Calm

Not quite accurate….early on, if I understood correctly, the subjects set the pain level (see upper quote) and shocked themselves. Later while they still set the intensity, they signaled readiness and then a couple of shocks would occur over the next few minutes. Thorne suggests knowing the shock/pain was coming would mean they would be focusing on that rather than the picture/ideas the shock was supposed to create an aversion to and so a variable schedule was assumed to be more effective as it has been shown to be in other forms of conditioning.(see lower quote) PS:. I believe Thorne on both accounts as 1) for shocks self administered…the setup was consistent with other studies I had read and 2) for non pornographic nudes, you only have to look at McBride’s thesis to know that using porn at BYU would have been way too uncomfortable for most professors and students since he was hoping to prove they could use clothed subjects just as effectively…my memory is his research did show that. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Eugene-Thorne-FAIR-Examination_otter_ai.pdf

See the links I posted

Considering where it started, that doesn’t have to be that high. There can also be a big difference between the public appearance of support (think corporations and their PR moments which aren’t terribly meaningful in the long run) and private respect and acceptance.

It is disappointing to see the informal and incorrect term for electrical aversion therapy in the wiki article. McBride’s research was an attempt to be able to avoid having to use nude pictures (are all nude pictures porn in your view?) in research and therapy, hoping to demonstrate the efficacy of clothed models over nude. At least according to Thorne and I would assume McBride since Thorne was his supervisor on this research, the pictures were nude only, pornographic were not allowed. It’s BYU, they had to wear leotards in the art classes teaching how to draw nudes during this time (or so I was told by participants) for goodness’ sake. And if I understand correctly the pictures may have been chosen by some of the subjects to ensure they actually worked for them. I have no doubt the emotional trauma is real, it’s not an appropriate type of therapy when triggers are complex and multilayered, imo. I find the vomiting version physically dangerous as well. While the shocking/self stim devices would have an upper limit for intensity, teaching someone pain is a solution for intrusive thoughts and unwanted behaviour…I see that as a disaster waiting to happen. I have less confidence in the claim of burns. Those devices have to be approved and typically have safety measures. Perhaps he had unusually sensitive skin though and a high pain tolerance or had extreme self loathing at the time such that he believed he deserved the pain (remember intensity is set by the subject since pain is variable). Still from the description of the device and treatment, there was no obvious noticeable physical reaction of the body apparently unless the electrode was placed on a muscle (think TENS, but not exactly). Subjects also controlled the strength/intensity themselves and could turn it off at will. I can see burning occurring if self limiting was the only safety control given depressed and desperate individuals have been known to willingly hurt themselves in hopes of getting better or even out of self hatred or just to feel something that tells them they are alive, but from what I have read that wouldn’t be the only control. Unless it was a faulty machine, burning seems unlikely. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t painful, of course. Pain level doesn’t even always match the physical stimulus, it’s not so easily measured (ask anyone who has fibro how the littlest thing can cause stupidly significant pain, it’s a bizarre experience at times). And then there are people with high pain tolerance (wonder what that experience is like) and thus the need for a intensity limiter on such devices. But that was why it’s necessary for the subjects to be in control of the intensity (up to the point it might actually inflict harm) as well as being able to shut down the research/therapy if it becomes too painful. Malpractice lawsuits were happening even back then, after all, though embarrassment might prevent someone going to court in many cases. The shock shouldn’t have even left a red mark. The cuff might on its own if too tight (anyone else hate blood pressure cuffs?). If the cuff was on the arm, the person might need assistance getting it placed. Apparently some required help with the leg as well. I can see a subject accidentally having it too tight . Would be foolish for the administrator to intentionally have the cuff tight as that would likely skew the results as the discomfort would be distracting at the very least. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu The patients themselves placed the measuring device in private, as I understand it. There was no inappropriate touching or exposure. Still was likely humiliating. Thorne didn’t even use a measuring device in his work, just asked his clients to rate their own reaction (think pain scales, but for arousal or attraction….how I dislike numerical scales for internal sensations). Interesting bit about how Throne got into using shock for therapy at first…to disrupt chronic sneezing for one client and hiccups for another. I can see why it would work in those cases (a very simple physical response). Most quotes from here: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Eugene-Thorne-FAIR-Examination_otter_ai.pdf

Doesn’t that mean he was delusional? Someone can be delusional in something, but not be insane (legally incompetent). Or if you are thinking he was assuming a dream or day dream or NDE/out of body type of experience was a visitation or vision when it wasn’t, that could be viewed as simply misunderstanding his world because he had a religious belief that angels may visit one in dreams. Insanity is not usually used in clinical diagnosis, but is used, I believe, as a legal term about whether someone can understand right from wrong. Psychosis is probably what you mean by insanity. Psychosis is more than just one simple delusion or perhaps unrealistic view of what dreams, etc or some other incorrect (if it actually is) religious belief mean. It is a loss of contact with reality.

There were electric shocks involved. People assume that means it’s electroshock therapy…which it isn’t. Electroshock therapy, technical name electroconvulsive therapy. is a specific type of psychiatric treatment where they are knocked out to avoid the unpleasant sensations and then a short shock is sent through the brain, which would cause a massive reaction in the body if they let it, the brain being quite sensitive and all. The body is paralyzed though first to protect it. My daughter had a mouthpiece in to prevent biting the tongue. Her jaw was always killing her later. She was hilarious when she was coming out of the anesthesia, but tended to want to throw up on the way home. Fun times. Aversion therapy that uses electrical shocks somewhere on the body is called Electrical Aversion Therapy. I get why there is the confusion. Still I would have really liked it if people were clear on the difference so I wouldn’t have to go into detail when they were curious about my daughter’s treatment.

Zosimus, If you don’t like “pious fraud”, I have seen someone use (you perhaps?) “pious fiction”. Avoids the connotation of immoral personal gain “fraud” carries, imo. Chat supplied the option of “devotional mythmaking”, which I rather like. It claims no one uses the phrase yet with Joseph, though Jan Shipps used “myth making” for him. (Haven’t checked). I can only find one hit of use of that term with Google, two with the variation of “devotional myth-making”.

That really depends on the type of people they were, imo. Why assume all the witnesses were the kind that would commit in just the necessary fashion? Some people will commit to baptism after the first encounter with the missionaries and be devout the rest of their lives with others after baptism disengage as soon as the missionaries they connected are transferred. Others will accept the possibility of baptism even though they insist on having more lessons, etc before truly committing; others refuse to commit at all, but want to continue the lessons and months or even years later finally commit for the rest of their lives; others will never commit no matter how many lessons and deep relationships with members they have. There are many more variations on commitment to this one faith community, all with their own reasons of why and why not they commit with these patterns. Plenty of golden investigators never get baptized and sometimes the most unlikely candidate is the one who commits and is faithful life long. Unless Joseph was a mind reader or overly naive about people, why would he assume he could trust these men not to publicly challenge him, immediately or in the future?

Yeah, it was about conversion therapy. And then it got into the definition of queer. At which point you introduced the topic of drag queens. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113354-scotus-decision-ban-on-talk-conversion-therapy-is-unconstitutional/page/2/#comment-1210268870 I wonder how many board discussions follow this pattern as I don’t remember anyone else using drag queens consistently as part of their argumentation.

Great, I will no longer bother to go back and edit my responses if I impulsively respond to you before reading your entire post. I hate doing that for several reasons. In fact I will probably not try to get through a post before responding as it’s much more fun to just respond immediately than try to get the big picture of your posts…and sometimes that is massive. I am not being sarcastic here. It requires significant effort for me not to “interrupt” and go post before reading the whole, but I have tried to do so out of respect for the effort others have put into framing their thoughts because that is what I wish people would do with my posts. But I have been thinking this may not be the way you think about things given how often you don’t seem to have read and everything I wrote before writing your response, even after I have expressed my preference you would. And given others’ remarks, they are experiencing the same thing. I get that people process things differently, so not insisting you have to do this or it means you are disrespecting me. Since you have confirmed now it’s not a biggie for you, it will be nice not to have to worry about this, especially given the length of many of your posts where I may forget the way I wanted to say something before I finish it and it gets complicated to track where I am in your post if I pause to respond to something so I don’t forget. I appreciate you making this easier for me (seriously). There are a few in my family where we interrupt each other all the time midresponse and that just adds to the fun.

That answer still doesn’t address your hyperfocus on drag queens of the sexualized versions**** when the reality is kids are much more likely to be exposed on a daily basis to sexualized portrayals of women and men for that matter. How many music videos have drag queens, sexualized or not, in them vs highly sexual portrayals of women and men? How many magazines have drag queens on the cover, how many books in schools and libraries are about drag queens engaging in sexual behaviour vs the usual heterosexual escapades? How many tv shows and movies? How many billboards? How many dolls? What portion of each kid’s life has them exposed to drag queens at all vs heterosexual sexual portrayals? ***you should add this nuance because you just refer to drag queens often enough it seems the very act of biological males dressing up in glamorous women’s clothing is offensive to you. Glad to see it’s the sexualized version you have an issue with.

“Hypercritical” works too, imo.

But isn’t it about self perception? And kids don’t have the maturity of thought to separate what they do and experience as being somehow separate from who they are. Plenty of adults don’t either. After all, you seem to see being a husband and father is something you are. But isn’t husbandhood really something you experience? Being an American….seems more of an experience than who I am outside of a legal definition…and even there that affects what I experience and not who I am. When I lived in Canada, outside of paying taxes once a year and not being able to vote as opposed to not choosing to vote, being born in America had zip immediate effect on my day to day life. My daughter is a great example as an American and daughter and grand daughter and great granddaughter of American citizens…but she has lived only the first month of her life in the States and the rest up north outside of vacations and 6 months in Russia when she was five. Her lived experience was pretty much identical to her friends who were Canadian citizens. Outside of her legal status, what made her American? She lived in the same kind of houses, ate the same foods, was taught the same lessons, breathed the same air, watched the same shows, etc etc as her Canadian friends. There would be no way she could show anyone around her she was American unless she had a birth certificate. So how was being American part of her being at that time?

The murkiness comes because you suddenly don’t know what is in store for your child in the near or far future in one area that was pretty well laid out in your mind, even the obstacles and setbacks such as singlehood or childlessness, in part because you and your wife took that path yourselves (looking for a companion, likely marriage, likely children). Of course things become emotional. They often do when your kids face uncertainty and likely hurt. That their life may also now include (more of) bullying and discrimination, patronizing, dislike, even hatred sometime because of who they are. It’s not a happy prospect, especially if they are already facing significant struggles. Really? You don’t think those involved aren’t struggling to know what the right thing to do for the baby is? Will the child likely be safe in those parents’ custody? No. Will the child likely get its needs, emotional, physical, and mental…even social, met? Unlikely. So wouldn’t the moral thing to do be removed the child from the custody of the parents and place it in a safe and loving environment? Maybe… What about the parents though? Couldn’t such an act of taking their child away from them hurt them? Maybe even to the point they enter despair and spiral into total self destruction where if they keep the child, that responsibility may help them turn some of their life around and maybe eventually even become mature adults. But the trauma the child will most likely experience during the early years of their life will be a burden that child will have to deal with the rest of their life for the possibility of helping their parents. So is it moral to leave the child with the parents when not only is it guaranteed they will suffer trauma in that unstable and insufficient environment, but there is no guarantee things won’t get worse rather than better with the additional stress of caring for an infant? PS:. I realize now you addressed this almost immediately after the comment I quoted, but I hadn’t bothered reading that before I addressed it and since you often respond in this way, without taking into account clarifications that follow, I figured it wouldn’t bother you to have to read a response questioning something that you had already clarified. If by chance this is frustrating or annoying, then maybe you should reconsider your own approach of making comments and asking questions without taking into account everything someone has said. Honestly, I don’t see how that habit got started with you being a lawyer. If I saw my lawyer taking time to respond to something addressed in the next few lines of a document or conversation, I would at least think they were very inefficient and possibly wonder if they were trying to pad the bill with unnecessary hours. Why? Sincere question here because I have never understood this belief in unearned parental rights when it involves the safety and well being of others. Why should a mother have that right simply because she carried the child when she is demonstrating so little maturity and capability for making sound judgments for her child so far besides being willing to carry the child to term.

Possibly because you have never had to wonder about what people expect of you in this area. On a very basic and simplified level….. It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your orientation.

To Smac: I’m trying to understand your position more clearly. Is your concern primarily about men wearing women’s clothing (and vice versa), or is it about the style of clothing and behavior being presented? I ask because sometimes it sounds like you view drag as inherently sexual. So to clarify: Would a man dressed as a princess, behaving respectfully and modestly, be acceptable for a children’s storytime in the same way a woman would be? And conversely, would a woman dressed and behaving in a way you consider typical of drag (if you see that as sexualized) also be inappropriate? For more concrete examples: Would you consider it inappropriate for Dolly Parton, who is a drag queen icon, to host a children’s storytime? Would you consider it inappropriate for Dame Edna Everage, who is a drag queen, to do the same?

You never flirted with anyone else when you were single?

Because it’s not something you have to negotiate with others. You know what is expected of you by others and they know what to expect. You don’t have to defend your sexual behaviour because it’s heterosexual and well within cultural norms.

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Is that correct and if not where did I miss the part that says LDS parents won’t care about same sex behavior after marriage as long as it’s within the marriage. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else?

Usually framed in my experience as ‘the kid ran away because they refused to live by the parents’ standards’, equating it with using drugs at home, stealing parents’ cash and valuables, getting their siblings into drug or alcohol use.

Wiki claims it was more than just dictionaries and glossaries if I understand it correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chatterton Another source has him in possession of documents he could use and others he could borrow: https://www.davidcastleton.net/thomas-chatterton-poet-death-suicide-seventeen-forgery-medieval/#:~:text=This began to change when,the church some years earlier. need to resort to chat again to,summarize, sorry, but too impatient to wait for my brain to catch up with my curiosity… I asked it if there were comparable sources in Joseph’s environment for what Carmack and others had found in terms of archaic language Pulling out the bit on Carmack… Since I don’t view Chat as an authority, I am posting this to show where the search would need to be to,show a true parallel situation between Chatterton and Smith. I also noticed in my reading Chatterton’s description in his early and late childhood is dramatically different than Smith’s. Chatterton was recognized as gifted by his mother, was quite the reader (but not of “small books”) and was published by age 11. Joseph…not so much the reader or writer, though he was said by his mother to be a good storyteller (as in presenting material, whether he made it up himself or was presenting information he learned in his visions is what is debated).

Thank you for the suggestion. I might even pass it on back to my dietitian for her to pass on to her clients (she loved my advice on tofu I had picked up on FB…for those interested in a tasty, low calorie protein source but tofu is seen as blah in flavor and texture, I highly recommend this: freezing tofu—the firmer forms work best—changes its texture, dries it out some making the texture is closer to meat when crumbled, also absorbs marinade much better for stronger flavor; boiling in salted water is easier for better absorption of flavors, but I prefer freezing with the more interesting texture as well).

How do you envision avoiding or at least lessening the likelihood of people going off the rails when not getting feedback on their ideas? As in gospel hobbying or assuming their interpretation must be the correct one? The there are those who are too insecure about their learning skills and fear to even start without some face to face engagement.

How does this match up with similar maps?

We had a family of a professor colleague of my husband’s move in with us for several months due to a delay in their home being available. I believe my husband’s only prior direct contact with the husband was during the hiring process. My default position is that people are good, very good actually if I am being honest. I wouldn’t let them move into our home if I wasn’t. Still there is no way in hell I would have accepted financial advice or health advice and bought supplements or some unusual health device from him or even bought a vacuum after several weeks (in fact that would likely be the period I would be the least likely as it would be in the annoy me in every way stage 😛 ). And change my faith? I would need to see how someone operated over a long time, especially under pressure so I could see just how committed to their faith and what they actually taught they truly were. And while initially I might be a bit too willing to go with the group consensus or rather too unwilling to speak out against it being terminally shy in awkward situations (flashing back to my teen years), it would not endure because resentment would quickly build over the sense of pressure and at the very least if anyone asked me I would share my misgivings and belief of being manipulated. I get our culture is very different than theirs, but I am in a very comfortable financial situation where mistakes and trusting the wrong person isn’t likely to destroy me financially. Life was not as secure with safety nets back then, which makes me think they were likely prone to being less trusting. They might not survive trusting the wrong person (many people died because of their trust in Joseph, he deserves to burn in hell if it was a con….which I don’t believe it was). Certainly the criticisms that came out of that era shows gossip, destruction of reputation, and conspiracy thinking back then was deadly like the internet is now even if its was localized and slower to travel. There were immediately challenges to the families that trusted Joseph, they weren’t in some sort of bubble where no conflicting info was presented to them. There would be many reasons for them to reconsider over the years their commitment. David Whitmer showed he was capable of breaking with Joseph, after all. Others as well. Even if some kept their concerns about the Book of Mormon likely being a con quiet for whatever reason, all of them doing so seems highly unlikely given many distanced themselves from the Church and from any reinforcement of the need to stay ‘faithful’. The majority of the Witnesses were out of the Church by the time Joseph died, been excommunicated even. They were already questioning and making decisions to reject his claims, some of them being public about it. Why would all go so far, but stop before getting to the conclusion of fraud when it came to the Book of Mormon?