Two Articles re Improvements in Utah re: LGBT Issues

[Canadiandude]

Curious as to what accountability looks more akin to?

 

This is a good start.

https://lattergaystories.org/bergin/

[Canadiandude]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Seems to be" being the operative wording here.

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

I did say seems to be and you are correct if you are implying I’ve underestimated the evidence.

The study was an official BYU study, conducted and supervised by BYU researchers and Faculty.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Must they?

Yes.

as for the timeline.

I fail to see the contradiction you are claiming here or what you are trying to claim through it. If my quoted sentences are conjecture then so too is the argument you yourself are making.

And again you’re ignoring other studies the tweet says we’re conducted during the time.

What are you claiming here?

As for much of the rest: Yeah, that’s part of accountability, honesty & integrity.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Canadiandude

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I did say seems to be and you are correct if you are implying I’ve underestimated the evidence.

No, I'm suggesting you are overstating and exaggerating the evidence.

26 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

The study was an official BYU study, conducted and supervised by BYU researchers and Faculty.

Oh.  Well, a few questions for you:

1. What does "official BYU study" mean, in your view?

2. What evidence do you have of an intersection between (A) the University Standards Office (n/k/a the Honor Code Office) overseen by Gerald Dye during the time period in question and (B) the study by a BYU graduate student, Max McBride, that was later used in his PhD dissertation?  Put another way, do you have any evidence that (A) was in any way involved with (B)?

3. What evidence do you have that President Oaks was aware of Max McBride's study?

4. What are your thoughts about this descriiption of McBride's study (emphasis added):

Quote

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

Specifically, what do you understand to be the meaning of the students agreeing to and signing a statement that "Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Lying (as defined in the Gospel Principles Manual) is apparently ok for y’all if it’s ‘lying for the Lord’…

There is lying and then there is just making assumptions without bothering to make sure they are true. Not saying the second is okay, but it is not lying Imo. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

But where does the buck stop in terms of leadership?

 

Having been involved with multiple university research studies (at the researcher level, not study participant level), if I gambled I would be willing to bet that no one in the executive level would be aware of what the actual details of the research methodology were.

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

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.

University administrators should not be setting the rules for what is ethical research. That should be government level (or international level). Otherwise I could just go from university to university until I got the research approved. The whole point of research ethics committees is to keep on top of the ever-changing government requirements, and decide which research is approved or denied based on government regulations. Executive level people should not be micromanaging these decisions.

 

Of course all this is based on how things work now.

What was the human research ethics approval process for university students in the 1970s?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

The study was an official BYU study, conducted and supervised by BYU researchers and Faculty.

I did a research study at BYU on the likelihood of nonAmerican students stopping when the Anthem was played on campus daily (needed a subject for my psychology research class, had just observed a couple of students who did not stop with the rest of us and had several Canadians as my roommates who could help me come up with questions for a survey).  I can guarantee no one else at BYU even remembers it, not even my husband who took the same class.  Subject matter was approved and graded by my prof, presented to rest of class.  The only paper I remember, even though I typed my husband’s paper for him, was a survey on what BYU males looked for in a spouse. The only item that was significant was she had to shave her legs.
 

My husband, for his dissertation, created a test for entrepreneurial attributes. It is available for research and personal curiosity. He pays no royalties to BYU when he sells the right to use it. He went through the identical process of approval McBride did most likely as his dissertation was a couple of years later in the same department***.  Faculty involvement was limited to some suggestions for direction to take and then evaluating the dissertation itself.  

Just because we were doing research at BYU doesn’t mean either was an “official” BYU study.
 

***I am probably not correct with that as he says surveys don’t require the same level of scrutiny as something physical.  But as cited below, levels of scrutiny were much lower in those days…he became a prof in 1985 and it was still pretty loose according to his recall. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The whole point of research ethics committees is to keep on top of the ever-changing government requirements, and decide which research is approved or denied based on government regulations. Executive level people should not be micromanaging these decisions.

So wish I had points right now. 
 

Quote

What was the human research ethics approval process for university students in the 1970s?

I will ask my husband if he remembers it being any different than now, though his dissertation did not involve any physical action beyond using a pencil and potential for paper cuts. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

So I asked my husband, the university prof, if he considered faculty as having a hand in conducting the research of the student’s dissertation and he said “no way, it is meant to be proof the student can conduct research”. I then asked “even if their prof’s name is on a journal article based on the dissertation?”  “Doesn’t change it.”

He also said ethics review is much tighter these days, anything involving humans goes through review with looking at methodology, etc.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Ethics Review boards might have been relatively new when McBride did his research (I may be misunderstanding, but a few sites say they were first required in 1974 for biomedical and behavioural research). My husband says he doesn’t remember going through one, his research was just a survey with pretty tame questions (I helped collect the data),so can’t think of anything that would trigger attention, so he may or may not have had to submit his proposal to a board, though when he did something similar a few years back, there was a detailed study of it before it was approved because it studied attributes rather than just collecting opinions.

https://www.unlv.edu/research/ORI-HSR/history-ethics

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

9 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.

 

Since I don’t have an account on Twitter, it does not have a link. Can you provide one assuming the data isn’t just posted on Twitter.  If it is, is the above the only info?  No name for the article?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I haven’t read his dissertation in over 10 years, so maybe the info is in there, but the title of his dissertation was electrical aversion therapy.  Am curious where the claim is that he used vomiting and odor aversion as well. Do you know?

And as a general appeal to all reading this thread, please do not use “electroshock” to refer to electrical aversion therapy.

My daughter went through almost 20 sessions of electroshock, better referred to as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for obvious reasons if you have ever seen it and it is just wrong to see the label placed on something quite different.
 

Thankfully they knock the patient out and then paralyze them to avoid injury, but those have their own issues.  Not making any judgments on whether electrical aversion therapy (EAT) or ECT is worse to experience.  Just that it feels like my daughter’s experience is ignored when “electroshock” is incorrectly used. 

FYI, so no one thinks I am condemning ECT as a treatment, my daughter is glad she did it and I am so grateful as it pulled her out of a very dark space she has never returned to (so much fun to have to ask her “are you thinking of suicide” when I was trying to get her out of bed; even if the months of ECT were hell, the two years before were worse), but it was extremely traumatic, lots of nausea before as she couldn’t take her usual drugs as they prevented seizures, tears for the hour drive up to SL at 3 AM with me having to be all chipper like we were off to a picnic, trying to get home before the vomiting, the massive migraines, and one horrible time of four of us pinning her down in her bed as she came out of anesthesia trying to rip out her IV and get out of the bed.  Even with all that, the reason she stopped getting treatments was because it messed with her memory too much as one would expect with her brain seizing up several times a week. 
 

Many people do not have as rough of an experience and continue with treatment every couple of months for the rest of their lives. Others are blessed to have the first series or even just one or two treatments and never need additional ‘reboots’.  Hers were extra special because of having to withdraw for several days prior to treatment, pretty much not sleeping or eating much for that time, so being a basket case before they even plugged her in. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

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

Man, feeling old with the way you said that. 
 

Quote

Reports suggest that the practice continued until 1983.

Are these reports anecdotal from those claiming to participate as volunteers, from those claiming to have done the research, or articles or other documentation like hopefully there is for the Bergen article (which I hope someone has a citation to).

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

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

I don’t have the least bit of problem with anyone desiring to sue BYU or even Pres. Oaks over being given this treatment or for the vomiting version, whether for smoking, weight loss, bingeing, homosexual feelings, alcoholism, self injury, aggression, and likely other things I have not heard about, assuming such treatments were given there as they were elsewhere. 
 

The difficulty will be such treatment was SOP at the time. I remember hearing of it in high school in the mid70’s in CA for bingeing behaviour and there was a poster at BYU in the women’s dorm for the same (‘77). There were numerous research studies undertaken in universities and treatments given in clinics and private practices across the US. 
 

Should BYU apologize for accepting along with the rest of academia that such research was okay?  I think they should if they haven’t already. 
 

Should they be required to pay reparations?  Now we run into a more difficult judgment. Ethically speaking they were following what was widely established as appropriate treatments.  The only incidents I have heard about were in good faith, using standard practices of the time. BYU was not among the last to stop the practice.

McBride’s study was even trying to make the treatment less offensive, hoping that pictures of clothed, non-sexually posed individuals would be as effective as nude, non-sexual ones. (It does seem weird looking back that the concern was over no maybe pornographic nudity rather than persistent electric shocks and maybe vomiting).

As to what level of responsibility Pres Oaks had and should he personally apologize?  I am divided on this. There is the ideal that he as the President was responsible for anything that occurred under his tenure, but I am also aware it doesn’t work that way and can’t for a large university. Oversight must be delegated.  As mentioned above by JustA, ethical review also needs to stay independent of administrative control.  Academic freedom and avoiding pressure by the administration for whatever reason require that independence.  And the standards of the past shouldn’t be judged by what we know today, but didn’t know then. The treatment was truly thought to be beneficial and no more harmful than anything else I can’t think of at the moment.  Brain glitch 🤷‍♀️

I was reading descriptions in textbooks of vomiting and shocks next to smelling ammonia and snapping rubber bands on the wrist.  I haven’t done any research recently, but I bet versions are still being used in the US (hopefully not for homosexuality, more likely smoking and eating issues) even though longterm effectiveness is lacking according to what I have read in the past.

Looking back, it seems malicious to use electrical shocks on any sensitive areas of the body even in an attempt to help, but such pales in comparison to cancer treatments and other medical procedures people willingly undergo to change their lives.  Unless one wants to hold the APA and other oversight organizations at the time as well as all the other universities doing the same sort of research equally responsible, it seems unjust to target BYU for trying to help in the same way so many other professionals were doing. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

I believe I found the article (based on it being referenced as a 1973 New Era article).

Quote

By 1973, the first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported. These were mentioned by BYU psychology professor Allen Bergin in a July 1973 New Era article, justifying the actions by claiming that homosexuals were “psychologically disturbed persons.”

The article:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1973/07/toward-a-theory-of-human-agency?lang=eng

Did a “find on page” because I am not patient and had no hits on shock, electrical, nor aversion. So boring to actually read it, will do so now.  May take a bit because I smell fresh bread.

Later:  Bread has sunflower seeds, I will stick with smelling only…

Even later:  Am quoting any references to homosexuality or aversion therapy that I find.

Still later:  finished.  I found nothing referring to aversion therapy or electrical shocks.  Either the website got the magazine wrong or there has been a misrepresentation in the claim.

Quote

Some homosexuals, for example, seem to be compulsively driven to frequent and sometimes bizarre acts that they say occur without the mediation of conscious intent. The act once repeated, the motivation behind it can become so powerful that one is literally in bondage to the demands of biological impulses and related stimuli. The “chains of hell” is an apt metaphor for such cases.

Quote

I would like to share with you two examples from my own experience. In both cases the presenting problem was compulsive or uncontrollable homosexuality.

I found that a complex set of factors was operating in each of these cases. Not only was there a compulsive symptom but there were common underlying predispositions. Of great importance was the fact that each suffered from a phobia—an intense fear of the opposite sex. As personal involvement with a member of the opposite sex increased, anxiety increased until feelings of panic ensued and the relationship was disrupted. In addition, each of these persons lacked an adequate repertoire of social skills appropriate for engaging in normal male-female contacts and for deepening such relationships. And finally, each person had made the error of seeking warmth, security, and intimacy exclusively with members of the same sex and had permitted this pattern to develop into a powerfully reinforcing biological relationship. In doing so, their behavior became dominated by the immediacy of needs for affection and bodily satisfaction to the point that the ability to consciously choose was virtually obliterated. We thus had three factors contributing to a serious diminution of agency: a phobia, a deficient social repertoire, and weakened impulse control.

Our treatment of these cases cannot be documented in detail here, but it consisted first of reducing fears of the opposite sex by means of a technique called systematic desensitization. This consists of reversing the old childhood conditioning of avoidance responses to heterosexual stimuli by manipulating the clients’ feeling states so that positive responses are repeatedly paired with and associated with the feared object. This gradually increases control, in that panic is no longer the invariable and automatic response to the formerly phobic events. Secondly, we trained these persons by means of role playing or behavioral rehearsal in appropriate social skills because we soon learned that the removal of the phobic symptoms merely brought about the possibility of heterosexual adequacy. That is, systematic desensitization reduced an inhibition but did not provide a program of positive approach behavior. Once the new skills were learned, a third problem remained, namely, that there was still a compelling sexual impulse that persisted due to a lack of self-control and the strong biological reinforcement inherent in the act that made the arousal of control difficult. We therefore instituted a self-control training procedure to assist in the agonizing struggle with the impulses which these clients had determined to overcome. Everything we had done up to this point prepared the way by gradually developing new controls and effectiveness in previously weak areas, but the critical difficulty still lay before us.

Quote

 

We next proceeded to develop and apply a method of direct training in control (Bergin, 1969). This technique involved, first, a careful assessment of the events immediately preceding a loss of self-control. It was explained that failures in self-control often occurred because the effort to control was applied late in the sequence when the impulsive pattern had already reached a high level of intensity. Thus, the unexercised and undeveloped control ability was weak compared to the strength of the impulse, and it had to be applied early in the sequence to insure success.

The clients were then instructed to pay close attention to environmental situations and to personal reactions that might set off the undesired chain of events. It was evident that in the past they had not been aware of these events until they had reached an intermediate or high intensity; therefore two or three therapy sessions were devoted to repeatedly going over the chains and making them as explicit as possible

 

.

Quote

Techniques for interrupting responses to stimuli early in the chains were discussed and, in imagination, practiced during the sessions. These included methods such as immediately switching to thoughts or activities unrelated to the chain, but it was always emphasized that this be done promptly so as to apply the greatest strength of control to the weakest strength of impulse. This procedure of shutting off impulse-related reactions and immediately engaging in another activity (reading, walking, thinking) was very much a simple act of will motivated by the client’s desire for change and by the hope and compliance engendered by the therapist’s instructions.

Following this procedure was difficult for the clients at first, presumably because it totally reversed a strongly reinforced habit, but by persistence and encouragement they were soon able to practice it regularly. The clients reported their experiences in much the same terms in which addicts do. They described it as a feeling of climbing a very steep hill with a large pack on their backs. Each effort at control was like another step up this impossible incline; but almost unexpectedly they seemed to reach a crest and the effort was then downhill and easy the rest of the way.

The potency of this technique seems to lie in applying it to a specific problem that arises from an inadequately developed self-regulatory system. The emphasis here is on the assumption that there are such things as primary developmental defects in self-control that are responsive chiefly to techniques that emphasize the self in self-control, namely that the defect lies in the unpracticed will, in the self that does not consciously and vigorously regulate.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these cases is the phenomenon of impulse weakening as a direct result of consistent exercise in self-regulation. The result of this effort was that the clients soon gained control of their behavior in the presence of formerly compelling stimuli.

It appears that active resistance to the undesirable response to a stimulus tends to break the stimulus-response chain and the stimuli lose their power to compel or control the individual’s behavior. It also appears that the feelings and fantasies formerly associated with this range of stimuli actually disappeared as responses to them.

Quote

Our thesis is that when a person consciously selects a behavioral goal and then finds his pathway to that goal obstructed by habits, impulses, or feelings over which he has little control, he can overcome these obstacles by the exercise of self-effort. Technically it may be stated thus: The power of a consciously perceived stimulus to evoke an undesired response is directly proportional to the frequency with which the undesired response occurs. Decline in the power of such a stimulus complex is a direct function of the frequency with which the individual consciously and effectively resists acting out the usual response. A corollary hypothesis is that stimuli early in the chain of behavior will evoke a weaker response and that responses of that order will be more readily inhibited than those of a higher order. If inhibition occurs more frequently at that level, breaking of the main, over-arching stimulus-response connection will be more frequent and more successful.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t have the least bit of problem with anyone desiring to sue BYU or even Pres. Oaks over being given this treatment or for the vomiting version, whether for smoking, weight loss, bingeing, homosexual feelings, alcoholism, self injury, aggression, and likely other things I have not heard about, assuming such treatments were given there as they were elsewhere. 
 

The difficulty will be such treatment was SOP at the time. I remember hearing of it in high school in the mid70’s in CA for bingeing behaviour and there was a poster at BYU in the women’s dorm for the same (‘77). There were numerous research studies undertaken in universities and treatments given in clinics and private practices across the US. 
 

Should BYU apologize for accepting along with the rest of academia that such research was okay?  I think they should if they haven’t already. 
 

Should they be required to pay reparations?  Now we run into a more difficult judgment. Ethically speaking they were following what was widely established as appropriate treatments.  The only incidents I have heard about were in good faith, using standard practices of the time. BYU was not among the last to stop the practice.

McBride’s study was even trying to make the treatment less offensive, hoping that pictures of clothed, non-sexually posed individuals would be as effective as nude, non-sexual ones. (It does seem weird looking back that the concern was over no pornographic nudity rather than persistent electric shocks and maybe vomiting).

As to what level of responsibility Pres Oaks had and should he personally apologize?  I am divided on this. There is the ideal that he as the President was responsible for anything that occurred under his tenure, but I am also aware it doesn’t work that way and can’t for a large university. Oversight must be delegated.  And the standards of the past shouldn’t be judged by what we know today, but didn’t know then. The treatment was truly thought to be beneficial and no more harmful than anything else I can’t think of at the moment.  Brain glitch 🤷‍♀️

I was reading descriptions in textbooks of vomiting and shocks next to smelling ammonia and snapping rubber bands on the wrist.  I haven’t done any research recently, but I bet versions are still being used in the US even though longterm effectiveness is lacking according to what I have read in the past.

Looking back, it seems malicious to use electrical shocks on any sensitive areas of the body even in an attempt to help, but such pales in comparison to cancer treatments and other medical procedures people willing undergo to change their lives.  Unless one wants to hold the APA and other oversight organizations at the time as well as all the other universities doing the same sort of research equally responsible, it seems unjust to target BYU for trying to help in the same way so many other professionals were doing. 

Interesting blog, there's no doubt that Pres Oaks was aware of what was happening after reading it. 

https://exmosuggestion.tumblr.com/post/614715062018539521/what-did-president-oaks-do-when-he-was-president

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Interesting blog, there's no doubt that Pres Oaks was aware of what was happening after reading it. 

https://exmosuggestion.tumblr.com/post/614715062018539521/what-did-president-oaks-do-when-he-was-president

Not impressed from the little I read.  A quick scan I am not seeing any documentation besides one allegedly fake advert for hooking up.  They completely misrepresented McBride’s study.

Quote

For his dissertation, a student at BYU with permission of his dissertation committee, experimented on fourteen gay male students to determine if using photographs of nude men and women from Playgirl- and Playboy-type magazines was helpful in electric shock therapy. 

McBride was trying to determine if clothed photos were as effective as nude.

That seems to me a deliberate error.  At this point I don’t trust the blog to be accurate.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not impressed from the little I read.  A quick scan I am not seeing any documentation besides one allegedly fake advert for hooking up.  They completely misrepresented McBride’s study.

McBride was trying to determine if clothed photos were as effective as nude.

That seems to me a deliberate error.  At this point I don’t trust the blog to be accurate.

Thanks for the input, I guess it could be hearsay.

[Calm]

The reference I found to Bergin  is here:

https://www.usgabyu.com/single-post/byuhistory
 

Bergin is quoted as saying in the article “psychologically disturbed persons”.  The phrase is in the New Era article, so it does appear to be the article in question***. But unless my brain is not just toast, but charcoal, there is no reference to him using aversion therapy and definitely not shock therapy. 
 

Please check my work, I am very surprised by the results. Guess I am more trusting of what I read on the Internet than I thought.  First time I have visited that website though.  Perhaps I missed it. 

***

Quote

The most obvious cases of loss of control are found among psychologically disturbed persons. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of psychopathology is that the person reports being out of control.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[rockpond]

What I gather from the posts here and other sources I read is that:

1. Electrical aversion therapy (McBride study) was likely happening at BYU in the 70's
2. We don't have enough info to determine if Pres. Oaks knew about it at the time.

 

Two other interesting points, that seem less in dispute:

1. Pres. Oaks admits that aversion therapy was being done at BYU prior to Oaks' term as university president.
2. When it comes to LGBTQ issues, Pres. Oaks is comfortable giving different messages to different audiences.  As I understand it, he now feels that in addresses to the general public, he must be more accepting of the LGBTQ community.

 

What I wish he had said in answer to the question:

• Aversion therapy was, prior to my time as university president, used to treat lesbian and gay BYU students.  While these forms of therapy were also being used elsewhere, we deeply regret the Church and University's support of such practices and apologize to those whose lives were negatively impacted.
• Such aversion therapies may have continued within the BYU community both during and after my time as president, albeit without the knowledge or approval of the university administration.  We are saddened by this but have denounced such practices and done all in our power to end them within the Church community.

 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Electrical aversion therapy (McBride study) was likely happening at BYU in the 70's

Not just likely.  It has been fully documented that it was used for 3 months iirc for 14 individuals during the span of the study (started out with 17, can’t remember how many, if any sessions the 3 had).  Can’t remember the number of sessions.  Think it is mentioned in the FAIR link.  I believe either McBride or his faculty adviser was interviewed by a FAIR  member, but don’t quote me on that.  His dissertation is available.

As for other studies or BYU counselors using it, haven’t seen anything documented that is nonanecdotal except for the claim that Bergin admitted to using in it in the July 1973 New Era article, which is so not true.  I wouldn’t be the least surprised if it was, considering its wide acceptance in the psychology profession at that time.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[rockpond]

On 11/16/2021 at 10:23 PM, Calm said:

Not just likely.  It has been fully documented that it was used for 3 months iirc for 14 individuals during the span of the study (started out with 17, can’t remember how many, if any sessions the 3 had).  Can’t remember the number of sessions.  Think it is mentioned in the FAIR link.  I believe either McBride or his faculty adviser was interviewed by a FAIR  member, but don’t quote me on that.  His dissertation is available.

As for other studies or BYU counselors using it, haven’t seen anything documented that is nonanecdotal except for the claim that Bergin admitted to using in it in the July 1973 New Era article, which is so not true.  I wouldn’t be the least surprised if it was, considering its wide acceptance in the psychology profession at that time.

 

I guess there's no chance that we'll get a published statement from him to correct the record and state that he wasn't aware that there was at least one study with aversion therapy going on during his tenure as President.

 

Another statement from President Oaks that is getting some criticism is the one where he said that the Church "does not try to make rules for all of society".  That seems to be the case over the last few years but it certainly wasn't the case during the Prop 22 and Prop 8 battles.  Hopefully his new statement will be a guideline for the way the Church approaches these issues in the future.

[california boy]

I am not sure what is in dispute there.  There is clear documentation that electrical shock therapy was going on during President Oaks tenure as BYU President.  The McBride experiments were documented to occur in 1976.  Here is the page from his dissertation with department head's signature and dated.  

 

 

So the statement by President Oaks that electrical shock therapy did not occur during his administration is false.

You can read the dissertation here.

1976 report by BYU Psycology researcher Max Ford McBride: "Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy"

There is testimony of BYU students that went through the therapy that testify exactly what happened to them.  Click on the names to hear their testimonies of what happened.

Bruce Barton. And again at 8:50 at this link  

Raymond King who helped conduct the experiments.  He testifies that 3 different subjects hung themselves in the Harris Fine Arts Center at BYU (more at the 4:45 time. about how security blackmailed these gay students to do the electrical shock.

Rocky Connell O'Donovan who testifies that he was given a drug to make him vomit.

Don Harryman ( At the 2:00 minute mark) supervised according to Utah law by Dr Eugene Thorn, a BYU professor in 1975 while Oaks was President of BYU.  BYU started lying about it ever happening in 1980.  When presented with the evidence of the study, they backed down, admitted that it happened,  and said it was just a misunderstanding.  In 1997 BYU professor once again lied about electrical shock therapy never occurring at BYU.

Did President Oaks know about the electrical shock therapy while he was president of BYU?  I don't know of any documentation that he knew when it occurred.  But there has been plenty of attention over the years to the electrical shock being done at BYU.  To assume President Oaks has NEVER hear about this, given his interest and connection to BYU, I personally find it difficult to believe that his is completely aware it happened during his watch.  

This article at least points to President Oaks knowing about the entrapment that was going on

Quote

Under the leadership of Spencer W. Kimball, the Mormon crusade against homosexuals continued at Brigham Young University for much of the 1970s. The LDS General Authorities continued to pressure BYU officials who under the administration of Dallin Oaks began campaigns to entrap students participating in homosexual behavior and purge them from the university.

Quote

In September 1979, BYU officials admitted to reporters that campus security had staked out bars in Salt Lake City to investigate homosexual activity at the Mormon owned school. Paul Richards, director of public relations for the university, confirmed that security officers had ventured off campus and had written letters to the Salt Lake gay newspaper “The Open Door” soliciting responses as part of a crackdown on homosexuals. He claimed, “Those things were done but, when President Oaks got involved, he said, ‘Cut that out right now.’”

I am sure, given President's legal background he realized this was completely illegal entrapment.

Edited November 21, 2021 by california boy

[JustAnAustralian]

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure what is in dispute there.  

The dispute is pretty simple. When did President Oaks find out about it?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

The dispute is pretty simple. When did President Oaks find out about it?

It's not difficult really.

https://www.usgabyu.com/single-post/byuhistory

The turn of the decade brought with it a change in leadership as Dallin H. Oaks replaced Wilkinson as President of BYU in 1971. By 1973, the first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported. These were mentioned by BYU psychology professor Allen Bergin in a July 1973 New Era article, justifying the actions by claiming that homosexuals were “psychologically disturbed persons.”

ETA: Here's the article in the New Era: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1973/07/toward-a-theory-of-human-agency?lang=eng

Surely, Pres Oaks saw the article wouldn't he have? 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tacenda

[california boy]

9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

The dispute is pretty simple. When did President Oaks find out about it?

Is the claim that some people think President Oaks never found out BYU was doing electrical shock therapy until hast week???  Or that even though he was president of BYU for almost a decade,  he never bothered to find out that it happened when he was president.

Or maybe even with this latest firestorm, he is so insulated from the world that he still doesn't know that he was incorrect in claiming that electrical shock therapy never happened on his watch since he hasn't apologized for the statement he made.

 

Honestly one has to really have drunk the Kool-aid to not admit that Dallin Oaks wasn't being truthful.  And some wonder why a lot of members have lost trust in the brethren. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by california boy