Talk:Bruce C. Hafen

Request to edit
(Note: I sent a message similar to this to one of the previous editors of this article but later realized I should have just posted it here.)

I have been asked by Mr. Hafen to revise his Wiki biography. Although this is my first foray into Wikipedia, I'm assuming that making this revision without discussing it with recent editors would be only temporarily successful and probably bad etiquette. I'd like to avoid an edit war and associated unpleasantries. Mr. Hafen's main concern is that the last two sentences (pasted from the Salt Lake Tribune) lack context. He does not deny what he is quoted as saying but would like to add more text from the online transcript of his address. He would also like to add a couple of sentences about his background, publishing, and speaking experience in family law and education law.

What is the most productive way to proceed? Would you like me to include here a draft of the text I was considering adding to the page? (It still includes "it's not in your DNA" and the part about the APA's decision, but more text from Mr. Hafen's address has been added.) Please advise.

I recognize that I have a potential conflict of interest but would like to do as much as I can within those parameters. CedricMalone (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps the starting place would be for the subject to read Autobiography. I realize that some of the points are not directly applicable since he has asked you to do the editing and he is not you, but I think some of the points are significant to note. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the Tribune article and the material here appears to be a correct and fair summary of its contents. I reworded the last sentence to avoid plagiarism/copying. As for using excerpts of the original address, that's a tricky issue. The transcript would be "primary source", and such sources should only be used carefully. See WP:PSTS. Before we use the transcript, perhaps there's another solution - has Hafern written to the Tribune asking for a correction?   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that this is the transcript in question: http://www.evergreeninternational.org/2009-Elder%20Bruce-C-Hafen-Evergreen-International-Conference.pdf   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your feedback. I don't think he has written to the Tribune to request a clarification or correction. My sense is that he doesn't think he would have any success doing that. And after this amount of time, I don't think he would be successful getting them to change anything from the article. (I have only been exchanging e-mails with him, so that is why I'm saying "I think.") Regarding the transcript, I think the Evergreen transcript is likely to be accurate, but his preference would be to cite the transcript from this source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction


 * I was thinking I would post the proposed revision here and get feedback from you and others before trying to publish it in the live article. What do you think? CedricMalone (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * CedricMalone, I'm unclear exactly what you are proposing be changed, but please read WP:PSTS. Basically, secondary sources (such as the Tribune) are preferred, primary sources can be used to flesh it out. But obviously it's important to maintain a neutral point of view on articles, meaning both sides of the story should be shared given reliable sources. It appears you are trying to respect these issues. If the changes are very complicated, one step would be to be bold and just make the changes to the article. If they are completely out of line, they'll get reverted and we can discuss it further. But since you want to make changes to many parts of the article (Hafen's background, the speech, etc), it might be hard to propose it here on the talk page. tedder (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't suggest uploading an entire re-write to the article, but posting it here wouldn't be a problem. It's unlikely that we'd be able to use it verbatim, so it'd be better to raise the issues here individually.   Will Beback    talk    03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed paragraphs
Please see "Option 1" and "Option 2" below. Now that I have read the Wiki guidelines suggested to me here and in other places, I can see that option 1 might not fly. I would like your feedback.

Current: (to be replaced) Hafen denies that there is a biological link to sexual orientation, stating that same-sex attraction is "not in your DNA". He says that the American Psychological Association was politically motivated to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

Option 1: As a Professor of Law at BYU from 1973-1996, his teaching and research focused on family law and education law, with particular interests in the legal rights of children and in the legal status of marriage. A sample of his scholarly articles includes publications in the Harvard Law Review, Harvard International Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Ohio State Law Journal, and the American Bar Association Journal. Two of his articles were cited in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been an invited speaker at professional conferences on family, education, and constitutional law in a variety of international and domestic locations.

In a 2009 speech in Utah, Hafen spoke to Evergreen International, a support group for people who desire to overcome their own same-gender attraction. A portion of his remarks summarized “the secular case against same-gender marriage.” He cited the 2006 decision of the French parliament rejecting gay marriage so that children “do not suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults. The interest of the child must outweigh the exercise of freedom by adults, whatever life choices are made by the parents.” He also stated that same-sex attraction is “not in your DNA,” observing that while “inherited susceptibilities” and “natural personality traits do influence one’s inclinations” toward same-gender attraction, the “idea that there is a ‘gay gene’” that determines gender attraction “has little scientific support.”  He stated that the gay rights movement represents “an aggressive political movement” more than it represents “substantive change in the medical or legal evidence.”  For example, he said, the decision of the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 came from “putting the issue to an open vote in their professional meetings—not because of any change in actual medical findings.”

Option 2 In a 2009 speech in Utah, Hafen spoke to Evergreen International, a support group for people who desire to overcome their own same-gender attraction. His address generated a wide range of responses and was reported on in Salt Lake City's two major newspapers: the Salt Lake Tribuneand the Deseret News.

(With option 2, I was thinking/hoping this would be neutral, because the Tribune gave a less-than-favorable report and the Deseret News gave a more favorable report. Referencing the two could offer some balance. Hafen's main concern with the two sentences shown above in "Current" is that they are a very brief, incomplete, arbitrary description of what he said. He covered a lot of ground in his talk. Could we simply say when and where the talk was given, provide a link to the talk, and provide links to counterbalancing news coverage?) CedricMalone (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on a quick search of the internet, "not in your DNA" appears to be a widely noted quotation, so we should try to keep that in there. Rather than using the quotes straight from the transcript, woul;d it be possible to expand the material a bit with quotations from the DN article? That way we're using the secondary source as our filter rather than just picking out snippets that we think are interesting. Also, the first option's extrapolations from his resume are probably incompatible with WP:NOR. However the basic facts can be included, like his education and work experience.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with Will. It's good that the article (as a whole) can be fleshed out, and it's good to use DN as a second secondary source for the "DNA" talk, but it shouldn't be removed or washed over. It's certainly something that could be expanded with both "sides" represented. tedder (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 1 does include the "not in your DNA" quote. To me, option 2 looks like it is trying to gloss over the controversy with vagueness, even though it (almost) mentions it. I think that the best way to avoid bias here would be to put option 1 into the article, and add additional information (a subsequent paragraph) about how others have reacted to the speech. Option 1 puts the comment into context, and makes it clear what he was intending to say and to whom he said it. I don't think that's original research, because we as editors are not saying it, we are simply quoting the speech the article's subject gave. article's subject who said it . (I realize that Mr. Hafen wrote option 1 himself, but it just contains quotes from his speech and background on the speech, both of which are verifiable.)
 * Whether or not the speech makes valid points, or if it contains fact/fiction can be balanced by offering the viewpoints of others that have been published outside of Wikipedia, such as in the news sources mentioned. –  j ak s mata  16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first option. It provides a much broader range of information about the professional expertise of the man while also addressing the more narrow topic of homosexuality. The context of the group being addressed is also helpful. -- Storm  Rider  22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first half option one is basic biographical info, mostly in the article already. We should simply add whatever isn't there now.
 * The second half should be based on the news reporting, not on the speaker's own view of his most important points. If these are the only two reliable sources for the speech we should simply summarize what they say. Given the length of the article, I think the suggested 200 words is probably undue weight. the current material is about 41 words long. Perhaps something around 100 words would be more fitting.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph (revision and addition to previous Option 1)
''Please see revision below to Option 1, to replace current paragraph stated above. I have taken into account comments made above and would appreciate feedback.''

As a professor of law at BYU from 1973 to 1996, his teaching and research focused on family law and education law, with particular interests in the legal rights of children and in the legal status of marriage. A sample of his scholarly articles includes publications in the Harvard Law Review, Harvard International Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Ohio State Law Journal, and the American Bar Association Journal. Two of his articles were cited in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 2009 speech in Utah, Hafen spoke to Evergreen International, an organization of people who desire to overcome their own same-gender attraction. He acknowledged that Church leaders and members alike reach out in sympathy and love to those with unwanted same-gender struggles. Hafen further mentioned that "every day may feel like a major battle.” In the context of describing the universal fatherhood of God, Hafen stated, "Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNA--only one generation removed from him whom we call Father in Heaven." Hafen observed that while “inherited susceptibilities” and “natural personality traits do influence one’s inclinations” toward same-gender attraction, the “idea that there is a ‘gay gene’” that determines gender attraction “has little scientific support.”

Additionally, a portion of his remarks summarized “the secular case against same-gender marriage.” He cited the 2006 decision of the French parliament rejecting gay marriage so that children “do not suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults." He stated that the gay rights movement represents “an aggressive political movement” more than it represents “substantive change in the medical or legal evidence.” For example, he said, the decision of the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 came from “putting the issue to an open vote in their professional meetings—not because of any change in actual medical findings.”

The follow-up article in the Salt Lake Tribune included the statements made above in regard to the APA, as well as Will Carlson's contrasting response from Equality Utah: "These young men and women at Evergreen are experiencing normal attractions right now.... It's irresponsible...to suggest that if someone just wants to bad enough, they can be straight." The Tribune also recounted Hafen's caution as cited at the conference: “Whenever the devil -- whom Hafen referred to as ‘the adversary’ -- tries to ‘convince you that you are hopelessly “that way,” so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying,’ Hafen said. 'He is the father of lies.'" In the Deseret News' article subsequent to Evergreen's annual conference, Groves and Taylor summarized partly as follows: “With his background in family law, Elder Hafen, the former Dean of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School, listed four misconceptions that he said activists try to establish as facts to try to influence policymakers and the public:


 * That same-gender attraction is an inborn and unalterable condition.
 * That therapy cannot treat, let alone change, same-gender attraction.
 * That most Americans favor same-gender marriage, which means the church is outside the mainstream in opposing it.
 * And that there are no rational, nonreligious reasons for opposing same-gender marriage.”

101heather (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for preparing that, but it's out of proportion to the importance of the speech and the subject's life. The entire text of the article is now about 415 words. This is about 550 words. Could we cut it down to about 100 words?   Will Beback    talk    02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. I agree with you and appreciate your time. How about this? The first paragraph is not about the speech, but missing background from the subject's life. I've taken the information about the speech and shortened that to 160 words in the second and third paragraphs. I'm having a hard time getting it lower without leaving out references from each source. I think this should be appropriate now with the additional paragraph of biographical content.


 * Revision:
 * Hafen was a professor of law at BYU from 1973 to 1996, his teaching and research focused on family law and education law, with particular interests in the legal rights of children and in the legal status of marriage . A sample of his scholarly articles includes publications in the Harvard Law Review, Harvard International Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Ohio State Law Journal, and the American Bar Association Journal. Two of his articles were cited in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.


 * In 2009 Hafen spoke at an Evergreen International conference. He acknowledged that Church leaders and members reach out in love to those with unwanted same-gender attractions. In the context of describing the universal fatherhood of God, Hafen stated, "Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNA." Hafen observed that while “inherited susceptibilities” and “natural personality traits do influence one’s inclinations” toward same-gender attraction, the “idea that there is a ‘gay gene’” that determines gender attraction “has little scientific support.”


 * Elder Hafen said the decision of the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was “politically motivated.” He further stated “society and laws have long endorsed marriage between a man and a woman with an honored priority as a significant institution. The result is children...thriving best in a formal family with their own father and mother in a setting befitting society's long-term interests and well-being.” 101heather (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're making progress, but we're not there yet. Again, we should not use the transcript of the speech as a source unless there's a compelling reason. The DN article has many excerpts, so we should use those where needed. Also, there's nothing in his resume (the cited source) about this: "his teaching and research focused on family law and education law, with particular interests in the legal rights of children and in the legal status of marriage." We should have a source that makes that conclusion, rather than giving our own opinion of what he has focused on.   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll make a researcher out of me yet. I've striked the opinion on his focus. My issue with using the Trib for the DNA quote is that it is truncated and doesn't mention the context. I feel since it has turned into a controversial statement, it should be included as it was stated. I can only find reference to the next sentence from the original source, so let's just remove it. I can add the following quote from the DN instead: "You are not simply a child of God. You are a son or a daughter of God, with all the masculine or feminine connotations of those words." Let me know what you feel is best and if it is justifiable to include the full quote. 63.248.29.66 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's better. I think this is ready to post. Any other comments?   Will Beback    talk    23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Thank you for your help. This is what I'll post:
 * Hafen was a professor of law at BYU from 1973 to 1996. A sample of his scholarly articles includes publications in the Harvard Law Review, Harvard International Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Ohio State Law Journal, and the American Bar Association Journal. Two of his articles were cited in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.


 * In 2009 Hafen spoke at an Evergreen International conference. He acknowledged that Church leaders and members reach out in love to those with unwanted same-gender attractions. In the context of describing the universal fatherhood of God, Hafen stated, "Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNA." Hafen also remarked, "You are not simply a child of God. You are a son or a daughter of God, with all the masculine or feminine connotations of those words."


 * Elder Hafen said the decision of the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was “politically motivated.” He further stated “society and laws have long endorsed marriage between a man and a woman with an honored priority as a significant institution. The result is children...thriving best in a formal family with their own father and mother in a setting befitting society's long-term interests and well-being.” 101heather —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.29.66 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions about him as a new teacher
When Bruce left the practice of law and joined the administration at Brigham Young University (late summer of 1971), he choose to teach an Honors Religion class. Prior to the commencement of the semester he was the invited speaker at a Late Summer Honors fireside. Many of the students attending were so impressed by his ability to communicate, his youth (then only a little more than 10 years older than the soon to be Freshmen), his testimony, and the topics he covered that they immediately selected him to be their first religion teacher. A number of those students stayed after class regularly, asking follow-up questions. He opened his house to the class on more than one occasion, giving them a glimpse of the breath of his talents and interests including performing Chopin and Debussey for them. Life-long friendships were forged such that when the same group meet for a 20 plus (about 24?) year reunion, Bruce was again asked to provide the fireside talk, this time held in the home of Susan Winder Tanner (married to John Sears Tanner). At the conclusion of the first semester, Bruce was invited by the then Susan Winder and others to give the keynote welcoming speech at the ACT recruitment workshop held in January 1972 where he gave a thought provoking speech on Why BYU and why excellence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertERichards1953 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC) RobertERichards1953 (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice undocumented antidote, but how is that germane to improving this article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bruce C. Hafen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914030339/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=380 to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=380

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good-faith efforts to improve article
Editors new to WP have recently included a number of additions to this article. While all of this has been done in good faith, the edits have included some challenges, including 1) removal of incline citations, 2) unsourced additions of content, 3) information not provided in WP style - including some appropriate linking that could occur, 4) undue "analysis" of key teachings or views, or 5) not adhering to MOS. As a result, I have tried to assist in updating the desired additions to be more consistent with article format and content.  One of the editors performed a full revert of these updates, but I don't believe understands or has reviewed any of the reasoning behind the edits.  I'd welcome discussion of any of these issues, along with understanding how WP works, before content is again inserted.  Additionally, the article may be of sufficient length now to warrant some subheadings to assist in the organization of it, along with improving readability. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)