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

[Jeff Lebowski]

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

I think you are wrong on both counts. See page 7.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist...e-Act-Rule.pdf

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think you are wrong on both counts. See page 7.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist...e-Act-Rule.pdf

I read the whole thing. Reading it reinforced my belief this is mostly about gender identify and the LDS church wanting to continue therapeutic practices to alter gender identity.

I had read page 7 and it isn't persuasive, IMO.

A 12-year-old boy with same-sex attractions confides in a therapist that he is spending
many hours a day looking at homosexual pornography. The boy explains that this is
inconsistent with his values and that it makes him feel ashamed and depressed. He seeks
counseling to assist in eliminating this behavior.

The rule wouldn't prohibit therapy directed at assisting him with his stated go to avoid looking at homosexual pornography. I don't think the rule applies to it, and if it did it easily fits into the safe harbor provision. I disagree this is prohibited in any way. Also, it is shame LDSFS didn't take the lead from Nelson and avoid using a term that the community finds offense. It isn't same sex attractive, it is gay or homosexual.

A 17-year-old girl with attractions to both males and females confides to a therapist that
she is forming intense emotional attachments with girls of the same age. She says these
relationships often include some degree of physical involvement, such as hand holding,
cuddling, and kissing. She explains that these behaviors are contrary to her faith and
values, that they make her feel depressed and confused, and that she is deeply concerned
that these behaviors will prevent her from remaining active and faithful in her chosen
faith community, something she explains is central to her personal identity. She seeks
counseling to assist her in changing behaviors related to her attractions

I don't see how this is prohibited from the rule falls under the safe harbor provision, as long as the therapist is not trying to force a change of sexual orientation. I see this as reducing internalized stigma and falling under facilitating coping, and social support.

A 16-year-old boy with same-sex attractions openly identifies as gay and is also deeply
religious. His faith teaches him that it is God's will that sexual relations occur only
within a traditional male-female marriage. He is uncertain how he will ultimately
reconcile his sexual orientation with his religious beliefs. His stated goal is to delay
making a decision about same-sex intimacy until he is an adult and graduated from high
school. He seeks counseling during his high school years to help him reduce the intensity
of his sexual desires by prioritizing other aspects of his identity, including his religious
identity, so that he can abstain from sex at least until he is an adult and has completed
high school.

Again, I see this under the safe harbor provision. Oh and the church is really running with this "religious identity" is equal to or greater than sexual orientation theme. Religion is a choose. Sexual orientation isn't.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I read the whole thing. Reading it reinforced my belief this is mostly about gender identify and the LDS church wanting to continue therapeutic practices to alter gender identity.

I had read page 7 and it isn't persuasive, IMO.



The rule wouldn't prohibit therapy directed at assisting him with his stated go to avoid looking at homosexual pornography. I don't think the rule applies to it, and if it did it easily fits into the safe harbor provision. I disagree this is prohibited in any way. Also, it is shame LDSFS didn't take the lead from Nelson and avoid using a term that the community finds offense. It isn't same sex attractive, it is gay or homosexual.



I don't see how this is prohibited from the rule falls under the safe harbor provision, as long as the therapist is not trying to force a change of sexual orientation. I see this as reducing internalized stigma and falling under facilitating coping, and social support.



Again, I see this under the safe harbor provision. Oh and the church is really running with this "religious identity" is equal to or greater than sexual orientation theme. Religion is a choose. Sexual orientation isn't.

It seems that the crux of the matter is what fits under the safe harbor clause and what doesn't. Seems perfectly reasonable to request to have the legislation modified to ensure there is no ambiguity in these cases.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It seems that the crux of the matter is what fits under the safe harbor clause and what doesn't. Seems perfectly reasonable to request to have the legislation modified to ensure there is no ambiguity in these cases.

Except what will happen with our legislature is there will end up being an overly broad religious exception built into the rule. I have no faith in the Utah's legislature's ability to craft this language in a manner that doesn't leave open avenues for discredited therapy practices.

The safe harbor provision is already extremely broad.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Except what will happen with our legislature is there will end up being an overly broad religious exception built into the rule. I have no faith in the Utah's legislature's ability to craft this language in a manner that doesn't leave open avenues for discredited therapy practices.

The safe harbor provision is already extremely broad.

Now you are just retreating to your biases.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Now you are just retreating to your biases.

Oh brother. You are right, this isn't worth it.

[UVACoug]

I read the whole thing. Reading it reinforced my belief this is mostly about gender identify and the LDS church wanting to continue therapeutic practices to alter gender identity.

I had read page 7 and it isn't persuasive, IMO.



The rule wouldn't prohibit therapy directed at assisting him with his stated go to avoid looking at homosexual pornography. I don't think the rule applies to it, and if it did it easily fits into the safe harbor provision. I disagree this is prohibited in any way. Also, it is shame LDSFS didn't take the lead from Nelson and avoid using a term that the community finds offense. It isn't same sex attractive, it is gay or homosexual.



I don't see how this is prohibited from the rule falls under the safe harbor provision, as long as the therapist is not trying to force a change of sexual orientation. I see this as reducing internalized stigma and falling under facilitating coping, and social support.



Again, I see this under the safe harbor provision. Oh and the church is really running with this "religious identity" is equal to or greater than sexual orientation theme. Religion is a choose. Sexual orientation isn't.

I am a member of the "community" and don't find it offensive at all. By the way, many in the "community" now also claim the term "homosexual" is offensive. Keep it to gay, lesbian, or queer.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

I keep seeing you claim that the rule does not prohibit this type of treatment, but you have yet to address the actual language of the rule. I would be really interested in how you are reconciling the language, which clearly prohibits any therapy targeting behavior modification, with your claims.

[creekster]

Oh brother. You are right, this isn't worth it.

Funk, you are getting your butt kicked. Either put up an analysis of the rule's language that refutes the position laid out rather plainly but UVA or stop talking about it. Your deep and abiding feeling about what the rule means or intends or how you would like to see it enforced is neither useful nor persuasive.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk, you are getting your butt kicked. Either put up an analysis of the rule's language that refutes the position laid out rather plainly but UVA or stop talking about it. Your deep and abiding feeling about what the rule means or intends or how you would like to see it enforced is neither useful nor persuasive.

I cited specific text of the safe harbor rule that applied to the the examples, but okay.

[beefytee]

Finally got my answer about camping:

Where circumstances allow, young men may hold one multiday camp per year . Typically, camps last no longer than five days, should not be held on the Sabbath, and are generally not held on a Monday.

In addition, three to six other overnight activities are encouraged, if circumstances permit

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...s-how?lang=eng


So it is a bit more than a multiday summer camp and a winter camp, but less than they scout's monthly outdoor activity.

[falafel]

...

[Walter Sobchak]

Love the new growth mindset based goal program for the YM/YW. Not a fan of the songs.

90 min fake town hall presentation was far too lengthy. Very cringey in parts.

[LVAllen]

Loved the pocket square rocked by the Ammon kid who said the opening prayer. The rest was meh.

[falafel]

Love the new growth mindset based goal program for the YM/YW. Not a fan of the songs.

90 min fake town hall presentation was far too lengthy. Very cringey in parts.

At least Dylan and I can still be counselors. *fist bump*

[Uncle Ted]

Love the new growth mindset based goal program for the YM/YW. Not a fan of the songs.

90 min fake town hall presentation was far too lengthy. Very cringey in parts.

Saying it was "face-to-face" should have been the first clue.

Yeah, the boys in my ward have already figured out how to game this thing... I overheard them saying they just need to pick easy goals so they can quickly get back to disorganized basketball or whatever.

BTW, it is no longer the YM's anymore so quit calling it that. It is "Aaronic Priesthood". They still have something over the YW even though they made the budgets the same and want to make sure everyone knows it. Take that you TCOJCOFLDS Femanazis!