally permitted is therapy that affirms, or at least doesn't try to change, a patient's current behavior.

The bill that was almost passed last session dealt with these kinds of problems, so it's not that they are impossible to address. If the rule passes, the legislature will almost certainly override it with a new statute ... which I am beginning to believe is what the regulators and proponents of this rule actually want. Then they can paint the legislature as the bad guys again.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The term "sexual orientation" in the rule is defined to include behavior relating to sexual orientation. It is literally impossible, under the plain language of the rule, to conduct any kind of therapy intending to modify behavior relating to one's sexual orientation without being deemed to have the goal of changing sexual orientation, which is explicitly prohibited regardless of the stated exceptions. If the rule is implemented, the only type of therapy that would be legally permitted is therapy that affirms, or at least doesn't try to change, a patient's current behavior.

The bill that was almost passed last session dealt with these kinds of problems, so it's not that they are impossible to address. If the rule passes, the legislature will almost certainly override it with a new statute ... which I am beginning to believe is what the regulators and proponents of this rule actually want. Then they can paint the legislature as the bad guys again.

That bill was gutted so much that it became worthless and the sponsor pulled it

[MartyFunkhouser]

The term "sexual orientation" in the rule is defined to include behavior relating to sexual orientation. It is literally impossible, under the plain language of the rule, to conduct any kind of therapy intending to modify behavior relating to one's sexual orientation without being deemed to have the goal of changing sexual orientation, which is explicitly prohibited regardless of the stated exceptions. If the rule is implemented, the only type of therapy that would be legally permitted is therapy that affirms, or at least doesn't try to change, a patient's current behavior.

The bill that was almost passed last session dealt with these kinds of problems, so it's not that they are impossible to address. If the rule passes, the legislature will almost certainly override it with a new statute ... which I am beginning to believe is what the regulators and proponents of this rule actually want. Then they can paint the legislature as the bad guys again.

I think you have to include behavior. Otherwise, the therapy will focus on changing the behavior of being attracted to the same sex/gender. I don't see anyone reasonably interpreting it as if the individual says her or she doesn't want to have sex that the therapist is prohibited from providing support in that goal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you have to include behavior. Otherwise, the therapy will focus on changing the behavior of being attracted to the same sex/gender. I don't see anyone reasonably interpreting it as if the individual says her or she doesn't want to have sex that the therapist is prohibited from providing support in that goal.

This bill is aimed at minors right? So we are going to prohibit therapists from telling minors not to have sex? That is ridiculous.

[UVACoug]

I think you have to include behavior. Otherwise, the therapy will focus on changing the behavior of being attracted to the same sex/gender. I don't see anyone reasonably interpreting it as if the individual says her or she doesn't want to have sex that the therapist is prohibited from providing support in that goal.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The term "behavior" implies a volition (i.e., chosen) act. Even the Church agrees that attraction is not volitional at this point.

With that said, I don't disagree that there may be some kinds of behavioral modification therapies that are not healthy and should be discouraged, if not outright banned, although nothing specific comes to mind right now. A blanket ban on all therapies targeted at a minor patient's sexual behavior, though, goes way too far in my opinion.

I don't see how a reasonable person could not interpret the plain language of the rule not to constitute a blanket ban on all therapies targeted at modifying sexual behavior. I agree that most reasonable people would not want to enforce such a ban to its full extent, but I don't think the concern is with what reasonable people will do with the rule. The concern (at least my concern) is that unreasonable people, who might have the goal of attacking or embarrassing conservative therapists (including, obviously, those employed by the Church), would use the rule to challenge a therapist's license or as grounds for a malpractice lawsuit.

[MartyFunkhouser]

This bill is aimed at minors right? So we are going to prohibit therapists from telling minors not to have sex? That is ridiculous.

Of course not, nor does the rule do that

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course not, nor does the rule do that

How does that not fall under the category of behavior?

[frank ryan]

This bill is aimed at minors right? So we are going to prohibit therapists from telling minors not to have sex? That is ridiculous.

A small but important distinction, therapists shouldn't be telling people not to have sex, but they should be supporting their client in being celibate if that is their goal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A small but important distinction, therapists shouldn't be telling people not to have sex, but they should be supporting their client in being celibate if that is their goal.

Their "goal"? We are talking about **MINORS**.

So you are saying that an LDS therapist (for example at LDS family services) should be prohibited by law from encouraging a minor not to engage in sex? If that is the outcome of this proposed law, then the church is 100% right to oppose it.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Their "goal"? We are talking about **MINORS**.

So you are saying that an LDS therapist (for example at LDS family services) should be prohibited by law from encouraging a minor not to engage in sex? If that is the outcome of this proposed law, then the church is 100% right to oppose it.

That is not the outcome of the law and not why the church is opposing it.

[frank ryan]

Their "goal"? We are talking about **MINORS**.

So you are saying that an LDS therapist (for example at LDS family services) should be prohibited by law from encouraging a minor not to engage in sex? If that is the outcome of this proposed law, then the church is 100% right to oppose it.

Good lord man. Slow down. I think you are assuming the worst about what I posted, because that isn't what I meant. In general, therapists shouldn't go around "telling people" what to do. The client's autonomy is important. Also, encouraging is a much much better word than telling. "Telling people" what to do isn't therapy, it's antithetical to it.

[myboynoah]

Latest communication from HQ is to limit Dec 22 meetings to Sac Mtg and focus on the birth, life, and mission of Jesus Christ.

Seems like a no-brainer, but sadly, I guess in some things we do need to be commanded in all things.

[BigPiney]

Latest communication from HQ is to limit Dec 22 meetings to Sac Mtg and focus on the birth, life, and mission of Jesus Christ.

Seems like a no-brainer, but sadly, I guess in some things we do need to be commanded in all things.

Well, it is the day before Joseph Smith's birthday.

[myboynoah]

Well, it is the day before Joseph Smith's birthday.

lol

[MartyFunkhouser]

Well, it is the day before Joseph Smith's birthday.

Praise to the Man.