LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s good to remember that 99% of church members are far kinder than you would imagine based on some interactions on the Internet. 

Yes...I really do know that.  I often forget that when a friend gets hurt by someone here. 

Edited to add:  I think Tacenda knows this too...one of the very reasons I believe she remains a member of the church is b because of the good members that surround her. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Jeanne

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have been talking about more than just one pamphlet.  Ask mfbukowski.  Evidently I am not allowed to talk about other promises made in the name of God.  

If by "we" you mean 'you and I' you are mistaken. 

I stated:

Quote

I am not aware of any claims of revelation in regards to the topic at hand.

The "topic at hand" being attempts to cure gay people.   

You responded to another poster:

Quote

 

If the church is an organization that claims to look to scientific research and experts in different areas for instituting dogma, carefully ponders that information and makes a decision based on trying to do the best they can to guide the church, then you are absolutely right.  The dogma on how to deal with gays falls along those lines in 1981 and continues to fall along those lines in 2017.  

If the church is an organization that claims to be guided by revelation from God and inspiration then that claim utterly fails.  

 

I asked:

Quote

What “dogma” are you referring to exactly?

You responded:

Quote

If you haven't done so, read the 1981 pamphlet linked to in the now closed thread.  In that pamphlet, the church leads out it's dogma on how to cure someone who is gay.

 

[mfbukowski]

OK everyone I apologize for my horrible post.

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

The same is true today.  The church pamphlets about SSA are just the thinking of some people outside the church and leaders should not be held accountable for holding those same beliefs or any claims of revelation.  Pamphlets today are written to agree with what the Catholics and Evangelics think of homosexuality.

So where are the claims of revelation and dogma?

The pamphlets today have nothing to do with the Catholics and Evangelicals.  They have everything to do with our best understanding of the scriptures, the plan of salvation, and the role of Mother and Father and offspring in that plan.  Might our understanding evolve?  I suppose it is possible, but unlikely.  Until it does, all we can do is create policy and pamphlets based off of the best information that we have, until God reveals more. 

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, for those that have a clue, it means that those of us that hang around are wounded. We have been here (board) long enough that hopefully you or anyone can see the hurt that the church has caused. Me, I'm hurt because I've lost a good portion of my life to a belief that didn't pan out, and lost my self as I knew it. Laugh, which I think you'll do, but this isn't a little issue, it's a huge one. You won't understand though. Religion is a curse or a blessing. Why has the church been a curse at all, if it's the one true church. 

Just to answer respectfully as I can, I spent half my life as a Catholic and don't regret one moment of it.   I am sorry for your anguish.  It is hard for me to relate to because when I learn a theory I have accepted is false, I go on to a new theory.   I suppose it is the way my mind works- I see the journey as a path to find truth.

So far I can see no other religious paradigm superior to the LDS one but I am open should one appear, and should I ever find such a belief, I would feel about Mormonism as I feel about Catholicism and treasure the journey and know that I am still not really closer to putting God in a bottle.

So I earnestly apologize to those I have offended.   That mode of thought is foreign to me.   I think differently than others on this topic I guess and so I do not instinctively respond well to others about that.

I especially see you as a friend and please know that I would not intentionally do anything to hurt you.

I just don't think that way.

When I no longer believe something I am done and on to new horizons and go on with life.

I am a student of religions- it has happened to me many times actually.

Edited December 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many have already been posted (references).  But, I can't do the reading for you.  If you care about it, I trust you'll look into it some more.  If not, that's fine too of course.  But what you've posted was not accurate.

Now.... I truly have to get off of here...

I'll try to check back in later.

I don't recall seeing any posted references to the effect that people were kicked out of BYU merely for admitting they have homosexual tendencies, whether or not they acted on them.

But if indeed such references have been posted, and you know where they are, it ought to be eminently easier for you to point them out to me (or, perhaps, re-post them), than for me to go looking for them. No?

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Wow, what a different approach and what a great result.

These boys at BYU were given great hope for being cured of being gay by church leaders (apostles in some cases) who they believed communicated directly with God. 

Some of these boys were so badly burned and were scared for life....yet were still gay.  

As I already posted, two of them committed suicide soon after these treatments.  They had great hope they'd be cured....but were not.

It's upsetting to see some here just try to say...oh well, they were just following what doctors believed and it was just a "bad outcome".

I'm off of here now....company and holidays here soon!

It’s interesting that my friend believes the bishop’s counsel was inspired, even though it went against what the church teaches. 

Enjoy your company and Christmas. My sons are all home, so with my daughter we have 4 of the 6 with us. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

About 25 years ago, a friend of mine went to see his bishop about my friend’s struggling with same-sex attraction. The bishop, who was a therapist, told this young man that the church would counsel him to try to overcome his desires. But, the bishop said, he could predict with certainty that such efforts would be unsuccessful. In that case, the church would counsel him to remain celibate and avoid close relationships with other men. He then said, “But you will be unhappy and put yourself through unimaginable suffering.” Instead, he advised him to be true to himself and find someone to love and share his life with. The church might change eventually, but he couldn’t in good conscience ask him to wait for that day. My friend said his bishop saved his life. 

Sometimes good people are able to rise above the current societal consensus and make a difference. 

Hmm.  So a bishop, acting in that capacity, encouraged an individual to violate the Law of Chastity.  That seems problematic, to say the least.  

As for celibacy necessarily leading to "unimaginable suffering" and suicide ("his bishop saved his life"), I don't accept that.  I have a good friend who is following the counsel of the Church.  He has his struggles, but nothing close to "unimaginable suffering" or suicide.  He leads a fairly normal life, actually.

It comes down to a matter of testimony and perspective, I think.  If the Church is what it claims to be, and if the Law of Chastity is what it claims to be, then the bishop made a grievous error.  It would not be laudable for a bishop to abuse (there's no other term for it, really) his calling by, say, encouraging someone to enter into polygamy, or commit apostasy, or commit some sort of fraud, or commit any other serious transgression.  

The calling of a bishop is extraordinarily important in the Church.  I cannot agree that the bishop made the right call here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  So a bishop, acting in that capacity, encouraged an individual to violate the Law of Chastity.  That seems problematic, to say the least.  

As for celibacy necessarily leading to "unimaginable suffering" and suicide ("his bishop saved his life"), I don't accept that.  I have a good friend who is following the counsel of the Church.  He has his struggles, but nothing close to "unimaginable suffering" or suicide.  He leads a fairly normal life, actually.

It comes down to a matter of testimony and perspective, I think.  If the Church is what it claims to be, and if the Law of Chastity is what it claims to be, then the bishop made a grievous error.  It would not be laudable for a bishop to abuse (there's no other term for it, really) his calling by, say, encouraging someone to enter into polygamy, or commit apostasy, or commit some sort of fraud, or commit any other serious transgression.  

The calling of a bishop is extraordinarily important in the Church.  I cannot agree that the bishop made the right call here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It was the bishop’s stewardship, not mine. If he was inspired to give that counsel, it’s not for me to say. My friend is grateful for the counsel he received. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Me too.  That's why I researched out as many of the sources in the footnotes that I could find and read them (along with many other sources and first hand accounts of those involved).  It's pretty well documented that at least those 2 apostles (Petersen and Kimball) approved of these treatments.  We have too many similar first hand statements naming them to disregard the evidence, IMO. 

But not of them saying it themselves, right?  Just reported?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It was the bishop’s stewardship, not mine.

The bishop exceeded his stewardship and breached the trust that was given to him by the Church.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If he was inspired to give that counsel, it’s not for me to say.

I wonder if he was likewise "inspired" to hide from the stake president and the Church the fact that he had given "that counsel" to a member of his flock.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My friend is grateful for the counsel he received. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, thanks.  

You asked for references.  I provided them.  And the CFR wasn't even directed at me.

And now you want me to "curate" the references?  Would you like anything else served up on a silver platter?  One lump with your tea, perhaps?

You asked for references.  You now have some. 

Not ones that follow the board's rules, which require specifics, not just a link or book title and a wave "over there somwhere".

If the CFR wasn't directed at you, that is not a problem, but it wasn't answered by your post.

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assume that having engaged in homosexual behavior was grounds enough all by itself for expulsion. 

Prior to 1973, a student could be expelled from BYU just for being gay whether or not they were actively gay (just admitting attraction to the same sex or that they were gay).  

Ernest Wilkinson stated that people with homosexual tendancies will not be allowed to enroll or remain as students since they contaminate the campus.

This aversion therapy began in 1959 (when you could be expelled for just having homosexual tendencies).  If you read from some of the links earlier, several students write they were threatened with being expelled unless they agreed to the treatments even though they’d never openly been gay (in a relationship, etc.).

Edited December 20, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You are certainly correct.  This wasn't "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  Completely different things.  When I was on my mission during the 1970s, the Shick Method was extremely popular for an anti-smoking program.   They should have called it the Shock Method.  Shock therapy was used in many circumstances and by many institutions to control addiction, including homosexuality which was considered by most to be a mental disorder or, as Freud put it, an "inversion" like excessive autoeroticism.  Today shock therapy looks cruel and dumb, but when I was a child and my mother couldn't afford much, my brothers and sisters and I had dental work without anesthesia.  Times change.   

The conflation of one with the other really bugs me now I know firsthand how that confusion contributes to people being reluctant to make use of a wonderful alternative treatment for depression and other emotional issues as well as how it contributes to people being nonsupportive of those who undergo or care for those who undergo ECT.

Cuckoo's Nest is more than enough to deal with, we don't need claims that it was used to "torture" gays, etc.

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not of them saying it themselves, right?  

As far as I know, neither one of them ever spoke publicly about these treatments (no one did for years).  It wasn't until 2011 that BYU admitted to their past usage of electroshock therapy on gay students and both of these men had passed away years prior to that.  

There are simply too many eye witness statements naming both Kimball and Petersen to disregard them, IMO.  These 2 had been assigned by those higher up to be over the gay issue in the church as well. 

But if it was not them, then someone from above the stake presidents were also referring students for the treatment and had informed SPs and Bishops to do the same.  Of course each person should do their own research here.  I think it's naive to believe these treatments would have been done without the approval of at least some of the leaders.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The bishop exceeded his stewardship and breached the trust that was given to him by the Church.

I wonder if he was likewise "inspired" to hide from the stake president and the Church the fact that he had given "that counsel" to a member of his flock.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe this is where that letter to Nancy Rigdon comes in. If the bishop was inspired to give that counsel, then it is right, end of story. 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cuckoo's Nest is more than enough to deal with, we don't need claims that it was used to "torture" gays, etc.

Just because there is a difference, that does not mean that what was done to gays during their electroshock treatment wouldn't be considered to be "torture" by many.  Young men were jolted with painful electric shocks to the penis while being shown pornographic images of men.  

Quote

 

"The long term effects of the electric shock "therapy" these men were subjected to has been crippling. Two of the men committed suicide soon after completing this torturous study. Every survivor I have interviewed has suffered life-long emotional, spiritual, and sometimes physical damage. In 1999, John Cameron, one of the 14 men who went through this horrific experience in 1976 when he was a 23 year old BYU student and member of the Young Ambassadors, wrote to me, 'For 22 years now I have lived with the scars of the experience - unable to articulate a personal suffering and longing that have almost crippled me...'"

The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature":  A Revised History of Homosexuality & Mormonism, 1840-1980 by Connell O'Donovan

 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

I’m not by my computer right now but will look up some links for you to read on this.  I’m a bit surprised you’re not aware of what took place over the years this was done at BYU.  There’s a lot to read (I’ve read some in the past and have been reading more over the last day or so).   

There are also many personal stories from those who were involved that are heartbreaking to read.  I’ll look for some of those for you too if you’re interested.

I get you disagree with the word I chose to use earlier, but there are different definitions for it and I’ve explained what I meant.  Don’t get hung up on that one word and let it keep you from doing your own homework on this topic.  It’s a pretty interesting period to read about, IMO, although I get why some might not want to read more about it too.  That’s up to you.

I’d recommend reading some of the sources I’ve already posted and also what others have posted on this thread to start with.  Then do a search for “reparative electroshock therapy BYU”.  There’s one that’s good by someone “asking for proof” these happened.  A lot of responses with several links and info to read.

I will post more later for you when I can be on my computer, if you need more!

I'm a bit surprised that you would assume that I'm not aware of the fact that all this went on at BYU for a while. I am aware of it. However, my sources, like yours, are those that are shrill with indignation about it. Virtue signalling is trivially easy, but I'm looking for hard facts, thanks.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just because there is a difference, that does not mean that what was done to gays during their electroshock treatment wouldn't be considered to be "torture" by many.  Young men were jolted with painful electric shocks to the penis while being shown pornographic images of men.  

 

No, electroshock (now electroconvulsive) therapy wasn't used.  Aversion electric therapy is NOT electroshock therapy.  People are using the wrong name and therefore confusing the treatments.

Please stop using "electroshock" and use the correct term "aversion electric therapy" or "electrical aversion therapy".

Edited December 20, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe this is where that letter to Nancy Rigdon comes in. If the bishop was inspired to give that counsel, then it is right, end of story. 

Agreed.  It's a big "if."  A nearly insurmountable "if."  But agreed.

Thanks,

-SMac

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps the church regarding SSA..should just get over it.

Yes, because the Church is continually harping on about this, and its critics never bring it up, right?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, electroshock (now electroconvulsive) therapy wasn't used.  Aversion electric therapy is NOT electroshock therapy.  People are using the wrong name and therefore confusing the treatments.

Please stop using "electroshock" and use the correct term "aversion electric therapy" or "electrical aversion therapy".

Everywhere I've read (or at least most sources) refer to it as "compulsory electroshock aversion therapy".

I'm open to using the correct term, but this is what is used in most of my sources.  

Edited to add:

I've also seen the term: "electroconvulsive aversion therapy".  Is that more correct?

 https://books.google.com/books?id=e4RFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq="electroconvulsive+aversion+therapy"&source=bl&ots=5gsu5T8dgi&sig=C4McwjO-ANx-w3p70kAnV4AoOSY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAh4f23pnYAhVKxWMKHf8bAJwQ6AEIPDAD#v=onepage&q="electroconvulsive aversion therapy"&f=false

They use "electroshock (electroconvulsive) aversion therapy" in the book above in regards to the treatment for homosexuals.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

Just now, ALarson said:

Everywhere I've read (or at least most sources) refer to it as "compulsory electroshock aversion therapy".

Are they medical or academic sources?

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

This is a great example of a continuation of the long tradition of bottom-up revelation, aka folk doctrine. This finally filtered upwards to the general authority level.

He smirked, smugly ignoring the raft of quotations from official Church sources previously provided by Smac97.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are they medical or academic sources?

Check the book source I just posted (edit).