LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

That's great that God will do this in the end, I guess.  Too bad some had to suffer through bad advice that maybe could have been alleviated with a little humility and an admission that fallible opinion, not inspiration governed the decision to recommend shock therapy (whatever the correct term is)?  Do you think God will condemn, maybe a little bit, the overly trusting individual who mistakenly believed that his bishop was inspired to recommend the shock therapy?  We are responsible for our own actions and should never completely trust a bishop, even when he claims his counsel is inspired?

I would hope bishops present their counsel in a way that still allows agency. We are still entitled to our personal revelation and should be responsible for our decisions. I believe a bishop could recommend the person seek and follow competent medical advice and treatment. Some of us find ourselves in very difficult  circumstances.  We are desperate for resolutions. The bishop is one valuable source for remedy, but I don’t think he should be the only source. Of course, bishops are not infallible, but I have received wise and helpful counsel over many years.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

This probably could have been a lot shorter if responses would have been with contrition instead of defensiveness.  It is obvious now that the church followed certain theories and practices that people find abhorrent today.  How about let's just admit to a mistake, and move on?  Surely mistake correction is part of modern revelation, right?  So, no problem in admitting to needing a course correction?

Yes, I'm sure a lot of threads here would be a lot shorter if everyone would just cave in to what the faultfinders say.

 

[Exiled]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I would hope bishops present their counsel in a way that still allows agency. We are still entitled to our personal revelation and should be responsible for our decisions. I believe a bishop could recommend the person seek and follow competent medical advice and treatment.

Maybe Elder Ballard's recent restatement of the obvious, that leaders are not experts in everything will help.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I'm sure a lot of threads here would be a lot shorter if everyone would just cave in to what the faultfinders say.

I think this is the real issue: most people see the electroshock aversion therapy as a mistake, but for some reason, expressing that opinion is faultfinding. How can an organization improve if it cannot acknowledge its missteps? It is possible to express an opinion that an organization has made mistakes without vilifying that organization.

[Exiled]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I'm sure a lot of threads here would be a lot shorter if everyone would just cave in to what the faultfinders say.

 

Sometimes where fault lies is obvious, yet still denied.  That generates a lot of wasted energy.  Of course the "faultfinders" make mistakes too and should readily admit to such mistakes when they occur.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Oh wow.  I missed that.  Did you correct them?  You should if you didn't just so they know....seriously.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I missed that, too. I didn't think anyone believed they were electric shocks to the brain. 

If he is reading people's posts, I am sure he has realized his error.  I wanted to correct and even scold perhaps, but not embarrass.  I assumed others had caught it as well.

If he was making a joke, it was a very strange one.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sometimes where fault lies is obvious, yet still denied.  That generates a lot of wasted energy.  Of course the "faultfinders" make mistakes too and should readily admit to such mistakes when they occur.

I think some people believe that there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of the church. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and I look forward to more progress as science and mainstream thinking continues to progress.

"Science and mainstream thinking" aren't really the first authorities I turn to in terms of morality.  They are very much downstream in that regard.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't see much "handwringing" over these writings.  Where I see them brought up is as evidence that the church's beliefs and teachings have changed on this topic (along with those in the world and science) when many simply refuse to acknowledge or admit there have been changes.

The Law of Chastity remains substantively unchanged.  The Church has adopted a more informed and kinder and - I think - better approach to addressing same-sex attraction.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the real issue: most people see the electroshock aversion therapy as a mistake, but for some reason, expressing that opinion is faultfinding. How can an organization improve if it cannot acknowledge its missteps? It is possible to express an opinion that an organization has made mistakes without vilifying that organization.

Ironically,  without faultfinders, they could still be using aversion shock therapy on gay men at BYU. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by CA Steve
For Calm x2

[Exiled]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I think some people believe that there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of the church. 

I think that is undoubtedly the truth.  However, it unnecessarily creates a gulf between people, especially when the criticism is valid, yet vehemently denied.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the real issue: most people see the electroshock aversion therapy as a mistake...

Please don't use "electroshock", if you want to use "shock" for some reason, use aversion electric shock therapy or aversion shock therapy in order to avoid confusion with actual "electroshock", now known as "electroconvulsive therapy" or ECT.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Please don't use "electroshock", if you want to use "shock" for some reason, use aversion electric shock therapy or aversion shock therapy in order to avoid confusion with actual "electroshock", now known as "electroconvulsive therapy" or ECT.

I will follow your recommended usage. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Ironically,  without faultfinders, they could still be  shocking the genitals of gay men at BYU. 

Except that they likely weren't.  The latter study had the shock applied to the upper arm.

There are claims of other versions, but nothing but anecdotes, iirc some of which were inconsistent...such as a detailed description of vomiting used as the aversive stimuli, but the individual actually states he never underwent the treatment.

-----

And science needs to have people question even solidly established ideas/studies from time to time, especially in fields of soft science where effects can be confused by many variables, especially conflicting internal personal desires.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I will follow your recommended usage. 

Thank you.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Science and mainstream thinking" aren't really the first authorities I turn to in terms of morality.  They are very much downstream in that regard.

I used those because that is what was brought up in the OP (plus a few others):

Quote

Critics of the LDS Church often ignore the social, scientific, medical, and political contexts of its policies concerning homosexuality ...

Quote

The Church was well within the mainstream.

 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity remains substantively unchanged. 

I agree (only minor changes).  But these pamphlets are brought up when someone will not acknowledge that beliefs and teachings have changed over the years.  Those are what have changed.  Many times these pamphlets enter the conversation because of CFRs that are issued.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I will follow your recommended usage. 

In McBride's paper (of his trial at BYU), he refers to it as "ELECTRIC AVERSION THERAPY".  So that may be the most proper term to use.  Just an FYI 

https://ia800802.us.archive.org/35/items/BYUaversionTherapy/McBride Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy BYU Dissertation Aug 1976_text.pdf

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

It is the one that makes the most sense, it is a type of aversion therapy, so that should be the core phrase with electric at the beginning to identify the type.  Like an electric frying pan...doesn't quite use electricity in the same way, but I am guessing makes my point.

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't know it was a "spin-off" (where does it state that?).  The pamphlet is not mentioned in the OP, Scott.  So no, it's not a "more than 19 pages of back-and-forth argumentation over faultfinding about a long-ago-discontinued pamphlet".  The majority of this thread has been a discussion regarding what took place at BYU (which was on topic per the OP).

My OP had been prepared to present on the pamphlet discussion, but it was closed just before I submitted it. My intention was not to resurrect it with another similar discussion, but rather point out that what happened at BYU May not have been motivated by animus, but by an appeal to accepted medical practices. To me, that puts a better focus on what happened instead of the usual hypercritical narratives that are purposed to vilify the Church and certain specific leaders.

 Of course there are many, many past practices that seem barbaric now, but how should we judge those that were following what was accepted at the time? My first four-hour severely two impacted wisdom teeth extraction was performed with just Novocain and the dentist climbing up on the chair and placing his knee on my chest while tugging on the tooth with pliers. It was 6 years before I got up the courage to get the other two out. 

I think context is important whatever the topic, and in this case the context, as far as I can tell, is never mentioned. Of course treatments have changed....they always do as new information comes forward. We could argue that people including Church leaders should have known better. Perhaps they should have, but that would be hard to resolve.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

My OP had been prepared to present on the pamphlet discussion, but it was closed just before I submitted it. My intention was not to resurrect it with another similar discussion, but rather point out that what happened at BYU May not have been motivated by animus, but by an appeal to accepted medical practices. To me, that puts a better focus on what happened instead of the usual hypercritical narratives that are purposed to vilify the Church and certain specific leaders.

 Of course there are many, many past practices that seem barbaric now, but how should we judge those that were following what was accepted at the time? My first four-hour severely two impacted wisdom teeth extraction was performed with just Novocain and the dentist climbing up on the chair and placing his knee on my chest while tugging on the tooth with pliers. It was 6 years before I got up the courage to get the other two out. 

I think context is important whatever the topic, and in this case the context, as far as I can tell, is never mentioned. Of course treatments have changed....they always do as new information comes forward. We could argue that people including Church leaders should have known better. Perhaps they should have, but that would be hard to resolve.

I think we can agree that it wasn't motivated by animus, but I don't understand those who believe it wrong to even acknowledge that it was, in hindsight, a mistake.

[smac97]

.

Edited December 21, 2017 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think we can agree that it wasn't motivated by animus, but I don't understand those who believe it wrong to even acknowledge that it was, in hindsight, a mistake.

Of course those were mistaken therapies, but can we ignore the fact they were approved and used in the general medical community at that time? We must also acknowledge that that context is not mentioned when critics invariably use the BYU story to excoriate the Church and its leaders or to embarrass and silence defenders of the Church.

In hindsight, there are many, many things I wish I had never done. The question is should I have had the foresight not to do them in the first place. That is a difficult question.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree (only minor changes).  But these pamphlets are brought up when someone will not acknowledge that beliefs and teachings have changed over the years. 

"Beliefs and teachings" about the Law of Chastity have not changed fundamentally.  Homosexual behavior is still prohibited.  However, the tone and tenor with which the Church approaches this issue has improved.  That tone and tenor can affect "beliefs and teachings" in some non-fundamental ways.  So perhaps we are both right.

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those are what have changed.  Many times these pamphlets enter the conversation because of CFRs that are issued.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think we can agree that it wasn't motivated by animus, but I don't understand those who believe it wrong to even acknowledge that it was, in hindsight, a mistake.

Accepted, mainstream medical practices become outmoded all the time as collective knowledge increases and new and better practices emerge. Is it your contention that practitioners of past practices should be denounced for having made mistakes, even when such practices were the professional standard at the time?

[Calm]

I very much appreciate people working at being precise.  I think precision is very important, especially in medical practices and it is possible if researchers were precise, they would have stuck with using aversion techniques with simpler, biologically based addictions that there is solid evidence that it works for rather than extrapolating and then assuming short term results or self reporting were a valid appraisal of the technique.

It is unfortunate now that aversion therapy has a bad name because it is apparently (at least back in 2011 iirc, posted a link earlier) one of the best, if not the best treatment for to help quit smoking.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Of course those were mistaken therapies, but can we ignore the fact they were approved and used in the general medical community at that time? We must also acknowledge that that context is not mentioned when critics invariably use the BYU story to excoriate the Church and its leaders or to embarrass and silence defenders of the Church.

In hindsight, there are many, many things I wish I had never done. The question is should I have had the foresight not to do them in the first place. That is a difficult question.

Honestly, I think the reason some people excoriate the church is precisely because some people refuse to acknowledge that the therapies were a mistake. I'm reminded of a poster here a while back who steadfastly defended the church's past racial policies. It does no harm to acknowledge mistakes, but you can imagine how people react when such mistakes are vehemently denied. Yes, there are people who will never be satisfied because, in their view, the church is always wrong; but it's no better to insist that the church is always right.