Nofear Posted March 16, 2022 Posted March 16, 2022 Critique/support/clarifications on the article? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu
SwedishLDS Posted March 16, 2022 Posted March 16, 2022 I do not have much to add on the article, I will just note what Elder Dallin H. Oaks says nowdays from this interview: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues? ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’ Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters. ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used. 1
Popular Post california boy Posted March 16, 2022 Popular Post Posted March 16, 2022 Seriously? Is this some kind of attempt to pretend that BYU has never treated gay students badly and President Oaks was obliviously to the horrible treatment going on at BYU? This is a bunch of whitewash crap to make someone feel like the Church and BYU has always treated the LGBT members and students well. Did you notice that all the testimonies and accounts of the students that went through this program are not referenced and only revisionary history is given by the people involved in this dracularian behavior? It is not hard to Google this and read first hand accounts on what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU. Start with this Wikipedia article that actually footnotes and documents what went on. Quote Under Oaks, a system of surveillance and searches of dorms of problem students, including suspected homosexuals, was implemented.[38] This included electronic recording devices which BYU Security Chief Robert Kelshaw confirmed in 1975 had been planted on students to gather information. In reference to the widespread campaign to find homosexuals among BYU students, Oaks stated, "Two influences we wish to exclude from the BYU community are active homosexuals and drug users, and these subjects are therefore among those with which our security force is concerned."[39] Four years later BYU's newspaper reported Oaks asking BYU security to be "especially watchful" for any student homosexual infractions.[40]: 126 [41] BYU's security force conducted stake outs looking for license plates of BYU students at gay bars in Salt Lake City.[38][42][43] They also placed fake contact advertisements in a gay Salt Lake City newspaper to entrap gay students.[44][42][39] This resulted in the arrest of David Chipman who was no longer a BYU student at that time.[40]: 126 [45][46] However, the director of public relations for the university stated that by 1979 Oaks ordered BYU security to stop surveilling gay bars and to cease posting entrapment advertisements.[42] Quote Aversion therapy at BYU[edit] An intervention-style approach to "curing" homosexuality by therapists and unlicensed individuals gradually emerged in the LDS community as it became clear that the church leaders' self-help recommendations were not working.[89]: 89 One of the main efforts was BYU's aversion therapy program from 1959[2]: 377, 379 to the mid-90s[89]: 90 which used mostly electrical shocks to the arm or genitals, or sometimes induced-vomiting while showing the participants erotic imagery.[89]: 89, 90, 93, 94 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 feelings among Mormon males.[2]: 377, 379 The on-campus aversion therapy program lasted through the 60s, 70s, 80s,[90]: 64–65 [5]: 155 [89]: 92 and into the mid-90s.[89]: 90 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 [89]: 89 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) what was deemed "sexual deviancy", though, the program continued.[91][40]: 82 From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin H. Oaks[40]: 32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office[92](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."[5]: 155 In an independent BYU newspaper article two men describe their experience with the BYU Aversion therapy program during the early 1970s.[93]: 162 After confessing to homosexual feelings 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.[94] The experiences match most reports which state that shock therapy was ineffective in changing sexual orientation.[95]: xxvi From 1975 to 1976 Max Ford McBride, a student at BYU, conducted electroshock aversion therapy on 17 men (with 14 completing the treatment) using a male arousal measuring device placed around the penis and electrodes on the bicep. He published a dissertation on the use of electrical aversive techniques to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality.[96] 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."[97][98] Although it is not publicly published whether all top LDS Church leaders were aware of the electroshock aversion therapy program,[99] it is known that apostles Spencer W Kimball, Mark E. Peterson, and now apostle Dallin H. Oaks were,[2]: 379 and leaders involved in LDS Social Services thought the therapy was effective.[100][47]: 164–165 At the time, homosexuality was considered by the medical community as a psychiatric condition,[101] and aversion therapy was one of the more common methods used to try to change it.[102] In 1966, Martin Seligman had conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania that demonstrated positive results, which led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community."[103] After flaws were demonstrated in Seligman's experiments, aversion therapy fell out of popularity, and in 1994 the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."[104] Participant in the 1975–76 BYU study Don Harryman wrote that he experienced "burns on [his] arms and ... emotional trauma."[95]: 26–28 [105] Another participant, John Clarence Cameron, who wrote a play called "14" about his experiences, said "it didn’t change anything except increase my self-loathing. I didn’t know the ramifications of the experiment until years later."[106] Cameron stated that he "would like everyone to tell the truth, admit the mistakes that took place, and stop trying to act like it didn't happen"[107] Another one of the test subjects described his experiences, stating "No one wanted to change more than I did. I did everything within my power to change, and it didn't alter my homosexuality one whit. All I had learned to do was suppress much of my personality ... I was shutting down, turning off.... I was making my life miserable by a pervasive denial of who I am."[108] Additionally, Connell O'Donovan describes the attempts by the University to 'cure' his homosexuality through vomit-inducing aversion therapy as well as electroshock aversion therapy. Val Mansfield and Drew Staffanson also describe undergoing aversion therapy and Raymond King describes his involvement as an intern with the BYU psychology department's electroshock aversion therapy program in the 1996 short documentary Legacies.[109]The documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition also contains an interview wherein Bruce Barton states that BYU coerced him into vomit aversion therapy, as well as electroshock therapy, which later precipitated his suicide attempt.[110] Jayce Cox also reported his experience with BYU shock therapy[111] and suicidal ideation in articles and an MTV documentary.[112][113][114] Scott Burton discusses the burn marks on his wrists he developed when undergoing electroshock therapy from ages 13 to 15 at the hands of a Mormon therapist by request from his Mormon parents.[115] In 2011 BYU admitted to the past use of electroshock therapy but denies that it had ever used vomit-inducing therapy "in the BYU Counseling Center"[97] (which has been in the Wilkinson Student Center since 1964). However, the students that underwent the treatment have stated that the vomit therapy took place in the basement of the Psychology department's Joseph F. Smith Family Living Center (built in 1957, demolished in 2002).[109][116] Quote Conversion therapy at BYU[edit] In 2016, the church's official website declared that conversion therapy or sexual orientation change efforts(SOCE) are "unethical."[120] This statement is echoed by studies on the harmful effects of SOCE.[121] Prior to this change in stance BYU ecclesiastical leaders and Honor Code office administrators have encouraged or required students with homosexual feelings to undergo conversion therapy (also known as sexual orientation change efforts), sometimes under threat of expulsion. This therapy focused on diminishing same-sex romantic attraction sometimes happened on campus by church-employed therapists. For example, National Geographic journalist Andrew Evans[122] has discussed the compulsory year of conversion therapy and "traumatic moments" BYU made him undergo in the late 90s as a student after he was caught kissing a man by his roommate. BYU told him he could be expelled or visit weekly with his bishop, turn in fellow gay students, cut off contact with any gay friends, and have frequent visits with a BYU therapist until he was heterosexual and "safe" for other students to be around. Included in the therapy was weekly dates with women as an additional attempt to change his attractions.[123] Similarly, LGBT activist Michael Ferguson also discussed the many years and different modalities of expensive conversion therapy he underwent (including with a BYU psychologist) starting with a 2004 recommendation from his BYU bishop. He was told by local church leaders that many had "overcome" and diminished their same-sex romantic feelings and their "addiction" to those of the same sex. Ferguson believed that through this he could follow church teachings and marry a woman and enter the highest degree of glory in the afterlife. Much of the therapy focused on repairing alleged emotional damage from things deemed to cause homosexuality like an overbearing mother, distant father, and rejection from same-sex peers.[124] An article from ABC news that include first hand account of men that went through BYU's aversion therapy program. A documentary of interviews by some of those that went through this horrific torture. I might also add that this is the same Dallin Oaks.just 5 months ago who openly lied about aversion therapy going on at BYU while he was president despite the fact that by this time, the torture that was going on was very well known to the general public and probably most everyone on this board. We are expected to believe that this man tells the truth about what was going on during his administration and discount the actual testimonies of the men that went through this program? Fairlatterdaysaints obviously is more interested in whitewashing what went on than establishing the truth. What a disgrace. 7
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 16, 2022 Posted March 16, 2022 25 minutes ago, california boy said: Seriously? Is this some kind of attempt to pretend that BYU has never treated gay students badly and President Oaks was obliviously to the horrible treatment going on at BYU? This is a bunch of whitewash crap to make someone feel like the Church and BYU has always treated the LGBT members and students well. Did you notice that all the testimonies and accounts of the students that went through this program are not referenced and only revisionary history is given by the people involved in this dracularian behavior? It is not hard to Google this and read first hand accounts on what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU. Start with this Wikipedia article that actually footnotes and documents what went on. An article from ABC news that include first hand account of men that went through BYU's aversion therapy program. A documentary of interviews by some of those that went through this horrific torture. I might also add that this is the same Dallin Oaks.just 5 months ago who openly lied about aversion therapy going on at BYU while he was president despite the fact that by this time, the torture that was going on was very well known to the general public and probably most everyone on this board. We are expected to believe that this man tells the truth about what was going on during his administration and discount the actual testimonies of the men that went through this program? Fairlatterdaysaints obviously is more interested in whitewashing what went on than establishing the truth. What a disgrace. Exactly. If we just pretend these witness statements don’t exist and completely ignore them, then there is no evidence! Wow. Apologetics at its finest. 4
Nofear Posted March 16, 2022 Author Posted March 16, 2022 Reading the longer paper linked in the article (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Aversion-Version-1.1.pdf) and california boy's comments is a curious exercise. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted March 16, 2022 Posted March 16, 2022 4 hours ago, Nofear said: Critique/support/clarifications on the article? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Behavior modification research has been a big area of concern to clinical psychologists for many years, and there is nothing strange about it. It is more focused than any 12-step program treating addiction to alcohol or other recreational drugs, or to food addiction for that matter. There is the Behavior Design Lab at Stanford, which was preceded by the notorious Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which some believe led to some of the madness of the Symbionese Liberation Army. SRI is now a huge corporation located in Menlo Park, California. BYU has never taken that sort of work seriously.
CV75 Posted March 16, 2022 Posted March 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Nofear said: Reading the longer paper linked in the article (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Aversion-Version-1.1.pdf) and california boy's comments is a curious exercise. I would like to see a "joint committee" report developed by authors from FAIR and the Wikipedia article, including their jointly developed reference and scholarship standards. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 12 hours ago, Nofear said: Critique/support/clarifications on the article? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu How do you square “The electric shocks used in the aversion therapy were extremely weak” from the main article and the “barely tolerable” threshold used in the study. For me if I were describing a shock, “extremely weak” and “barely tolerable” are not synonyms. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 8 hours ago, Nofear said: Reading the longer paper linked in the article (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Aversion-Version-1.1.pdf) and california boy's comments is a curious exercise. Can you point to where in the article you address the accounts of multiple individuals whose experience is related in the Wikipedia article? Like what page was that on - I missed it in the sections I read and skimmed through.
Canadiandude Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 Payne Papers: http://prologuegaymormons.com/the-book/ More about the Payne Papers: https://www.qsaltlake.com/news/2010/12/23/the-payne-papers/ Furthermore, and as discussed in another post on this forum- It is unconscionable for Pres. Oaks to publicly deny, in a public forum, that aversion therapy occurred under his tenure without verifying the matter first. The Salt Lake Tribune followed up with the church in clarification later after his account was demonstrated to be incorrect. Neither the church nor Pres. Oaks corrected the statement. 1
Canadiandude Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Nofear said: Reading the longer paper linked in the article (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Aversion-Version-1.1.pdf) and california boy's comments is a curious exercise. Then try publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal on the matter. Ask for feedback from the Mormon Social Science Association, Mormon History Association, respected academics like Dr.’s Petrey or Benjamin Park. If FAIR is a scholarly institution, and wishes for robust feedback, then they should start by first asking their accredited peers. Edited March 17, 2022 by Canadiandude 2
Calm Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Canadiandude said: If FAIR is a scholarly institution, and wishes for robust feedback, then they should start by first asking their accredited peers. It is a volunteer organization meant to make stuff accessible to the general public, not to produce scholarly work itself generally speaking, though there are a number of scholars that have been involved over the years. Volunteers do what they are interested in. Some stuff is robust because those doing it want that type of depth and seek out that level of critique, other stuff not so much. No one is paid for it and it can be hard to get responses needed for decent critiques from what I have seen, especially in a timely manner. Not saying that is the reason for all or most gaps, much of it is the lack of time and resources necessary. Some part is lack of interest no doubt. Edited March 17, 2022 by Calm 3
Tacenda Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 11 hours ago, california boy said: Seriously? Is this some kind of attempt to pretend that BYU has never treated gay students badly and President Oaks was obliviously to the horrible treatment going on at BYU? This is a bunch of whitewash crap to make someone feel like the Church and BYU has always treated the LGBT members and students well. Did you notice that all the testimonies and accounts of the students that went through this program are not referenced and only revisionary history is given by the people involved in this dracularian behavior? It is not hard to Google this and read first hand accounts on what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU. Start with this Wikipedia article that actually footnotes and documents what went on. An article from ABC news that include first hand account of men that went through BYU's aversion therapy program. A documentary of interviews by some of those that went through this horrific torture. I might also add that this is the same Dallin Oaks.just 5 months ago who openly lied about aversion therapy going on at BYU while he was president despite the fact that by this time, the torture that was going on was very well known to the general public and probably most everyone on this board. We are expected to believe that this man tells the truth about what was going on during his administration and discount the actual testimonies of the men that went through this program? Fairlatterdaysaints obviously is more interested in whitewashing what went on than establishing the truth. What a disgrace. Sad that Fair would do that, I guess they were most likely put up to it.
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: I guess they were most likely put up to it. What a reckless (and probably baseless) thing to write! 3
Calm Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Sad that Fair would do that, I guess they were most likely put up to it. And by this you mean? 3
Tacenda Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: What a reckless (and probably baseless) thing to write! Okay, sorry, my lack of trust in the church is showing, I admire those that put in a lot of time to help those struggling, like Fair does. That's why I jumped to the conclusion that the church might have asked for them to write something up. But like you said, it was reckless. I guess I hate seeing Fair doing something that hurts anyone. Edited March 17, 2022 by Tacenda
sunstoned Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 13 hours ago, Nofear said: Critique/support/clarifications on the article? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu This article is lightly sourced, and there is scant evidence that the sources were from a refereed journal. 1
OGHoosier Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) The FairMormon article evinces no knowledge of aversion therapy practices at BYU outside of McBride's study, which appears to have been well-documented. That's a huge problem. That said, I would regard Thorne as pretty well representative of what BYU was doing at the time. Edited March 17, 2022 by OGHoosier
Canadiandude Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: It is a volunteer organization meant to make stuff accessible to the general public, not to produce scholarly work itself generally speaking, though there are a number of scholars that have been involved over the years. Volunteers do what they are interested in. Some stuff is robust because those doing it want that type of depth and seek out that level of critique, other stuff not so much. No one is paid for it and it can be hard to get responses needed for decent critiques from what I have seen, especially in a timely manner. Not saying that is the reason for all or most gaps, much of it is the lack of time and resources necessary. Some part is lack of interest no doubt. I’m confused. If making ‘stuff’ publicly accessible is the goal, shouldn’t we expect an organization like FAIR to first consult with, and ask for feedback from credible, external scholars on said ‘stuff’?? Like, if the ‘stuff’ warrants greater public accessibility, why would we wish any less rigorous a process when confirming and declaring said ‘stuff’, and why wouldn’t accredited academics be the ones to lead out in that dissemination? FAIR presents itself as a credible authority on the matters on which it opines, but if that credibility is unwarranted then it ought to instead seek out and defer to those whom are leading scholars in their respective fields, and follow a rigorous process of peer-review. ~ This is especially important when the ‘stuff’ in question revolves around a marginalized community, and their treatment at the hands of powerful institutions. Basic research ethics alone should direct the author(s) and publisher to seek credible academic feedback from scholars on the subject. If FAIR asked and represented the feedback fairly, I’m sure that the aforementioned scholars and scholarly institutions would love to offer feedback to the organization. Research validity and reliability are no less crucial for volunteer organizations, esp when they seek to explain an academic institution’s historical treatment of minorities. Edited March 17, 2022 by Canadiandude 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 25 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: That said, I would regard Thorne as pretty well representative of what BYU was doing at the time. Maybe, maybe not. It’s a big school after all.
JustAnAustralian Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: This article is lightly sourced, and there is scant evidence that the sources were from a refereed journal. The 57 page explainer references plenty. 2
Nofear Posted March 17, 2022 Author Posted March 17, 2022 8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: The 57 page explainer references plenty. Indeed, most of the criticisms in this thread are relevant to the summary not the more in depth article. That's not to say there aren't plenty of criticisms to level at the larger paper, but it is worth reading. Perhaps some immediate feedback would be how to align the summary article with the paper more closely. 4
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Nofear said: Indeed, most of the criticisms in this thread are relevant to the summary not the more in depth article. That's not to say there aren't plenty of criticisms to level at the larger paper, but it is worth reading. Perhaps some immediate feedback would be how to align the summary article with the paper more closely. I don’t think so. The in depth article focuses on an interview with one individual and the study he oversaw. It then extrapolates from there to conclude that no additional aversion therapy was conducted. There is no real attempt to grapple with the many first person sources available that contradict the conclusion that appears to have been reached in advance. The interview with Thorne included a lot “not to my knowledge” type statements which are fine as far as it goes, but it is just one individual at a school that has 10’s of thousands of undergraduates. 2
bluebell Posted March 17, 2022 Posted March 17, 2022 15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I don’t think so. The in depth article focuses on an interview with one individual and the study he oversaw. It then extrapolates from there to conclude that no additional aversion therapy was conducted. There is no real attempt to grapple with the many first person sources available that contradict the conclusion that appears to have been reached in advance. The interview with Thorne included a lot “not to my knowledge” type statements which are fine as far as it goes, but it is just one individual at a school that has 10’s of thousands of undergraduates. The article does discuss the other aversion therapy that occurred, but not in depth. It begins on page 42 and is explicitly talked about beginning on page 43. At least I think this is what you are referring too. 1
Recommended Posts