Two Articles re Improvements in Utah re: LGBT Issues

[smac97]

Here (Daily Herald) : New video by Equality Utah claims Utah one of the most progressive states for LGBTQ rights

Here (Deseret News) : What Utah can teach the country about gay rights and religion

From the first article:

Quote

On Friday, Equality Utah posted a video entitled “UtahTogether” on its YouTube page, the general message being about how progressive Utah is in making laws to help the LGBTQIA+ community.

That may surprise some residents, but the respect across the table has been a work in progress for some time.

It shows a journey of acceptance, respect, meeting together and change over the past decade, according to Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah.
...
“It has certainly been a journey where Utahns have come to respect the lives of their neighbors and families,” said Paul Burke, a board member of Equality Utah. “It is public record that some of the legislative achievement came from help from the LDS Church.”

The mission of Equality Utah is to promote and advance political equality, Burke noted.

“Equality Utah isn’t an organization that is seeking doctrinal changes within religious organizations,” Burke said. “We sit at the table to try and win hearts.”

After more than seven years of patience, it has paid off, Burke said.

Equality Utah supports qay rights while also supporting freedom of religion and has made itself a useful example on how to work together in states around the country. It has been affectionately called “The Utah Compromise.”

Among the faces in the crowd celebrating the 2015 bill, which afforded protections to LGBT people while not compromising on religious liberties, was Elder L. Tom Perry who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the time. He was very much involved with the process.

“We believe we are all brothers and sisters, and that by working together we can find common ground,” said Doug Anderson, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “As was demonstrated in the state of Utah in 2015, there need not be conflict between religious freedom and LGBT rights. We hope our success in Utah will show the way for a national solution.”

Since that time, other LDS leaders, including President M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve, have spoken out on the issues. Others have shared their private personal closeness to family members who are in the LGBTQ community, including Elder Gerrit Gong of the Quorum of the Twelve, whose son recently came out publicly.

Whether child, sibling, cousin or grandchild, those in the highest church leadership have personal knowledge of the concerns of the LGBTQ community at need for equality for all people.

Equality Utah shares the same belief. “We respect religious freedom and religions to adopt their own doctrine and dogma,” Burke said.

Wow.  That is wonderful to hear.  I've become accustomed to the nearly nonstop "either you celebrate and endorse and ratify everything we tell you to or we'll brand you a bigot and a homophobe" schtick.  I'm glad Equality Utah is looking to persuade, rather than coerce.

Quote

Equality Utah believes it has developed a strong foundation but there is more work that needs to be done, particularly addressing transgender issues.

I'm wondering how that will turn out.  "Transgender issues" seem to be fracturing the LGBT community.  I've come across a number of articles about ways that is happening.  For those of you with a strong constitution, see here.

Anyway, on to the second article:

Quote

s Congress weighs federal gay rights legislation, Utah leaders are celebrating their own work on LGBTQ issues over the past six years.

A new video, released Friday by Equality Utah, explores how the state has worked to protect religious freedom and gay rights at the same time. It calls on policymakers elsewhere to embrace that approach.

“There are people who don’t believe that religious liberty can coexist with LGBTQ rights, but that’s simply not true. We have proven that here in Utah time and time again,” says Troy Williams, Equality Utah’s executive director, in the video.

Much of the video focuses on SB296, a 2015 law that protects LGBTQ Utahns from discrimination in the housing and hiring contexts. Williams and others explain why the measure earned the support of residents from across the political and religious spectrum.

“The key to passage was our willingness to engage each other and always demand ... mutual respect,” Williams says.

Utah Sen. President Stuart Adams notes that, as he worked on the bill, he felt like he was putting his faith into action.

“It was actually kind of life-changing,” he says.

The law has also been life-changing for members of the LGBTQ community, according to Stacey Harkey, an actor and small business owner in the state.

“It’s not just that we have legal protections, but now the LGBTQ community is being treated differently by their neighbors, by their family,” he says in the video.

Very cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

One of the most progressive states for lgbtq rights?

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/

Look more middle of the road based on metrics.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 10/28/2021 at 7:53 AM, smac97 said:

I'm wondering how that will turn out.  "Transgender issues" seem to be fracturing the LGBT community.  I've come across a number of articles about ways that is happening.  For those of you with a strong constitution, see here.

I'm seeing some of those notions as well in various online places where such things are discussed.

There was endless opposition to what people used to call conversion therapy, and a seemingly bottomless supply of resentment that it ever existed.  Gays and lesbians sharing horror stories along the lines of being taken down into church basement where they were surrounded by pastors and reverends and church elders who worked at getting them to change who they're attracted to.   Fast forward to the 2020's, where gays and lesbians are being told "genital preference" is outdated and transphobic, and they need to, well, change who they're attracted to.  Some gays and lesbians are getting kicked out of their own pride parades after speaking out about the issue.

[Tacenda]

Is this a problem for anyone? 

 

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Is this a problem for anyone? 

 

Maybe but I’d need a little more context before I said I have a problem with it. Is it “demonstrably false?” I heard about the practice while I was a student at BYU under Presidents Oaks and Holland but not from someone who actually had experienced it. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Is this a problem for anyone? 

 

If demonstrably false, why not the link to the data?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

If demonstrably false, why not the link to the data?

 

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

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin H. Oaks^[33]: 32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office^[88] (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

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

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

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin H. Oaks^[33]: 32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office^[88] (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

 

The Wikipedia is wrong, either misread or misrepresented. This is from the footnote reference:

Quote

 

Although therapy was required, Dye promised that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy.” Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases.¹¹⁹

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-abominable-and-detestable-crime-against-nature/

Dye was not the one to say it as far as one can tell from the quote.  Going to see if the footnote in the reference is available online to see who did. 
 

Looks like it is just a statement by the author as he just references the interview with Dye and according to him, Dye denied that it happened.  I am guessing he is assuming personal anecdotes reported to him were truthful (and maybe some of them were).

Quote

118. Interview with Gerald Dye, 1 Feb. 1978, copy of notes in my possession.

119. Ibid., 2.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

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

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin H. Oaks^[33]: 32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office^[88] (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

 

I appreciate the effort, but sorry, a Wikipedia summary is not quite good enough. I looked up the footnote #3 and "special cases" is not defined -- who knows what that means (at the student's request off-campus, maybe?).

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I appreciate the effort, but sorry, a Wikipedia summary is not quite good enough. I looked up the footnote #3 and "special cases" is not defined -- who knows what that means (at the student's request off-campus, maybe?).

And it wasn’t something that Dye actually admitted to as far as one can tell from the reference. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Wikipedia is wrong, either misread or misrepresented. This is from the footnote reference:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-abominable-and-detestable-crime-against-nature/

Am I reading this wrong, where it says it happens in special cases? 

ETA: This article as well. https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/03/16/can-gays-be-cured-controversial-practice-attempts-just-that/

And this:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_was_the_history_of_BYU_and_aversion_therapy_for_treating_homosexuality%3F 

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I am just pointing out that the wiki is wrong about it being Dye as the source of the claim, that the author was rebutting Dye’s claim there were none. I am not denying that the study and therefore a form of aversion therapy took place in a very limited context. 

I can’t remember how the 17 volunteers were found.  Been too long since I read the study.   If they were referred to McBride from BYU or its official counselors, Dye was wrong, imo, but if lying or just misunderstanding or unaware of the study, I don’t know. 
 

Added:  as far as the claim in the Signature Book that they took place, it may be possible it offered  evidence elsewhere, but iirc I am pretty sure the only other evidence outside of McBride’s study is anecdotal without documentation besides personal testimony. I am not in the mood to research it more. I was just curious about what had been said by a BYU official to see if it was anything new, which is why I checked Wiki to find the original source…at which point I discovered the misrepresentation.

Note:  I am out of it and while I have corrected two places of sloppy writing, I can’t guarantee I haven’t made a mistake elsewhere. Feel free to point out anything you may think I have wrong so I can correct it if I agree 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

As far as Pres. Oaks’ comments, I am not aware of any evidence other than anecdotal for vomiting aversion therapy, same with anything else besides McBride’s study.  McBride’s study was not part of BYU’s therapy program, it was a study on the effectiveness of using clothed pictures for aversion therapy instead of nude pictures of individuals doing nothing sexual (see FAIR link for description).  So BYU, lol.
 

 It is a pretty trivial study as far as being noteworthy in the history of clinical psychology. Iirc, someone at FAIR looked for some bibliographies of research into aversion therapy for homosexuality and McBride’s study didn’t rate a mention. What other university or therapist would care if pictures were nude or not, perhaps the other uptight religious schools. Most I am guessing weren’t trying that hard to take sex out of sexual therapy. 
 

Since it was not a part of the BYU counseling program, but a student’s dissertation, I don’t know if Pres Oaks would have been informed about it. I highly doubt the President of a university tracks all the dissertations.  The Ethics committee would, I believe, but is a President a part of that? (Sincere question, don’t know)

It is possible that BYU branch presidents or home ward bishops directed the 17 gay students to volunteer or maybe someone in the BYU counseling office did…but again, would the President of a university be aware of what counselors were doing?  The head of the counseling office should be aware, but I see no reason for them to report it to Pres Oaks, anymore than they would report therapists were having clients write journals. Aversion therapy at that time, even electric aversion therapy (electroshock is the wrong word as that is used to induce seizures) was standard treatment countrywide. Thankfully the harsher forms came into disrepute later on. 

Too bad my father-in-law is not alive, so I could ask him if he was aware of the study or anything else like it and if so, if it was announced as a potential service available or he heard of the study by word of mouth.  He was a BYU counselor forever, also taught the graduate level group therapy classes. I am trying to remember when he retired.  After I married his son, so post 1980.  Not sure when he was born, but he was around 65 in 85 iirc.  My brother in law was in the Ph.D program later on and iirc, he has told me he only heard of the McBride study.  I never heard of any aversion therapy programs for homosexuality (just weight control) while I was there to 85, but I was undergrad clinical psych.  My clinical psych prof told some great and gory stories, one of my favorite professors, but that might have been too sensitive a topic to share with us young ones. My husband hadn’t, but he avoided clinical psych like the plague and went organizational.

As far as the branch presidents and bishops, do they report how they counsel to anyone? If there is no trained oversight or training, that is an argument against having them provide psychological counseling as they could refer members to all kind of useless and dangerous stuff.  Wonder if a Bishop ever paid for energy work to be done.  I think there is an approved list of therapists they have access to, but this might have just been in certain areas. 
 

Can someone who has been a bishop who referred to therapy tell us how they found therapists, if they did?  I know it has been shared before, but I can’t remember the details. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Calm

[rockpond]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:19 AM, CV75 said:

If demonstrably false, why not the link to the data?

The twitter thread linked by @Tacenda listed their data.  They did not provide links but here are what Lambda Law Alliance tweets stated:

The first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported in 1972. BYU psychology professor, Allen Bergin, mentioned the practice again in a July 1973 article.

In 1976, BYU clinical psychology professor, Max Ford McBride, performed an experiment on 17 gay, male students involving the use of electroshock therapy and vomiting and odor aversion. Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.

 

[rockpond]

Also, the SLTrib has an article on it that, per the title, claims to have records showing Pres. Oaks statement to be false but it's behind a paywall.  Maybe someone here has access and wants to return and report.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The twitter thread linked by @Tacenda listed their data.  They did not provide links but here are what Lambda Law Alliance tweets stated:

The first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported in 1972. BYU psychology professor, Allen Bergin, mentioned the practice again in a July 1973 article.

In 1976, BYU clinical psychology professor, Max Ford McBride, performed an experiment on 17 gay, male students involving the use of electroshock therapy and vomiting and odor aversion. Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.

 

Here is the HBLL bibliographic record of the McBride study:  https://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/pcnum/387154

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Also, the SLTrib has an article on it that, per the title, claims to have records showing Pres. Oaks statement to be false but it's behind a paywall.  Maybe someone here has access and wants to return and report.

Here's the key bit from the article (which, BTW, you can view using the "Tor" feature of the Brave browser) :

Quote

Yet, during a question-and-answer session earlier that day at the law school — a video of which has been circulating on social media — the first counselor in the faith’s governing First Presidency refused to discuss the impact of the church’s past mistreatment of its LGBTQ members.

Oaks categorically denied that BYU had used electroshock therapies on gay students during his tenure from 1971 to 1980.

“When I became president of BYU, that had been discontinued earlier,” Oaks said in answer to a question about those treatments, “and it never went on under my administration.”

According to researcher Gregory Prince and others, that statement is demonstrably false.

In his 2019 book, “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences,” Prince cites “university-approved” research in 1976 by then-BYU graduate student Max McBride with 14 gay subjects. The male subjects were hooked up to monitors that measured their arousal when shown photos of nude men or women.
...
Oaks declined to comment on the discrepancy between his memory and the research, church spokesperson Doug Andersen said Monday. The church representative then pointed to the faith’s 2016 public statement — reinforced several years later — about so-called conversion therapy.

“The church denounces any therapy, including conversion and reparative therapies,” it stated, “that subjects an individual to abusive practices, not only in Utah, but throughout the world.”

McBride's study is the only item referenced as having occurred during Pres. Oaks' tenure as president of BYU.

As Calm noted, the study was "not a part of the BYU counseling program, but a student’s dissertation."

Also, see this bit from FAIR's article (as quoted by Calm in May) :

Quote

It is possible in my view that there were branch presidents that told students they wouldn’t sign their endorsement to attend school if they didn’t try it and possibly parents that coerced their children in some fashion, but the study was supposed to be volunteer and would have been structured to follow the ethical standards of that time.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion_therapy_performed_at_BYU

Quote

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

When I was a psych student at BYU late 70s, early 80s, I had private talks with one of my professors that amounted to therapy.  Very helpful in some ways, not so in others.  Chances are other professors were mentoring students in the same way, this would have had less oversight than the official counselors.  There was also aversion therapy advertised on campus for weight control at least.  I can see it possible that unofficial counseling or even students trying out stuff they heard being used by others on their own later being perceived as “BYU” pressuring students.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The twitter thread linked by @Tacenda listed their data.  They did not provide links but here are what Lambda Law Alliance tweets stated:

The first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported in 1972. BYU psychology professor, Allen Bergin, mentioned the practice again in a July 1973 article.

In 1976, BYU clinical psychology professor, Max Ford McBride, performed an experiment on 17 gay, male students involving the use of electroshock therapy and vomiting and odor aversion. Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.

 

Good to see you around!

[Canadiandude]

 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's the key bit from the article (which, BTW, you can view using the "Tor" feature of the Brave browser) :

McBride's study is the only item referenced as having occurred during Pres. Oaks' tenure as president of BYU.

As Calm noted, the study was "not a part of the BYU counseling program, but a student’s dissertation."

Also, see this bit from FAIR's article (as quoted by Calm in May) :

Thanks,

-Smac

The study referenced in the tribune seems to be more official and operationalized than mere talks, with a supervisor, committee, possibly an ethics process; essentially requiring a lot of oversight by people who were overseen by others higher up the chain of command.

Furthermore, the tweet and others here referenced further studies that were conducted at that time that must also be ruled out.

Either way, President Oaks was wrong that no such study occurred during his tenure, and even if he was not directly aware of it, that too creates interesting questions as to why not.

Part of being a leader is being accountable for the institution one leads, as well as informed and honest as to where and how it has fallen short.

These studies are not obscure amongst the issues that challenges people’s trust in the church (as shown they were covered by FAIR and many others.

President Oaks needed to be more careful to ensure that his statements truthful re: events of his tenure before making them.
 

He furthermore needs to offer a public correction now that his prior statement is brought into question.

~

I’m all for holding other universities and actors who’ve conducted such research accountable.

The question asked of Oaks was in the context of his speaking as a public figure of authority on how to balance religious and LGBTQ+ rights. It is by no means unreasonable that one would ask about the treatment of such minorities within the institution he was president of.

~

As for the honour code, Given other, more recent problems of it’s separation between itself and other university departments and mandates, I’m more than a little doubtful of this separation. I’d need more evidence, particularly from the victims and non-strictly apologetic sources.

 

[Canadiandude]

I just don’t buy into the special pleading here.

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The twitter thread linked by @Tacenda listed their data.  They did not provide links but here are what Lambda Law Alliance tweets stated:

The first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported in 1972. BYU psychology professor, Allen Bergin, mentioned the practice again in a July 1973 article.

In 1976, BYU clinical psychology professor, Max Ford McBride, performed an experiment on 17 gay, male students involving the use of electroshock therapy and vomiting and odor aversion. Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.

 

Thank you let's check these out further.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

 with a supervisor, committee, possibly an ethics process; essentially requiring a lot of oversight by people who were overseen by others higher up the chain of command.

You seem to think there is far more oversight up the chain than there needs to be.

Even today in our safety extreme conscious society oversight is pretty much limited to approval and regular review by an institutional ethics committee (here's the BYU version https://irb.byu.edu/human-research-protection-policy ).

Universities here have similar procedures.

So up the chain of command these days in the case of a single student's research would likely be limited to student-research supervisor-ethics committee 

I seriously doubt there was more oversight 40 years ago than there is today.

[Canadiandude]

2 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

You seem to think there is far more oversight up the chain than there needs to be.

Even today in our safety extreme conscious society oversight is pretty much limited to approval and regular review by an institutional ethics committee (here's the BYU version https://irb.byu.edu/human-research-protection-policy ).

Universities here have similar procedures.

So up the chain of command these days in the case of a single student's research would likely be limited to student-research supervisor-ethics committee 

I seriously doubt there was more oversight 40 years ago than there is today.

But where does the buck stop in terms of leadership?

I acknowledge that the system is complex but as BYU’s president, he had at the very least partial responsibility in helping to formulate, manage, and keep abreast of these kinds of policies. Study ethics, safety,  certification, and more.

If there were weak or no policies in the system to prevent, report and/or inform more senior leaders, then that too speaks of mismanagement in the system.

I don’t see why school administrators in this case wouldn’t be held as partially responsibility for system that enables such abuse, than any other school administrators would be for other kinds of recurring, abuse-related scandals.

~

Furthermore, notice how adamant he is that such studies were done away with prior to his tenure.
What was his evidence for this claim?

The witness reports, news coverage, scholarly and school archives have not been shy in communicating what was argued to have happened and when.

~

As a senior church leader and the former BYU president at the time these studies occurred, Oaks should at least be expected to be aware of the controversy (what, when, where) now, and truthfully respond when asked about in forum on LGBTQ+ rights!

But I realize I might be arguing with futility here.  Lying (as defined in the Gospel Principles Manual) is apparently ok for y’all if it’s ‘lying for the Lord’ while ‘criticizing senior church leaders’ is apparently also wrong, ‘even when such criticisms are true’.

 

[Canadiandude]

To say that ‘These studies were representative of their time’ is not a sufficient argument, especially when the groups, individuals, and institutions involved regularly fail to be informed on the matter, acknowledge what occurred, and make restitution.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

The study referenced in the tribune seems to be more official and operationalized than mere talks, with a supervisor, committee, possibly an ethics process; essentially requiring a lot of oversight by people who were overseen by others higher up the chain of command.

"Seems to be" being the operative wording here.

We're running high on speculation and conjecture, and decidedly low on evidence-based facts.

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Furthermore, the tweet and others here referenced further studies that were conducted at that time that must also be ruled out.

Must they?

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Either way, President Oaks was wrong that no such study occurred during his tenure, and even if he was not directly aware of it, that too creates interesting questions as to why not.

Well, maybe.  Let's parse things about a bit:

1. Here's a link to the video of the event at which Pres. Oaks spoke.

2. The key bit is at 4:53.  Here' s a transcript of what was asked (from the YouTube description) :

Quote

Question #3: This question is for Dallin. In June 2019 you said at a conference at BYU in Provo, you said, “we’re confronted by a culture of evil and personal wickedness in the world. This includes the increasing power and phenomenon of lesbian, gay, and transgender lifestyles and values. So, I have two questions for you: What have you done to be more progressive since that time, since 2019 to the LGBTQ community? And what have you done to address some of the things you have done in the past, including the things that you have said and overseeing the enforcement of electroshock and vomiting aversion therapy for LGB students at BYU?

Oaks: Let me say about electroshock treatments at BYU, when I became president at BYU that had been discontinued earlier and it never went on under my administration.

3. Pres. Oaks became president of BYU in August 1971.

4. The Wikipedia article about "Brigham Young University LGBT history" states in part that "Historically, experiences for BYU students identifying as LGBTQIA+ have included ... being required by school administration to undergo electroshock and vomit aversion therapies in the 1970s."  The citation given for this claim is "O'Donovan, Rocky Connell; Corcoran, Brent (1994). "'The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature' A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840–1980". Multiply and Replenish. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. ISBN 978-1560850502. Retrieved 13 August 2017."  That article states:

Quote

In early 1978, Gerald Dye, the chair of University Standards reported what the “set process” was for “homosexual students referred to Standards” for counseling:

* They are asked to a personal interview with Standards … to determine the depth or extent of involvement; previous involvement, if any, of offender; does the student understand the seriousness of the matter; if the branch president or bishop [is] aware.

* The individual’s branch president or home bishop is contacted.

* Standards is to determine if the offense is serious or not.

* serious: repetition; ****/oral intercourse.

* less serious: experimential [sic]; mutual masturbation.

* Action taken.

* If determined to be serious the student is expelled.

* If less serious, the student may remain at BYU on a probationary basis.

* Standards also acts as an intermediary between the student who remains and a counseling services. Students who remain are required to undergo therapy.¹¹⁸

Although therapy was required, Dye promised that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy.” Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases.¹¹⁹

Footnote 119 points to "Interview with Gerald Dye, 1 Feb. 1978, copy of notes in my possession."  The author of this 2017 piece, Rocky O'Donovan, commences the article as follows:

Quote

At the outset of this essay I feel it is important that readers know of my agenda, since I do not subscribe to the theory of academic objectivity. First, I am Gay, and by that I mean that I participate politically, socially, and intellectually in a community of men-loving-men.1 Second, while I am academically trained as a historian, that is not a role with which I am comfortable. Rather, I consider myself a social activist, theorist, and poet. Third, I was raised a Mormon, completed an LDS mission, and married in the Salt Lake temple, but due to the homophobia and heterosexism I encountered in the church, I came to realize that for me the only viable solution was to explore spirituality on my own path.2 I was later officially excommunicated from the church for my stance in opposing the oppression of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people. Fourth, I am a liberationist: I do not seek “equal rights” for my people. I do not desire equal access to power. Rather, I actively explore different paradigms in which we can all move away from and forget “power relationships.

Not exactly clinical, detached, academic paper then, is it?  Instead, it is presented by someone who rejects "the theory of academic objectivity," who defines himself "first" as "gay," that he is not "comfortable" in functioning in the "role" of "a historian," and that he instead "a social activist."

FWIW, Gerald Dye died earlier this year, aged 95.  

5. From Calm earlier in this thread: "Dye was not the one to say it as far as one can tell from the quote."  She has a point.  Mr. O'Donovan frames the statement quite ambiguously.  Look again:

Quote

 In early 1978, Gerald Dye, the chair of University Standards reported what the “set process” was for “homosexual students referred to Standards” for counseling:
...

Although therapy was required, Dye promised that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy.” Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases.^119
...
118. Interview with Gerald Dye, 1 Feb. 1978, copy of notes in my possession.

119. Ibid., 2.

Note the ambiguity here.  Did O'Donovan conduct this interview with Gerald Dye in 1978?  Or did someone else?  And how do we get to the "Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases" bit?  He quotes Dye verbatim that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy,” but doesn't do the same with the risible part about ongoing electroshock / aversion therapies.  Also, O'Donovan's article was published in 2017, 39 years after the interview with Gerald Dye (he apparently published it in 1996 through Affirmation).

Also note the unexplained contradiction between Dy saying "no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy," only to have O'Donovan say in the next sentence that such therapy was "nonetheless used in special cases."  So which is it?  Did Dye contradict himself?  Or did the self-admitted "activist" perhaps massage the contents of privately-held notes of a 1978 interview? 

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Part of being a leader is being accountable for the institution one leads, as well as informed and honest as to where and how it has fallen short.

These studies are not obscure amongst the issues that challenges people’s trust in the church (as shown they were covered by FAIR and many others.

President Oaks needed to be more careful to ensure that his statements truthful re: events of his tenure before making them.

He furthermore needs to offer a public correction now that his prior statement is brought into question.

Why does he need to do this?

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

~

I’m all for holding other universities and actors who’ve conducted such research accountable.

Right, particularly when the topic is decades in the past, controversy about it is being ginned up, evidence about it is skint and/or presented (paraphrased, really) by an "activist" based on decades-old notes of an interview he may not even have conducted, and the Latter-day Saints are in the crosshairs.

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

The question asked of Oaks was in the context of his speaking as a public figure of authority on how to balance religious and LGBTQ+ rights. It is by no means unreasonable that one would ask about the treatment of such minorities within the institution he was president of.

The question wasn't out-of-bounds.  But the context was . . . weird.  Adjudicating the Church's efforts about "LGBTQ+ rights" in 2021 based on how a few individuals may have been mistreated half a century ago at BYU?  

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

As for the honour code, Given other, more recent problems of it’s separation between itself and other university departments and mandates, I’m more than a little doubtful of this separation. I’d need more evidence, particularly from the victims and non-strictly apologetic sources.

I understand.  You will likewise understand while folks like myself are "more than a little doubtful" about a ginned-up controversy like the one under discussion.  I'd need more evidence, particularly from substantial and contemporaneous and non-strictly "activist" sources.

Thanks,

-Smac