LDS SSA Policies in Context

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

To me, all this makes a prophet unnecessary.

Of course it does. The critics' interest in this topic really doesn't have any other purpose, does it?

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

As I have re read the pamphlet several times, I tend to agree now with what you wrote.  I think a lot of my judgement is based on the claims of revelation given to me about this issue which proved to be just as wrong as this pamphlet.  

What would I like to see church leaders do more of?  Be more clear where their decisions and directions are coming from.  To a lot of members, especially gay that are very sensitive to these issues, it is important to know where the church leaders claim these policies are coming from.  There is a big difference between, this is our best advice, and claims of divine guidance.  

Thank you for your intellectual honesty in re-assessing what was written in the pamphlet, and being willing to be open.  That says a lot about you. 

I can't comment on the claims of revelation that were given to you personally.  I would hope that any time a bishop, or other leader, when offering what they perceived to be a revelation for you, that they encouraged you to not simply take their word for it, but to seek divine confirmation for yourself, and not act in blind faith.  That is how this is all supposed to work. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established".  Your bishop, or leader, acts as one witness, and the individual should always be another witness. 

In regards to the pamphlet being more clear, I felt it was pretty honest. They clearly stated that their position was based on popular consensus in research in conjunction with what has been revealed about the plan of salvation.  That is true and accurate.  I don't see any misleading claims of divine revelation stating that it is the will of God that men undergo these procedures.  

 

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Here's a quote from the paper regarding Freud being the first to use aversion conditioning for homosexuality:

"Freund's (1960) early research was one of the first attempts to employ aversive conditioning using emetic drugs in the treatment of homosexuality."

Freund =/= Freud  

I know it doesn't really make a difference, but there are differences.  And the comment about 17 pages is accurate.  I know it's not 17 pages of listed references, but that's not what I expect when I am reading a dissertation.  There is a section at the beginning of a scientific or research paper that outlines the recent research about the topic at hand and explains why the current study is needed to gain a further understanding.  So 17 pages of reviewing the current scientific data is what is there, and you are correct that it is not a 17 page reference section.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Denounced? No, but it would be nice to hear someone express regret for the suffering caused by those outmoded practices. A good analogy might be found in parenting. I think most of us have tried to follow church teachings and current medical and psychological recommendations in raising our children (at least I did). We did our best, and we had our children's best interests at heart. But we have all made mistakes. If we've made mistakes that have ended up hurting our children, is it appropriate for parents to express regret or even apologize for things they did wrong? I know I've apologized to my children for some of the mistakes I made as a father. I owe it to my children to acknowledge when I have done wrong.

I guess we are approaching this from different angles. I think one can acknowledge mistakes the church has made without vilifying and denouncing the church. But too often, any criticism at all is taken as denunciation and vilification.

 

I'm revisiting this post because a comparison has occurred to me.

A while back someone started a thread on this board about routine neonatal circumcision. On that occasion, I made it clear that I think the practice is misguided because there are no clear and indisputable benefits to it and that it is ethically questionable because it amounts to performing cosmetic surgery and thereby inflicting needless pain and suffering on helpless newborns from whom it is impossible to obtain informed consent.

At the same time, I acknowledged that the practice was nearly universal when I was in my childhood, with the rate in the United States at 90 percent or higher. It has dramatically decreased over the decades and I can only hope it continues to fade until it disappears into oblivion.

Am I inclined to fault those parents back in the 1960s who had it performed on their newborns? No, I can't feel to do that. I recognize that they sincerely thought they were wisely giving their consent to a beneficent and very widely accepted practice, a routine part of neonatal care. The majority had neither the ability nor the wherewithal to research the matter for themselves, nor would they have recognized any reason why they should, given that the practice had been so widely entrenched in society. They simply trusted what society and the medical professionals told them was best.

Do I now demand that they express remorse or regret for having agreed to it back then? No, under the circumstances, I'm not going to do that. I desire to leave that chapter behind and look ahead to a future in which we are hopefully more enlightened going forward.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Am I inclined to fault those parents back in the 1960s who had it performed on their newborns? No, I can't feel to do that. I recognize that they sincerely thought they were wisely giving their consent to a beneficent and very widely accepted practice, a routine part of neonatal care.

Ah, but what about parents like me in the 21st century who still think it's a good thing?  

I'm just giving you a hard time, Scott.

You make a good point here, and I think a comparison between the two is valid, within reason and limits (i.e., as far as it goes). They weren't shocking infants to cure them of their "babyness," so the comparison only goes so far . . . 

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Freund =/= Freud  

I know it doesn't really make a difference, but there are differences.  

Thanks.  I'm not sure why it copied that way (that was a copy and paste from the actual paper....where I wrote the name above, I spelled it correctly, but I'll edit the copy right now).

54 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And the comment about 17 pages is accurate.  I know it's not 17 pages of listed references, but that's not what I expect when I am reading a dissertation.  There is a section at the beginning of a scientific or research paper that outlines the recent research about the topic at hand and explains why the current study is needed to gain a further understanding.  So 17 pages of reviewing the current scientific data is what is there, and you are correct that it is not a 17 page reference section.  

The claim is:

Quote

 McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies...

That is not an accurate representation.   The paper isn't just 17 pages long (it's 102 pages).  Which specific 17+ pages contain the "documentation"?  (Please give me the page numbers).  That's a CFR

The way that it is stated, it gives the impression that there's a section of 17 or more straight pages that list all the documentation and studies.  That's not anywhere in the paper.  The studies are mentioned here and there throughout by name only....but no entire pages or section devoted to documentation discussing specific studies.  I'm not sure where FAIR even came up with the number "17"?

The entire paper mentions different studies all throughout (mostly in parenthesis after a quote as a source), but only gives the name of the study, no documentation is given (I listed those named in my last post on this).  A few studies are mentioned in the "references" section at the end of the paper....but no documentation regarding the success of that study, just the name of the study.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sure it is.

But repeatedly shrieking that the pamphlet somehow "proves" that no LDS Church leader has ever received revelation on any topic at any time - or, to put it more succinctly - to exploit the pamphlet as a weapon against the fundamental truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, as one very active participant has done - is certainly faultfinding and vilification.

Well, each poster must answer for himself or herself. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ah, but what about parents like me in the 21st century who still think it's a good thing?  

I'm just giving you a hard time, Scott.

You make a good point here, and I think a comparison between the two is valid, within reason and limits (i.e., as far as it goes). They weren't shocking infants to cure them of their "babyness," so the comparison only goes so far . . . 

Well, as we frequently say, no analogy applies in each and ever respect. Or, to put it another way, an analogy is a comparison of two unassociated things that are similar in limited respects.

 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'm revisiting this post because a comparison has occurred to me.

A while back someone started a thread on this board about routine neonatal circumcision. On that occasion, I made it clear that I think the practice is misguided because there are no clear benefits to it and that it is ethically questionable because it amounts to performing cosmetic surgery and thereby inflicting needless pain and suffering on helpless newborns from whom it is impossible to obtain informed consent.

At the same time, I acknowledged that the practice was nearly universal when I was in my childhood, with the rate in the United States at 90 percent or higher. It has dramatically decreased over the decades and I can only hope it continues to fade until it disappears into oblivion.

Am I inclined to fault those parents back in the 1960s who had it performed on their newborns? No, I can't feel to do that. I recognize that they sincerely thought they were wisely giving their consent to a beneficent and very widely accepted practice, a routine part of neonatal care. The majority had neither the ability nor the wherewithal to research the matter for themselves, nor would they have recognized any reason why they should, given that the practice had been so widely entrenched in society. They simply trusted what society and the medical professionals told them was best.

Do I now demand that they express remorse or regret for having agreed to it back then? No, under the circumstances, I'm not going to do that. I desire to leave that chapter behind and look ahead to a future in which we are hopefully more enlightened going forward.

Speaking only for myself, I’m not demanding anything. I stand by what I’ve said about these programs, but I don’t expect anything from the church. I’m heartened that you acknowledge the aversion therapy hurt people. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, as we frequently say, no analogy applies in each and ever respect. Or, to put it another way, an analogy is a comparison of two unassociated things that are similar in limited respects.

Well, your analogy was a "cut" above the rest . . . 

How do you say "circumcision" in Swedish? In German, it's "Beschneidung." Cirumcised is "beschnitten." Humble is "bescheiden," which looks a lot like "beschneiden" (the verb for circumcision). Just curious, since it's the same language family. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, your analogy was a "cut" above the rest . . . 

How do you say "circumcision" in Swedish? In German, it's "Beschneidung." Cirumcised is "beschnitten." Humble is "bescheiden," which looks a lot like "beschneiden" (the verb for circumcision). Just curious, since it's the same language family. 

circumcised: omskuren

to circumcise: omskära

Literally, it means "to cut around." So does circumcise, for that matter.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

34 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course it does. The critics' interest in this topic really doesn't have any other purpose, does it?

Mine doesn’t. 

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Mine doesn’t. 

Well, there you are then!

(Are you sure you didn't just do another misread of the conversation...?)

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, your analogy was a "cut" above the rest . . . 

How do you say "circumcision" in Swedish? In German, it's "Beschneidung." Cirumcised is "beschnitten." Humble is "bescheiden," which looks a lot like "beschneiden" (the verb for circumcision). Just curious, since it's the same language family. 

In Spanish, it’s a very strange word: la circuncisión.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kiwi57 said:

Well, there you are then!

(Are you sure you didn't just do another misread of the conversation...?)

Nope, just being facetious. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Speaking only for myself, I’m not demanding anything. I stand by what I’ve said about these programs, but I don’t expect anything from the church. I’m heartened that you acknowledge the aversion therapy hurt people. 

Many forms of therapy hurt people. The question is whether the benefit -- be it immediate or long-term -- justifies the pain inflicted. In this instance, obviously not, in hindsight.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Many forms of therapy hurt people. The question is whether the benefit -- be it immediate or long-term -- justifies the pain inflicted. In this instance, obviously not, in hindsight.

Yup. I can’t imagine what those guys experienced. 

[kllindley]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks.  I'm not sure why it copied that way (that was a copy and paste from the actual paper....where I wrote the name above, I spelled it correctly, but I'll edit the copy right now).

Freund is correct. Freud died in 1939.

Quote

Kurt Freund (17 January 1914 – 23 October 1996) was a Czech-Canadian physician and sexologist best known for developing phallometry research studies in pedophilia

Quote

Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by kllindley

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Again, I don't really care who's to blame here. There's plenty to go around and share.   But I wish people would stop trying to defend what was done or make it into something positive.  It was not.

I agree that the attempt to use aversion therapy to treat same-sex attraction was overwhelmingly a negative experience.  The fact that it may have benefited a few people doesn't make up for the negative effects.  At the same time, I don't think it works to pretend that there weren't some people who found it effective and beneficial.  Maybe these were people who were already bisexual.  I don't know.  I'm not trying to defend the general practice.  Just as I don't defend the general practice of counseling members with homosexual attractions to marry the opposite sex.  

That doesn't change the fact that some men who were counseled to marry did so and had happy, successful marriages.  Can we wish away their positive experiences and say that those should have never happened, because not everyone had the same experience? Antidepressant medications have caused many more than 2 suicides and countless attempts.  Do we stop prescribing them?  

Edited December 21, 2017 by kllindley

[kllindley]

Knowing that I am not defending the practice, I also question the narratives that have come forward.  I remember researching the issue extensively myself.  You know, it was kinda personal.  And I found that some of the most frequently quotes horror experiences were found to be from men who did not participate in the therapy despite claiming otherwise.  When confronted, they explained that they were sharing what someone else had told them.  Yet those quotes continue to be used.  I am reminded of legal testimony about an "gay conversion camp" recently.  One individual testified about the horrors they had experienced at a religious anti-gay camp as a teen.  This testimony was entered as fact into the court record.  It was later discovered that this individual had fabricated the entire story, or more accurately, retold a fictional story from a satirical movie made years earlier.   

For example reading the McBride study and listening to his interview (it's worth it), there are extreme differences between what is reported and what is documented.  I don't doubt that there were other experiments conducted at BYU that may have been more painful or damaging.  But these are not documented.  I know two people who report that their experience was consistent with McBride's description and deny that it was painful.  (Aversion therapy is not designed to be painful, but uncomfortable).  

I had not previously heard about underage participants.  Participation in a research experiment requires informed consent, but I guess that a parent could have consented.  Many people talking about the issue call these college students boys.  Can you see how using the term boys when referring to legal adults seems like an attempt to stretch the facts in an emotional appeal?  This is where the feeling of hypocrisy comes from.  Most people argue that these adults should be free to engage in sexual behavior and alcohol use.  They are deemed sufficiently mature to make those decisions.  But decisions about medically supported treatments?  How barbaric!  Mere boys!  

Again, please don't misinterpret what I am saying as a defense of "curing homosexuality with electricity."  All am I asking is that we acknowledge that a middle ground between the two positions isn't irrational.  Reasonable people have looked at the data and concluded: It generally wasn't helpful and at times very harmful.  The few potential benefits did not outweigh the negative effects and the practice was discontinued.  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

I accept the past racial practices. I believe they had a purpose which when accomplished necessitated they be discarded. That horse has been beaten to death. We need not resurrect it to beat it once more. 

I have no problem acknowledging these mistakes we have been discussing or any other mistakes Church leaders have made or may make, but we do not live in a vacuum. I believe there is always more to the story which in fairness should be told.

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The claim is:

Quote

 McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies...

That is not an accurate representation.   The paper isn't just 17 pages long (it's 102 pages).  Which specific 17+ pages contain the "documentation"?  (Please give me the page numbers).  That's a CFR

The way that it is stated, it gives the impression that there's a section of 17 or more straight pages that list all the documentation and studies.  That's not anywhere in the paper.  The studies are mentioned here and there throughout by name only....but no entire pages or section devoted to documentation discussing specific studies.  I'm not sure where FAIR even came up with the number "17"?

The entire paper mentions different studies all throughout (mostly in parenthesis after a quote as a source), but only gives the name of the study, no documentation is given (I listed those named in my last post on this).  A few studies are mentioned in the "references" section at the end of the paper....but no documentation regarding the success of that study, just the name of the study.

Pages 17-34 (Last I counted that's 17).  The section is called "Aversive Conditioning Applied to Male Homosexuality" under the section "Review of the Literature."  This is a discussion of the other studies completed.  There is documentation of the studies discussed cited in standard APA formatting.  The fact that it doesn't match your expectations doesn't make the statement inaccurate.  

I would agree that it would be more accurate to say "17 pages of discussion documenting other studies."  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I accept the past racial practices. I believe they had a purpose which when accomplished necessitated they be discarded. That horse has been beaten to death. We need not resurrect it to beat it once more. 

I have no problem acknowledging these mistakes we have been discussing or any other mistakes Church leaders have made or may make, but we do not live in a vacuum. I believe there is always more to the story which in fairness should be told.

Agreed. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

Did you go to the same "low-cost" oral surgeon in Orem, UT?  I vividly remember a board being placed on my chest so the surgeon could get some leverage.  He also had knee pads on.  In any event, the recovery was really quick afterward and I was able to play in a baseball game the next day.

As for acknowledging mistakes in the past, when I was active, I liked the apologetic of how God leads his people along slowly, allowing mistakes and HIS making corrections when necessary.  However, a downside to this is that it breeds questioning members who don't trust leaders maybe as much as the church wants.  Dictatorships are easier to govern than sloppy democracies where agreement is tough to get.

This was in 1965 and he was a respected and popular doctor.  I’m not familiar with the history of dental procedures, so I had nothing to measure it against. I believe I had a near-death experience with that one. My recovery was not rapid. In fact, two weeks of severe headaches resulted in the removal of a jagged piece of tooth that had remained in the socket and couldn’t be seen because of swelling. I don’t fault him at all. I think he was doing his best. But it took a long time before I could do the other two. It did not make me fear dentists.

I agree with your second paragraph.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The 14 men involved that stuck with it (3 dropped out) reported improvement.  Why I don't know, but I am guessing there was short term "improvement" due to a high desire to change.

It has been awhile since I read McBride's work, which was an effort to determine if nudity was necessary or if clothed photo subjects would be sufficient.(not surprising for a BYU study, I have always thought...hoping to be effective while encouraging modest thoughts rather than breaking the law of Chastity, even if for "medicinal purposes")  His many pages of citing successful studies made what most people think what was being studied, the effectiveness of aversion therapy, a given.

The questioning of their success claims came later.

This is consistent with the articles I read about other practitioners at the time.