LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

My experience exactly parallels yours. I vividly remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and how I felt when I heard the news of the revelation. No one in my circle had a negative reaction...just the opposite.

Yes. There are only a handful of events so powerful that they had that kind of impact on me. This is definitely one. The JFK assassination (I was 9), the first lunar landing (I was 15) and the 9-11 attacks are three others. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suppose that is one interpretation.

And I can see the prejudice against animals. In cases of bestiality the animal has already had a traumatizing experience and then you have to kill it for being involved. All in all a really rough day for the animal.

Everyone's go-to lazy comparison.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why would following currently accepted and recommended medical and scientific procedures and practices require clandestine operations?

CFR that electroshock/aversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality was recommended medical and scientific procedure.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Why do you claim it was obscure?  The indication is that it was written for stake presidents and bishops.  Doesn't sound obscure to me

No, I am claiming that it is obscure today.  Which hints at its level of dogmatic attainment.  It is not in circulation or in practice today, and has been completely overturned and overhauled. It is not incontravertable dogma and never was.

Edited December 20, 2017 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this fact or supposition on your part?

The purging at the Maxwell Institute a few years ago suggested to me that the General Authorities who are trustees over BYU are far less hands-on with internal nitty-gritty at the school than has been generally supposed. 

Oh, definitely supposition. Without changing the subject, I'm not sure how the MI business reflects a hands-off approach. But, no, I do not think that a program that involved bishops' referrals could have gone on as long as it did without some knowledge or approval from the board of trustees. I can't imagine bishops being aware of the program but the general authorities being kept in the dark. Kind of defies logic to me. Of course, I could be wrong. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Same goes for things like the Proclamation, right? Is that important or not? Hard to keep track.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, definitely supposition. Without changing the subject, I'm not sure how the MI business reflects a hands-off approach. But, no, I do not think that a program that involved bishops' referrals could have gone on as long as it did without some knowledge or approval from the board of trustees. I can't imagine bishops being aware of the program but the general authorities being kept in the dark. Kind of defies logic to me. Of course, I could be wrong. 

I don’t want to change the subject either, just draw a comparison, but without naming names, Daniel Peterson has repeatedly said (and yes, I believe him) that he has been assured by those in the highest position to know that the MI purge was undertaken without the specific blessing of the board of trustees. 

It may have been similar with the aversion therapy: acquiescence but no direct approval. 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think we're as far apart as you think we are. I'm not attacking the church for what they did, just noting that I think the church was in line with the broader approach, particularly the approach of conservative faith-based organizations. 

I wasn't thinking about us being far apart! I was just adding a finer point of fact that she was (and still is) even ahead of some of the secular therapists in dropping it.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Everyone's go-to lazy comparison.

I was not comparing them. I was denying what you said and making a brilliant unrelated joke.

Edited December 20, 2017 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Same goes for things like the Proclamation, right? Is that important or not? Hard to keep track.

It mystifies me that anyone could think the proclamation was not prepared and issued under revelation. 

[ALarson]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this fact or supposition on your part?

The purging at the Maxwell Institute a few years ago suggested to me that the General Authorities who are trustees over BYU are far less hands-on with internal nitty-gritty at the school than has been generally supposed. 

I'll look for my sources (I'll have to dig through some boxes as I did pretty extensive research on this at one time), but general authorities referred students for this electroshock program.  We also have first hand statements from those involved stating they went in to speak with apostles (Spencer W. Kimball is one that is named) and were told by them about this treatment to cure them and then they were referred by the apostle to those at BYU running the treatments.

I believe (iirc) it was Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen who were the two mostly involved (and Dallin Oaks of course...but he wasn't an apostle at that time).  This makes sense because they were the two who were "appointed to assist" over this "important phase of the church work" at that time.

Here's some on this (I do have many of the sources in the footnotes and will try to locate them, if you're interested):

Quote

 

Aversion therapy at BYU

BYU's Honor Code office required some students reported for homosexual behavior to undergo electroshock and vomit aversion therapies in the 1970s[3]:155

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.[2]:377,379 The on-campus program lasted through the 60s and 70s, and faded out around 1983.[73]:64–65[3]:155 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.[2]:377,379 Because of religious considerations, on 22 September 1969 BYU administration decided to reduce the amount of the on-campus "electrical aversive therapy" used to treat (among other things) "sexual deviancy", though, the program continued.[74][30]:82

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin Oaks[30]:32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[75] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies".[3]:155

In an independent BYU newspaper article two men describe their experience with the BYU Aversion therapy program during the early 1970s.[76]:162 After confessing to homosexual tendencies they were referred to the BYU Counseling Center where the electroshock aversion therapy took place using pornographic pictures of males and females. Jon, one of the individuals, implied that the treatment was completely ineffective.[77] The experiences match most reports which state that shock therapy was ineffective in changing sexual orientation.[78]

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.[79] 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,[82] it is known that apostles Spencer Kimball, Mark Peterson, and now apostle Dallin Oaks were,[2]:379 and leaders involved in LDS Social Services thought the therapy was effective.[83][38]

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

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, but this sounds like you’re describing yourself (“*yawn*”) and others here with that attitude too.  If it’s a topic you’re not comfortable with, that’s fine, but you are not showing “thoughtfulness” or compassion for the people who were deeply hurt by what took place.  It actually came through as “apathy”, to be honest.  Have you read any of the writings of those who were actually involved?  It’s very difficult to read them and not care or feel sorrow and empathy for them.  I agree with others here that these experiments didn’t happen through inspiration from God.

I see no individual ministry going on here, but gross generalities. Hence my replies in principle.

Have you spoken with any of these individuals and reached out to them? That is what I do with those I know who are suffering. I have found that those who have healed forgive and those who have not generalize and require more time and assistance in healing. But that is an individual thing, perhaps supplemented by trusted groups. This thread  is not in the social hall nor represented as a therapy session.

I have also found that those who understand grace and forgiveness and practice it are comfortable with both principle and practice, and in sharing ideas differently in differently in different venues.

Do you understand the rest of my post, beyond that one sentence?

This might assist: Posted 1 hour ago

And if you want to practice grace and forgiveness toward me, read my other posts!

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t want to change the subject either, just draw a comparison, but without naming names, Daniel Peterson has repeatedly said (and yes, I believe him) that he has been assured by those in the highest position to know that the MI purge was undertaken without the specific blessing of the board of trustees. 

It may have been similar with the aversion therapy: acquiescence but no direct approval. 

I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction, but that's just me.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I wasn't thinking about us being far apart! I was just adding a finer point of fact that she was (and still is) even ahead of some of the secular therapists in dropping it.

For that I'm thankful. I think we can all agree that the experiments with aversion therapy were not successful and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering. As they said, the road to hell ...

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Interesting that you would feel obligated to try to shame me into silence in order to shut down any questioning of the actual extent of this activity, isn't it?

You misunderstood, kiwi.  I was suggesting you read up on this so you can come back here and post with some knowledge regarding what actually took place.  Rather than come in here asking a bunch of questions that show you have not read any of the links posted, I would welcome some intelligent conversation from you on this.  Or maybe you're just pretending to know nothing about what took place at BYU during those years regarding the reparation treatments for gays?  If so, that's not real effective if you truly want to discuss this, IMO

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was not comparing them. I was denying what you said and making a brilliant unrelated joke.

I never said every idea Biblical writers came up with was based on prejudice. Your jokes are usually brilliant, but this one earns three "mwah mwahs" on the trombone.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It mystifies me that anyone could think the proclamation was not prepared and issued under revelation. 

"Retrospective revelation"

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction, but that's just me.

Do you know who was on the board at that time (apostles)?  Was it Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen?  Those were the two named regarding approving of and having knowledge of this program.  But like I posted above, that may be because they'd been assigned to oversee these issues at that time.

There's no way of knowing though if all church leaders were aware of this of course.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you know who was on the board at that time (apostles)?  Was it Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen?  Those were the two named regarding approving of and having knowledge of this program.  But like I posted above, that may be because they'd been assigned to oversee these issues at that time.

There's no way of knowing though if all church leaders were aware of this of course.

I wouldn't imagine all church leaders were aware of this. Quinn says Kimball and Petersen were involved and approved, but I haven't looked at his primary sources. As I told Scott, other than what Quinn has written, I'm basing my conclusion on simple logic, that a program could not have been in place for that long without some approval, passive or not, from the board. To believe this was done without official sanction beggars belief.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Another nonspecific admission of fallibility.

Yes.  Would you prefer a specific one?  I'm not sure I understand your point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't imagine all church leaders were aware of this. Quinn says Kimball and Petersen were involved and approved, but I haven't looked at his primary sources. As I told Scott, other than what Quinn has written, I'm basing my conclusion on simple logic, that a program could not have been in place for that long without some approval, passive or not, from the board. To believe this was done without official sanction beggars belief.

I agree.  We have several other statements by those involved that name those two as well.  Again, that makes sense when they were assigned to assist with this "important phase of the church work".  They are the two named in the pamphlet sent out to local leaders with instructions from church leaders regarding how to deal with or instruct gay members in their congregations ("Hope for Transgressors", 1970).

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Same goes for things like the Proclamation, right? Is that important or not? Hard to keep track.

Actually, I am aware of claims with that one.  President Nelson claimed that it was received by revelation. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually, I am aware of claims with that one.  President Nelson claimed that it was received by revelation. 

Retrospectively. No one involved at the time was making that claim.

I don't think the important question in any of these topics is whether or not some leader said it was revelation, or a discrete revelatory event. The question is, is it true? In the case of this pamphlet, no. In the case of the Proclamation, yes and no.

Sidenote: I'm fine calling good, true ideas "revelation", even in absence of a revelatory event. I suspect church leaders are also increasingly following that model.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gray

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Retrospectively. No one involved at the time was making that claim.

I don't think the important question in any of these topics is whether or not some leader said it was revelation, or a discrete revelatory event. The question is, is it true? In the case of this pamphlet, no. In the case of the Proclamation, yes and no.

Sidenote: I'm fine calling good, true ideas "revelation", even in absence of a revelatory event. I suspect church leaders are also increasingly following that model.

I don't know what your concern is about my original comment.  Californiaboy suggested that the pamphlet was "revelation" and "dogma", and because we know now that it was bad practice, we therefore cannot trust the brethren as revelators.  Do you disagree with my reply that, no, it was neither received by revelation or as dogma?  If someone claimed that it was revelation, then we might have reason to distrust that person who made the claim, but there is no claim.  It was nothing more than a mistaken policy.  It was not revelation or dogma.  The Proclamation has already been in circulation longer than the pamphlet was.  

If people can build this pamphlet up to the level of revelation, scripture, or dogma, it becomes easy for them to dismiss the prophets as genuine revelators.  That simply is not going to work in this case. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

CFR that electroshock/aversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality was recommended medical and scientific procedure.

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/ScientificExamination.pdf

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/GayRightsPatientRights.pdf

http://www.nclrights.org/bornperfect-the-facts-about-conversion-therapy/

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/gay-conversion-therapy

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-scot/shock-the-gay-away-secrets-of-early-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/115/529/1417

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0022913

http://time.com/3705745/history-therapy-hadden/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542019

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/uk-psychiatrists-have-issued-an-historic-admission-of-the?utm_term=.fjlvzeGNN#.wvKMjGLzz

I know the intended narrative of some folks in this thread is to vilify the LDS Church because of this therapeutic method was used at BYU.  I understand such indignation.  

However, neither BYU nor the LDS Church invented this form of therapy.  So headlines like ABC's "Mormon Gay Cures and Reparative Therapies Still Shock Today"  seem fairly misleading (particularly where the article goes on to state that "Psychologists confirm those harsh experiments were used in a variety of medical settings by scientists of all faiths.").

Thanks,

-Smac