LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

Wow, talk about an error.  Not impressed.

It has a long history of misuse among lay people, but that it got in that book.

add-on:  in looking at the book, elsewhere ECT is used properly so I wouldn't be surprised if this was an error of an editor who was not educated in that area and got confused due to the use of "shock therapy" as many do.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wow, talk about an error.  Not impressed.

It has a long history of misuse among lay people, but that it got in that book.

I agree that it's confusing.  I was just using the terms I'd read used.

What is the correct term for setting the probes to shock the penis then?

Maybe simply "shock therapy".  Would that be proper?

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

It obviously wasn't. If it had been regarded that way, they would have said something about it.

Ah. The argument from silence. How - persuasive. Or something

5 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a significant omission that tells us the talk about revelation is applied retroactively.

It "tells" you that, only because that is your a priori assumption anyway.

5 hours ago, Gray said:

But to get back on topic, do you think the leaked pamphlet in the OP was produced by revelation? Why or why not?

Unlike the Proclamation - which was officially presented to the Church over the signatures of all 15 then-living prophets, seers and revelators, and therefore was understood to be a revelatory document that needed to be spelled out as such only for the benefit of the terminally clueless - the obscure and long-forgotten pamphlet in question doesn't begin to look like the product of revelation. The single initial sentence setting out the position of the Church regarding homosexual behaviour is revealed truth, of course, because it is derived from previously revealed sources; but the rest looks like an attempt to implement the (still unchanged) revealed doctrine in a practical way.

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

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

Well, someone has to support the few gay members in the mormon community.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

 

The Ernest Wilkinson quote posted here, while harsh (Wilkinson is not my all-time favorite administrator, but that's beside the point here) did not state categorically that they would be excluded from enrollment merely for tendencies. In the quote, as I recall it, Wilkinson gave the caveat that they would not be allowed to enroll if they had not overcome it. From that, I read Wilkinson as meaning behavior, not tendencies. Back then, it was common to regard homosexuality as including behavior, not just orientation.

Typically, when one speaks of "overcoming" a thing, it pertains to behavior.

Quote

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.).

That may well be. But this doesn't help me any more than did ALarson's assertions. If there are links to that effect, and you know where they are, it would be easier for you (or ALarson) to cite them than it would be for me to go looking for them.

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure anyone here is faulting people for being upset. I will ask you a question that pertains. Would you ever again trust a doctor, psychiatrist, social worker or counsellor (other than a religious leader) who gave you advice in good faith that that at the time was approved and recommended by his peers, but later turned out to be flawed? One would have to decide for oneself and act accordingly.

No.  If they told me their treatment was absolutely the right thing to do and it turned to be pure quack and they had no idea what they were doing.  Who would?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Ernest Wilkinson quote posted here, while harsh (Wilkinson is not my all-time favorite administrator, but that's beside the point here) did not state categorically that they would be excluded from enrollment merely for tendencies.

No, Julie was correct.  Oaks changed that in 1973 (from a timeline regarding BYU history):

Quote

"1973 – It was decided by the BYU Board of Trustees that the ban on people attracted to those of the same sex would be lifted and they could enroll at BYU with local church leadership permission as long as they were not sexually expressing their attractions."

- BYU Board Meeting Minutes. BYU Library Special Collections: BYU. 19 April 1973. pp. 6–7.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Going to a bishop and going to a doctor are not portrayed as being the same thing for the member. One is supposed to have keys to receive revelation on behalf of the member.

Nevertheless, I think your point of view is correct, if I state it properly, that the bishop is doing the best he can with the very human, fallible materials he receives from the brethren.

Members shouldn't blindly trust their leaders, ever, and perhaps should avoid counseling with local leaders because the member can't expect any inspiration any more than they can expect it from any outsider.  Is this the lesson members should take away from this?

I too would certainly have no problem seeking advice from a bishop, stake president, apostle, or any other church leader if they were clear that it was their opinion they were giving and there was no expectation that the answers came from God.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree that it's confusing.  I was just using the terms I'd read used.

What is the correct term for setting the probes to shock the penis then?

Electrical aversion therapy or aversion electric therapy.  I wouldn't fuss over aversion shock therapy either, but electroconvulsive or electroshock (all one word) is brain applied (add-on:  just plain "shock therapy" is too often confused, so always including "aversion" to distinguish is wise)

Here is a video of ECT, the first movement right at the beginning is when the paralytic hits.  First they are knocked out to avoid getting freaked by not being able to move and then they are given the paralytic so the convulsions cause no pain.  There might be  bit of cramping or jaw pain the first time.  Then after the lungs are flooded with oxygen, as they can't breathe on their own with the paralytic, the seizure is induced by a small electrical stimulus applied on the forehead (you can see the band with two metal discs attached).  You don't even have to change out of street clothing or take your shoes off if you don't want to.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Ypt-vKI2U

The whole thing lasts five to ten minutes, recovery for Shan usually is 40 minutes iirc, she is fully out for about 15-20 though may be moving trying to get comfortable, grinding her teeth.  Once she keeps her eyes open, it is about 20 minutes to make sure no bad reaction. By the end she could probably walk out on her own, but she is wheelchaired to the car and we are home in 60 minutes.  Then she usually has breakfast and sleeps for most of the day.

Here is an old video showing aversion electric therapy for alcoholism, it starts around 12 minutes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAsfacc9Ndw

It can definitely be traumatizing,  in some clients it produced high levels of anxiety, deepening problems rather than helping.  While Aversion therapy is still used today, any ethical use would have to be limited to a strict protocol.  

https://www.addiction.com/a-z/aversion-therapy/

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-SMac

I don’t see why it’s nearly insurmountable. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Electrical aversion therapy or aversion electric therapy.  I wouldn't fuss over aversion shock therapy either, but electroconvulsive or electroshock (all one word) is brain applied.

Gotcha.  Thanks, Calm.  I'll make sure I use the correct term 

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

I would appreciate that.

Electric aversion therapy probably was not a good thing (I say probably because it may have helped save lives with alcohol or smoking addictions), but it does no one good to raise indignation over it by creating a false picture of what was going on.  It wasn't ECT or anything remotely like it, since the whole point was to create memories and one of the side effects and concerns with ECT is it messes up memory.  Someone is unconscious when ECT occurs, so no negative association with arousal could be formed even by error.

If someone is going to be outraged, at least be outraged over what went on and not a false image of a man being tortured by volts of electricity to his brain.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Are you aware of all the quotes which say that they are not perfect?

And where is a single quote which says they ARE perfect?

I won't look them up- I know I am right.  Go ahead if you want to argue the point.

"The prophet will never lead you astray."  When has that happened?   Polygamy?  Who's to say that was "astray" for the time?  But that is a lot different than infallibility.

There was a talk by Elder Uchtdorf I think and Christiensen? 

But the bottom line has to be testimony anyway.  It would just plain be STUPID to believe ANYONE is infallible when the way we are supposed to know the church is true anyway is by personal revelation.

God doesn't want us to take anyone's word for it without testimony anyway.  Joseph wouldn't take anyone's word for it- so what did he do?  He went to God.   Moroni says "ask God" James 1 says "ask God" and there are other scriptures that say the same thing

Infallibility leads to Jim Jones and drinking the kool aid.

The whole principle of the restoration is that we must go to God for answers so the belief that prophets are infallible contradicts the central logic of the whole restoration. Pure idiocy in my opinion.   People who believe that have just not thought it through

Joseph knew the church was true because he got a vision- not because some old guy said it was true and here we have faithful members denying that whole principle!

Central contradiction there.

We go to convert people and ask them to believe the prophet is infallible and he says to join?   How would that work?   "This old guy says this is the true church and so you should join!"

Ridiculous, right?

GO TO GOD for answers- do not believe in the infallibility of prophets.

That should be self-evident to everyone and I never understand how this cult of personality gets going in a church which is based on Alma 32 Moroni 10 and James 1.  And who said a prophet will never lead the church astray?   A prophet.

Figure that one out for yourself if you have the ability to reason for yourself.

D&C 46

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

[Tacenda]

Just started watching these youtubes of the therapy for gay LDS. Maybe it's been shared already, if anything, we can show things like this, in order to keep it from happening again. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I misread you. I thought you meant he would forgive us when we acted in good faith. 

Would you include BYU grad students, professors, Standards Office staff, and LDS general authorities in that forgiveness?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just started watching these youtubes of the therapy for gay LDS. Maybe it's been shared already, if anything, we can show things like this, in order to keep it from happening again. 

 

Unless I missed it, it didn't show actual therapy, but just men telling their stories of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, Julie was correct.  Oaks changed that in 1973 (from a timeline regarding BYU history):

 

Thanks.

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I mean that it was God's will divulged to the prophet and delivered to the Church by means of a now obsolete pamphlet.  That is californiaboys claim.  I am saying, nope. I know that you don't believe that God speaks to man like californiaboy and I do, so your involvement might be a bit of a distraction quite honestly. 

From the Pamphlet

Quote

 

B. The Causes of Homosexual Behavior

Professionals do not agree on the causes of homosexual behavior. How- ever, most professional research supports the view that homosexual behavior is learned, and is influenced by unhealthy emotional development in early childhood. This explanation is most consistent with what the Lord has revealed concerning the eternal nature of man as the offspring of divine parents.

 

This section appears in the pamphlet right after the part that says it is the father and mothers fault that their child is gay and all the things the parents did to cause their child to be gay.  Pretty clear that the pamphlet is claiming that these beliefs are consistent with what the Lord has revealed.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would they have known better? 

That seems to be the point of those who are criticizing BYU, the Church, and general authorities for using what are now discredited practices, but which at the time were mainstream. Or maybe I'm on the wrong thread.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you include BYU grad students, professors, Standards Office staff, and LDS general authorities in that forgiveness?

Of course. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The reality is, as Smac has pointed out, that Elder Oaks, a participant in the drafting and subsequent publication of the proclamation, and a signatory thereto, attests that the process was indeed revelatory. As Smac has shown, Gray's contradiction thus amounts to an accusation that Elder Oaks is lying.

I choose to accept Elder Oaks's attestation; I choose to reject Gray's accusation

.

Well that is fine and certainly your choice.  But don't pretend that Gray is the only one who highly doubts claims of revelation 20 years after the event.  

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone is going to be outraged, at least be outraged over what went on and not a false image of a man being tortured by volts of electricity to his brain.

I don’t know Calm.  I think many men would prefer that over having their penis shocked to the extent that it left burns and permanent scars.   

I understand the outrage over this when you learn how young some of these guys were and that they hadn’t ever been actively gay, but just expressed an attraction.  

It would be interesting to know what other college campuses these trials or treatments went on.  But it seems no records show up if they were done anywhere else at a university.  

Edited December 21, 2017 by JulieM

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

I stated:

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

You responded to another poster:

I asked:

You responded:

 

Did my previous answer clarify what I was talking about?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position.  I thought you were saying that the church developed 1981pamphlet from existing thought at the time. I think you are probably right.  And what I was asserting is that current pamphlets also come from existing thought outside church sources such as the Catholic church and Evangelic churches.  Just like the 1981 pamphlet, no divine direction goes into them even when such claims are made by some.  There is no evidence that church leaders have ever gotten any of past or current church policies towards gays from divine source.  Current pamphlets should not be taken as coming from God any more than past pamphlets guiding church leaders.

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

That was not the case at least with some of them involved.  I'd recommend you read some of the case histories and personally recorded writings of those involved.

My first roommate at BYU was homosexual. Mid-60s. There were some uncomfortable experiences the first few months, but I didn't think I had to report him to anyone. We traded roommates with another fellow whose had a roommate of like orientation after a couple of months and we were all much more comfortable.

 

19 hours 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. 

About 45 years ago Sister Gui and I participated in the miraculous conversion of a remarkable young man we picked up hitchhiking in Wyoming. Several years later he served a mission, during which time he had some very bad experiences because he was secretly gay. On his return, he left the Church in bitterness and fully embraced the lifestyle. He contracted HIV and experienced severe debilitating consequences that persist today. He is blessed to still be alive after seeing a number of friends perish. After a number of years, he came to himself, returned the Church passing through the repentance process, became an active participant in Evergreen and North Star, has served and is serving in a number of very responsible priesthood callings, is supportive of the Church position regarding his orientation, places his trust in the Atonement of Jesus Christ and that God will heal all wounds, spends every day when he is physically able in working with the missionaries and giving service to his branch members and neighbors. He lives a celibate lifestyle. He attributes all this to saving his life and he says it gives him great joy. His mottos are, "If it is good enough for the Prophet, it is good enough for me," and "I am a Latter-day Saint and Child of God first. My identity is not wrapped in my sexuality." 

Here is part of his testimony that he bore to us in 2016:

Quote

I enjoy spending a lot of time doing missionary work. I love to see the Gospel of Jesus Christ change hearts and lives as they gain a testimony of this, the Lord's work and enter the waters of baptism covenanting to follow Jesus the rest of their lives. I have a testimony that Jesus can change hearts and lives from the inside out! Over the years He has been patient and loving. He has been there to guide me through times of deep darkness and at other times through incredibly bright light. I am thankful to my Savior for always being there to lead me and guide me. I am thankful that after those times of darkness he has dusted me by and through His atonement and made me whole again. I am thankful to now be walking in His incredible light!

Sometimes good people choose to follow the prophet and rise above the current societal consensus and make a difference.  

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui