This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced opposition to current version of a Utah legislative bill which is intended to ban ‘conversion therapy’ for sexual orientation. The church did not oppose a ban on conversion therapy itself, but said the bill’s wording is “ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others.” The church implied that efforts should continue to prevent “any abusive professional practice or treatment,” just in an appropriate way.
Unfortunately, the media has pounced on the church’s announcement to falsely make it appear as if the church is against a ban on conversion therapy altogether.
- “Mormon church strikes blow against Utah ban on conversion therapy,” headlined The Guardian.
- “Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban,” proclaimed the Associated Press.
But the momentum of misleading news got started with The Salt Lake Tribune yesterday:
- “LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’”
Misrepresents Church’s Concern – It’s not a flat-out lie. But it is a deceptive strawman portrayal, because the church is not preventing a conversion therapy ban. The article begins with further deception in the very first sentence: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Tuesday opposed a proposed rule that would ban Utah-licensed mental health professionals from using conversion therapy — such as trying to turn a gay child straight or alter a minor’s gender identity.” False. A ban on trying to turn a gay child straight was not something the church opposed. That was not mentioned anywhere in the church’s explanation of what should be changed.
The Salt Lake Tribune quoted the executive director of Equality Utah with a misleading statement about the bill: “The proposed rule would do nothing more than protect LGBTQ children from conversion therapy.” We are left to assume the church therefore opposes protection for children from harmful conversion therapy. But that is not the issue the church said it was concerned about, and that is not the issue opponents of the bill tell me they are concerned about.
Misrepresents Support For Bill– The church isn’t alone in concerns. Deseret News back in May reported that Utah was going ahead with a version of the bill that original advocates for a conversion therapy ban don’t even support. Oh, but now The Salt Lake Tribune claims advocates “built a coalition of mental health representatives and nonprofit leaders, negotiated a ban that the LDS Church could live with and enlisted two GOP lawmakers to sponsor the legislation in the Republican-dominated Legislature.” That the LDS Church could live with? The SLTrib’s mind-reading and seething hatred for the church is evident in that editorial bit, isn’t it? It’s just something we “could live with” now? That’s ridiculous. “But the plans fell apart after a coordinated attack by right-wing groups,” continues The Salt Lake Tribune. Really? No, sorry. The Salt Lake Tribune’s rosy picture of evil right-wingers versus brave advocates simply isn’t true. The bill has been revised over and over and a lot of people have concerns about it, not just right-wingers.
Concern It May Ban Therapists From Addressing Child Abuse – A source educated and trained in psychology (not associated with the church) tells me his concern is likewise not with a ban on conversion therapy itself but the way this bill defines conversion therapy. HB 399 defines conversion therapy as any treatment that changes “the patient or client’s sexual orientation.” That’s pretty broad. Does that mean any speech that might affect a person’s sexual orientation is banned? Well, this definition excludes assistance for gender transition and exploring the patient’s “assumptions and goals by permitting a patient or client to decide how to self-identify and live out” sexual identity. But then, provision #4 is where the real concern comes into play: This definition excludes “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient or client’s sexual orientation identity and gender identity, without an a priori treatment goal.” They cannot have an a priori treatment goal? What does that mean? The legal definition for a priori is: “reasoning that examines given general principles to discover what particular facts or real-life observations can be derived from them. Another name for this method is deductive reasoning.” The concern is that this bans health professionals from making any deductive exploration or reference to issues involved in sexual identity. The concern is that this might prevent addressing child abuse and any other issues that might be involved.
This isn’t specified as one of the church’s concerns, though it may be one of the “important realities” that the proposed rule does not allow for. The church said: “We teach the right of individuals to self-determination and the right of parents to guide the development of their children. We also believe faith-based perspectives have an important and ethically appropriate role in professional counseling. As detailed in the comments submitted by Family Services, the Church is concerned that the proposed professional licensing rule is ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others. For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children.”
Some media outlets are deceptively claiming the church initially supported the bill and then flip-flopped against it. The truth is the bill has been revised since that initial support.
Associates The Church With ‘Right-Wing’ Attackers – In the opening paragraphs of The Salt Lake Tribune article they quote the church’s statement. But they clip out the sentence that identified the church’s concerns: protection of religious belief and realities of gender identity in children. They then paste it later in the article’s section about why “right-wingers” are “attacking” the bill.
“But the plans fell apart after a coordinated attack by right-wing groups contending that the bill would have silenced therapists. With the legislative approach hitting a wall, Herbert asked state regulators to step in by crafting rules based on peer-reviewed scientific research. In its news release Tuesday, the church stated that the proposed rule ‘fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children.’”
The Salt Lake Tribune 10/15/19
This is an incredibly vague portrayal of the reasons for opposing the bill. “Would have silenced therapists.” Why didn’t The Salt Lake Tribune specifically say how the bill might silence therapists and why people find that important? It ignores people’s actual reasons for opposing the bill as it is written. Why didn’t The Salt Lake Tribune say specifically who is opposing the bill instead of just dismissing them all as right-wingers? But notice how this article associates the church with the “coordinated right-wing groups contending” apparently behind it all. This kind of deceptive journalism is what breeds Antimormon bigoted conspiracy theories.
Offensive Labeling Of The Church – As The Salt Lake Tribune insists on doing, it continues to use offensive labeling for the church. It uses “LDS Church” in its headline, contrary to what Latter-day Saints have asked the media to use. The Salt Lake Tribune’s continued use of pejoratives for the church and members of the church illustrate the bias and uprofessional nature of its writing.