LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

During the first half of the nineteenth century a number of individuals in Europe began to study homosexuality scientifically (Stein 6900). The theories developed during this time suggested that homosexuality was a disease, and these theories influenced how homosexuality was regarded by the scientific community until well past the mid twentieth century. It wasn't until the late twentieth century that there was a paradigm shift in the science of psychiatry and medicine regarding the pathology of homosexuality. In the early twentieth century, psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease that could be cured through psychotherapy and treatment options were assessed, yet gradually, theories of a hormonal and genetic origin of homosexuality arose and became accepted. This paradigm shift impacted the political and social climates of the United States, while at the same time; these outside influences also affected science. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, and patients practicing homosexuality were no longer treated as if it were a disease. Thus, since its conception in the early nineteenth century, the scientific definition of homosexuality has greatly evolved; this evolution has been closely associated with the progression of the social and political definition of homosexuality as well. https://confluence.cornell.edu/plugins/servlet/mobile?contentId=6395810#content/view/6395810

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some of that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Buckeye]

This is a good point. The church’s doctrines and policies often follow mainstream thinking. That was the case with racial theories and exclusions too. 

So we should not be surprised when church doctrines and practices follow mainstream thinking in embracing same-sex marriage. 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

This is a good point. The church’s doctrines and policies often follow mainstream thinking. That was the case with racial theories and exclusions too. 

So we should not be surprised when church doctrines and practices follow mainstream thinking in embracing same-sex marriage. 

I would say doctrines do not follow mainstream though language describing them at times softens so it may appear doctrine follows mainstream more closely than before and not revelation. 

For me the changes that do occur is hugely a part of the either acceptance or rejection of mainstream.  This change is manifested in the explanations and the policies that are meant to promote those doctrines.  I see constant change there.  LDS are a practical people, if they believe the information is out there, why 'reinvent the wheel' as my dad would say cheerfully as I grated my teeth.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

This is a good point. The church’s doctrines and policies often follow mainstream thinking. That was the case with racial theories and exclusions too. 

So we should not be surprised when church doctrines and practices follow mainstream thinking in embracing same-sex marriage. 

If the policies and resultant practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding race were driven solely by "mainstream thinking" on the issue, the Church's race-based restriction of Priesthood (a) would not have had the exceptions, rare though they may have been, that it did; and (b) would have been lifted much earlier than it was.  My understanding (and I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, so please enlighten me if you can point me to reliable sources which indicate otherwise) is that President David O. McKay was perfectly willing to lift the ban, but the Lord told him, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again."  Absent such a revelation, President McKay essentially did everything he could to narrow the ban's scope.  Not so with respect to the "bans" of the Church of Jesus Christ on sex outside of marriage and on gay marriage within the Church. Thus, with due respect, your attempts to analogize the past racial policies and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis the Priesthood to its "ban" on gay marriage are inapposite.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

I agree they followed what man believed rather than knowing truths from God.  Where was the inspiration when the leaders approved of aversion shock therapy?

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story%3fid=13240700

“Church officials say they no longer support aversion therapy, but a generation who grew up in the 1970s say they have been scarred for life because of well-intentioned attempts to change their sexual orientation.”

Why wouldn’t the Prophet or leaders have prayed about this and know being gay can’t be cured?  It was not true that being gay can be cured back then just as it is not true today.

Read the information at this link for a good overview of the church’s history on this topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

As I said, it's obvious the church is just groping its way along like every other human institution. I'm not sure aversion therapy was well within the mainstream by the 1990s, so the church (at least represented by BYU) was a little behind the curve at that point.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, it's obvious the church is just groping its way along like every other human institution. ...

It's not obvious to me, Commissioner!   But then, perhaps I'm simply dense, or something! 

 

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's not obvious to me, Commissioner!   But then, perhaps I'm simply dense, or something! 

 

Maybe it's just the way I was raised. My father taught us that every person is human, with human failings, even church leaders (maybe especially church leaders). Inspiration happens, but we should expect the human and be that much more grateful when we see the inspired and miraculous.

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Church was well within the mainstream. 

Nobody would argue with that.....The problem was how they didn't maintain and fell in dark ages when science came up with hard facts.

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

So these peculiar people weren't so peculiar after all.

It's interesting to me how often apologists appeal to the social norms when justifying past policies.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Buckeye said:

This is a good point. The church’s doctrines and policies often follow mainstream thinking.

In some ways, yes.  In many important respects, however, no. 

Polygamy certainly did not "follow mainstream thinking."  And today, as society alters the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships and, it appears, increasing tolerance and acceptance of polygamy, the Church excommunicates members who enter into either of those forms of marriage.

The Book of Mormon does not "follow mainstream thinking" in any sense I can see.

Temple worship does not seem to "follow mainstream thinking."

Missionary work does not seem to "follow mainstream thinking."

The Word of Wisdom, however, appears to have been preceded by the Temperance Movement.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Tobacco was just one of a host of substances pertaining to bodily health and cleanliness whose merits were hotly debated on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean at the time the Word of Wisdom was received. Discussion was so frequent because abuse was so widespread. Frances Trollope, a British novelist, reported disdainfully in 1832 that in all her recent travels in the United States, she hardly ever met a man who was not either a “tobacco chewer or a whisky drinker.”

Drinking, like tobacco chewing, had clearly gotten out of hand. For centuries nearly all Americans had consumed large quantities of alcoholic beverages, much like their European counterparts. The Puritans called alcohol the “Good Creature of God,” a blessing from heaven to be imbibed in moderation. Alcohol was consumed at virtually every meal, in part because the unpurified water of the time was so unhealthy.

...

The American Revolution only exacerbated this reliance on alcohol. After molasses imports were cut off, Americans sought a substitute for rum by turning to whiskey. Grain farmers in western Pennsylvania and Tennessee found it cheaper to manufacture whiskey than to ship and sell perishable grains. As a consequence, the number of distilleries grew rapidly after 1780, boosted by settlement of the corn belt in Kentucky and Ohio and the vast distances to eastern markets. To the astonishment of observers like Trollope, Americans everywhere—men, women, and children—drank whiskey all day long. American consumption of distilled spirits climbed precipitously, from two and a half gallons a person in 1790 to seven gallons in 1830, the highest amount of any time in American history and a figure three times today’s consumption rate.

This elevated alcohol consumption offended religious sensibilities. As early as 1784, both Quakers and Methodists were advising their members to abstain from all hard liquor and to avoid participation in its sale and manufacture. A more aggressive temperance movement took hold among the churches in the early decades of the 19th century.  Alcohol became viewed more as a dangerous tempter and less as a gift from God. In 1812, the Congregational and Presbyterian churches in Connecticut recommended strict licensing laws limiting the distribution of alcohol. Lyman Beecher, a leader in this reform movement, advocated even more extreme measures, endorsing full abstinence from alcoholic beverages. The idea soon became a central plank of the American Temperance Society (ATS), organized in Boston in 1826.

...

Encouraged by the ATS, local temperance societies popped up by the thousands across the U.S. countryside. Kirtland had its own temperance society, as did many small towns. ... 

I think the Temperance Movement had a preparatory effect, even though the Word of Wisdom itself was revelatory.  See here:

Quote

The history of the Word of Wisdom teaches us a lot about revelation.  It teaches us that revelation is starts with a question, and that the Lord does not just care about the individual question, which is important, but He also cares about the collective question.  What's going on as a whole.  And He will answer those questions often through individuals.

That seems right.

Quote

That was the case with racial theories and exclusions too. 

Prevailing social notions and norms regarding race appear to have played some role, yes.  The Priesthood Ban lacks any known revelatory provenance (though its termination was revelatory).

Quote

So we should not be surprised when church doctrines and practices follow mainstream thinking in embracing same-sex marriage. 

You mean like how the Church has "follow{ed} mainstream thinking in embracing" sex outside of marriage (fornication, adultery) as acceptable conduct?

Just trying to sort out where you are coming from here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 20, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction.

Because that's what took place.  Or are you denying these aversion eloctroshock therapies were not approved of by the leaders and then administered to gay students at BYU?  These took place in a basement in one of their buildings on campus.

Let's have some honesty here and admit they did happen.   This not an unfair depiction.  Yes, these therapies were administered at other places as well, but why wouldn't the leaders have known these therapies would cause years of pain and suffering for many of their members who were gay?  They left physical scars as well as emotional and mental scars.  Just do a search and read about this by those who actually experienced them.  They were not from God.  

Here's a link for you to read what took place at BYU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history#Aversion_therapy_at_BYU

Quote

Shortly after the 21 May 1959 meeting of BYU president Ernest Wilkinson and apostles on the executive committee of the Church Board of Education discussing the "growing problem in our society of homosexuality" BYU began administering "aversion therapy" to "cure," "repair," or "reorient" homosexual tendencies among Mormon males. The on-campus program lasted through the 60s and 70s, and faded out around 1983.  BYU mental health counselors, LDS bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, general authorities, and the BYU Standards Office (equivalent to today's Honor Code Office) all referred young men to the BYU program.

Quote

In 2011 BYU admitted to the past use of electroshock therapy but denies that it had ever used vomit-inducing therapy "in the BYU Counseling Center" (which has been in the Wilkinson Student Center since 1964). However, the students that underwent the treatment have stated that the vomit therapy took place in the basement of the Psychology department's Joseph F. Smith Family Living Center (built in 1957, demolished in 2002).

Quote

From 1975 to 1976 Max Ford McBride, a student at BYU, conducted electroshock aversion therapy on 17 men (with 14 completing the treatment) and published a dissertation on the use of electrical aversive techniques to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. The thesis documents the use of "Electrical Aversion Therapy" on 14 homosexual men using a "phallometric" apparatus, "barely tolerable" shocks, and "nude male visual-cue stimuli".[80][81] Although it is not publicly published whether all top LDS Church leaders were aware of the electroshock aversion therapy program, it is known that apostles Spencer Kimball, Mark Peterson, and now apostle Dallin Oaks were

If you want an honest discussion here about the therapies approved of by the church to cure those who are gay, let's have one.  But don't deny that they happened.

Edited December 19, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Church was well within the mainstream. 

Whew.  I'm sure that statement takes away the tremendous pain all those suffered who underwent electroshock therapy trusting that they came from God as a cure.  They trusted the church leaders and believed they had received inspiration from God regarding how they could be cured of being gay.  But in the end, they were just following the opinions of man.

I'm not sure how this doesn't just prove the opposite of what I think the point of your OP is Bernard.  What makes you think the leaders aren't just doing the same today when it comes to their beliefs or opinions on SSM?

Is the goal still just to stay "well within the mainstream"?  

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

I think the "accepted medical and scientific thought" represented "the best books" available at the time, and under inspiration the Church were using in guidance to help people keep their covenants. That is how grace works. Some might expect the Church to have had access to more advanced, future medical and scientific thought (or apologize for not having it), but this seems a bit fanciful to me. Some might conclude that the Church is reliant upon "accepted medical and scientific thought" alone but these are only tools to supplement the ministry as part of a well-rounded approach, with the power of God being first and foremost.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What makes you think the leaders aren't just doing the same today when it comes to their beliefs or opinions on SSM?

Well that escalated into the political arena pretty quickly!

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century. The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction. It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time. This review provides some that context. The Church was well within the mainstream. 

I think it important to note that while homosexuality was removed from the DSM-II (1973) classification of mental disorders, it was replaced by the category "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" as a compromise between viewing it as a mental disorder a normal sexual variant. There is subsequent treatment in the DSM-III (1980) category "Ego-dystonic Homosexuality" that was also controversial, and remained until DSM-III-R (1987) and replaces the former classification "sexual disorder not otherwise specified", which can include "persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation."

And so the wheels of mainstream turn slowly.

[CA Steve]

So can this then be considered as an instance where leadership was wrong? 

[amo]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality in the mid-twentieth century... It is helpful to understand what was accepted medical and scientific thought and practice during that time... The Church was well within the mainstream. 

But unfortunately, that is exactly where the problem is. The Church claims to be guided by God Himself--prophets, seers and revelators-- and not by "mainstream" thought, nor science, etc. 

 

Shouldn't we, as THE Church of Christ,  have somewhat of an advantage over the rest of the world...?

[stemelbow]

I think it clear, from any perspective, the Church had zero inspiration in how to deal with homosexuality for most of it's existence, but yet claimed to have such.  That is rather problematic.  It is likely true that the Church had little inspiration in other things that it also claimed to be inspired about.  

 

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the "accepted medical and scientific thought" represented "the best bantooks" available at the time, and under inspiration the Church were using in guidance to help people keep their covenants. That is how grace works. Some might expect the Church to have had access to more advanced, future medical and scientific thought (or apologize for not having it), but this seems a bit fanciful to me. Some might conclude that the Church is reliant upon "accepted medical and scientific thought" alone but these are only tools to supplement the ministry as part of a well-rounded approach, with the power of God being first and foremost.

I think the church picks and chooses what "best books" it wants to use in order to push it's agenda.  There is much scientific research and studies that show that gay marriage is a very positive force both within society and increasing stability for gay couples and their families just like marriage strengthens society and families for straight families.  

This study done by a well knows Australian researches was just published that indicates that Gay relationships can be happier than hetero, It goes on to explain exactly why that seems to be true.  Gay couples come into their relationship without preconceived gender roles.  So they tend to divide up responsibilities of their relationship based on who has the best aptitude and interest in doing those roles. Interestingly, we had dinner with some friends last night and discussed how they decide who did what.  We all agreed that without thinking about it, the person in the relationship that had the best skills and interest seamlessly contributed to the relationship.  There were no pink jobs or blue jobs where gender expectations  were a factor in deciding responsibilities.  It just works much more seamlessly.

Of course this is not the first study to show the value of gay marriage and more stable gay families.  Does anyone see the church jumping on these "best books" to modify church policy.  Or does just about everyone believe the church ignores the studies that don't fit their agenda.

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it important to note that while homosexuality was removed from the DSM-II (1973) classification of mental disorders, it was replaced by the category "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" as a compromise between viewing it as a mental disorder a normal sexual variant. There is subsequent treatment in the DSM-III (1980) category "Ego-dystonic Homosexuality" that was also controversial, and remained until DSM-III-R (1987) and replaces the former classification "sexual disorder not otherwise specified", which can include "persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation."

And so the wheels of mainstream turn slowly.

If only the American Psychiatric Association was lead by a prophet who could have inquired of the Lord to know how best to help those that are gay so many of these mistakes could have been avoided.

[filovirus]

17 minutes ago, amo said:

But unfortunately, that is exactly where the problem is. The Church claims to be guided by God Himself--prophets, seers and revelators-- and not by "mainstream" thought, nor science, etc. 

 

Shouldn't we, as THE Church of Christ,  have somewhat of an advantage over the rest of the world...?

Yes, we have the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all it entails: faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost with the authority to seal ordinance and covenants in heaven.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it clear, from any perspective, the Church had zero inspiration in how to deal with homosexuality for most of it's existence, but yet claimed to have such.  That is rather problematic.  It is likely true that the Church had little inspiration in other things that it also claimed to be inspired about.  

 

You got a rep point from me.  I see no inspiration going on when the church deals with gay members.  Even more than that, I see the church deviating from the teachings of Christ on how we should treat children and who is responsible for their own sins.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quote

The Church is depicted as advocating unusual, repressive, harsh, or unpleasant remedies in the hope of “curing” same-sex attraction.

Because that's what took place. 

I think the point being made here is that this type of Aversion Therapy (from which the troubling forms of Conversion Therapy under discussion here appear to have been derived) was not uncommon in that era.

Aversion Therapy is, broadly speaking, an accepted form of treatment of addiction to alcohol and other drugs, and has been since at least 1932.  The use of aversive conditioning techniques such as those under discussion here was, it seems, an accepted medical/psychological treatment.  See here:

Quote

Before the American Psychological Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, practitioners of conversion therapy employed aversive conditioning techniques, involving electric shock and nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic images. Cessation of the aversive stimuli was typically accompanied by the presentation of opposite-sex erotic images, with the objective of strengthening heterosexual feelings. In "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: a critical review", published in 1966, M. P. Feldman claimed a 58% cure rate, but Douglas Haldeman is skeptical that such stressful methods permit feelings of sexual responsiveness, and notes that Feldman defined success as suppression of homosexuality and increased capacity for heterosexual behavior.

Feldman's article was published in 1966, years after shock therapy began at BYU.  This suggests that this form of "therapy" was fairly well-established in that era.

Please also note that until 1973, the APA had designated homosexuality as a mental disorder.  This appears to have played a very large role in therapy treatments during that era.

Please also note that the changed designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder was controversial.  See here:

Quote

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. This decision occurred in the context of momentous cultural changes brought on by the social protest movements of the 1950s to the 1970s: beginning with the African-American civil rights movement, then evolving on to the women's and gay rights movements.

...

Gay and lesbian psychiatrists met informally and in secret for many years during the course of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, often in gay bars or members' hotel suites. Difficult as it may be for today's young psychiatrist to imagine, prior to the declassification of homosexuality in 1973, a psychiatrist who revealed that he or she was gay risked not only losing their job but in some states their medical license as well.

As a result of non-psychiatrist gay activists protesting and disrupting the APA's 1970 and 1971 annual meetings, the first gay-affirmative presentations were organized at the APA. At the 1972 annual meeting in Dallas, gay psychiatrist John Fryer, MD appeared on a panel ("Psychiatry: Friend or Foe to Homosexuals?") organized by the gay activists Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny, who appeared with Fryer and with Judd Marmor, M.D. a prominent heterosexual psychiatrist and supporter of removing homosexuality as a diagnosis.

And here (emphases added):

Quote

Another historically significant event in the development of the concept of the modern homosexual occurred in the early 1970s. This was the decision in 1973 by the APA, American Psychiatric Association, to remove homosexuality from the lists of sexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Homosexual advocates acknowledge the hijacking of science for political gain.

The principle source of information about the controversy over homosexuality is Spitzer. Bayer’;s (1981) book length description of these events was heavily dependent on materials provided by Spitzer. This is evident not only from reading his account, but also because he collaborated with Spitzer (Bayer and Spitzer, 1982) on an edited report of the correspondence of the principals. Bayer and Spitzer (1985) also coauthored an account of another closely related episode, the attempt to extirpate neurosis and other Freudian aspects of DSM. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 81)

...

A standoff persisted until late in 1972 between the protesters and psychoanalysts such as Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who insisted that the "scientific evidence," principally derived from studies that they had conducted, demonstrated that homosexuality was a pathological condition, and that a positive response to gay demands would constitute an unjustified political accommodation. Enmeshed in the controversy was a challenge to psychoanalytic orthodoxy. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 82)

The man who took control was Robert Spitzer. Although he was a member of the Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics, which produced DSM-II, he had not been assigned to resolve the conflict. As the story has been told, he was at a meeting in October 1972, when more than a hundred gay activists protested antihomosexual bias. This was his first contact with gays protesting against psychiatric mistreatment and he stayed afterwards to talk with one leader of the protest, Ron Gold. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 83)

The result of this encounter was that Spitzer agreed to arrange a meeting with the Committee on Nomenclature and to schedule a panel at the next meeting of the APA in May 1973 in Honolulu. Although this chance encounter has been reported in several different accounts of the controversy of the diagnosis of homosexuality, the story leaves much to be explained. Spitzer, by all accounts, was unfamiliar with the literature and had little, if any, clinical experience with homosexuals. Nevertheless, as a result of an unanticipated discussion, he agreed to undertake a major role in this struggle. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 83)

Although he expressed "severe discomfort" (Bayer, 1981:143) over the idea of a referendum, he and gay activists drafted a letter that was signed by all of the candidates in an upcoming election for president and vice president of the APA. The letter was sent to the entire APA membership, paid for by funds raised by gay groups, although their participation was concealed. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 87-88)

In 1973, by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the diagnostic category of homosexuality was eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (Bayer 1981) (Donohue and Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues, p. 66 Wright, and Cummings. Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, editors Wright, and Cummings)

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association seemingly rejected this view of homosexuality by removing it from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, an official listing of mental illnesses. But the step was taken under pressure from gay-liberation activists and did not stimulate a rethinking of the theory of sexual preferences. In fact, most psychiatrists disagreed with the removal; just under 70 percent of 2,500 psychiatrists who responded to a survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality opposed it. The eminent senior psychoanalyst Abram Kardiner complained that the decision was mistaken because the suspicion with which middle America views homosexuality cannot be voted out of existence." (Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, p.429-430)

...

The decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision. It was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion as a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition of homosexuality as a problem. (Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 213)

Perhaps the greatest policy success of the early 1970s was the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973-74 decision to remove homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual list of mental disorders. This decision did not come about because a group of doctors suddenly changed their views; it followed an aggressive and sustained campaign by lesbian and gay activists. (Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States, p. 85-86)

Writing about the 1973 decision and the dispute that surrounded it, Bayer (1981) contended that these changes were produced by political rather than scientific factors. Bayer argued that the revision represented the APA’s surrender to political and social pressures, not new data or scientific theories regarding on human sexuality. (Donohue and Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues, p. 66 Wright, and Cummings. Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, editors Wright, and Cummings)

Charles Socarides forced the board to submit its decision to a referendum of the APA membership. Many people ridiculed the idea that a scientific issue should be settled by a plebiscite. Ironically, Socarides and Bieber, who had complained that scientific decisions were being subjected to political pressures by gays, now justified the use of a political device to reverse the decision. (Kirk and Kutchin, The Selling of the DSM The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry, p. 87)

The APA’s very process of a medical judgment arrived at by parliamentary method set off more arguments than it settled. Many members felt that the trustees, in acting contrary to diagnostic knowledge, had responded to intense propagandistic pressures from militant homophile organizations. Politically we said homosexuality is not a disorder, one psychiatrist admitted, but privately most of us felt it is. (Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality, p.5)

In other words, the 1973 change to the DSM was apparently perceived at the time to have been a predominantly political, rather than scientific, decision.  This may explain, at least in part, why shock therapy continued at BYU (and other organizations) after 1973.

For myself, I am not sure I am qualified to speak competently about homosexuality as a "mental disorder."  However, if it is not, the 1973 DSM change could still have reasonably been construed as problematic, as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Quote

Or are you denying these aversion eloctroshock therapies were not approved of by the leaders and then administered to gay students at BYU?  These took place in a basement in one of their buildings on campus.

I don't think anyone is denying that it happened, only that it was unusual.

"Shock therapy" is, for those not trained in medicine or psychology, an understandably disturbing concept.  And yet it continues to be used in some contexts even today.  So this suggests to me that critics are being a bit dissembling when they point to shock therapy as inherently bad and awful, because it is unfamiliar and disturbing.  By that reckoning, debridement after severe burns, or chemotherapy, or any of a number of medical treatments could be condemned.  

Quote

Let's have some honesty here and admit they did happen.   This not an unfair depiction. 

I don't think the implicit accusation of dishonesty is warranted.  Nobody is denying that shock therapy happened at BYU.

Quote

Yes, these therapies were administered at other places as well,

This is a vital point, and you are rushing past it.  Why is that?

The prevalence of shock therapy in the broader community goes a long way in understanding its use at BYU.

Quote

but why wouldn't the leaders have known these therapies would cause years of pain and suffering for many of their members who were gay? 

Aye, there's the rub.  The leaders of the LDS Church "should have known."  A few thoughts:

First "{a}lthough it is not publicly published whether all top LDS Church leaders were aware of the electroshock aversion therapy program, it is known that apostles Spencer Kimball, Mark Peterson, and now apostle Dallin Oaks were."

Second, expectations about what prophets and apostles "should" know - particularly when that question is posed from a faithless/cynical/skeptical perspective - appears to be the predominant question.

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" that Joseph Smith was going to be killed?

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" about the Succession Crisis?

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" in the 1850s that Pres. Buchanan was going to send Johnston's Army?

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" that the Church would be disenfranchised and the Edmunds-Tucker Act was going to be passed in response to the practice of polygamy?

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" that serious problems would arise from the Indian Placement Program?

"Why wouldn't the leaders have known" that Mark Hoffman was a fraud?

And on and on and on.

Again, the real issue does not appear to be the existence of shock therapy at BYU.  Rather, the real issue appears to be the reasonableness of expectations of the leaders of the LDS Church.  That is, there appears to be an expectation of near-infallibility, and of them not relying in any sense and in any way on the learning of "the world."  I'm not sure that perception is appropriate or reasonable.

Quote

If you want an honest discussion here about the therapies approved of by the church to cure those who are gay, let's have one.  But don't deny that they happened.

Again, I don't think anyone is denying that it happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 19, 2017 by smac97

[The Nehor]

God help us (literally) when we defend ourselves as being as worldly as everyone else.