Aversion Therapy at BYU

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Honestly, to me the Church loses a LOT of credibility when Dallin Oaks lies about what happened when he was president of BYU in front of an audience to try and downplay what went on.  It is shameful and extremely hard to just push off as maybe some kind of mistake.  It also reinforced to me the same kind of untruths that were told to me when I was dealing with this issue.  So yeah, it is kinda a trigger for me to see the same behavior still happening just 5 months ago by a guy that is suppose to be an apostle.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

No I saw that part. It references a UVU thesis but doesn’t say what it said. It talks about how McBride didn’t use genital shocks or vomiting. Then it states that he’d need evidence (pictures?) of the alleged genital scarring to believe it. No where does he grapple with the list of sources provided in the wiki article. 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The 57 page explainer references plenty.

 Just what in the 57 page explaination do you think redeems or downplays what happened at BYU?  Maybe you could quote the top 5 takeaways that you think counters the documents and personal filmed testimonies and background information that I quoted. Or do you really expect people to wade through a 57 page report to try to find support that you claim is there.  There must have been at least 5 things that stood out to you to dismiss those testimonies and the footnoted Wikipedia information.  

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No I saw that part. It references a UVU thesis but doesn’t say what it said. It talks about how McBride didn’t use genital shocks or vomiting. Then it states that he’d need evidence (pictures?) of the alleged genital scarring to believe it. No where does he grapple with the list of sources provided in the wiki article. 

I'm referring to this part:

“However,” Prince adds, “there is evidence that during the mid-1990s, in non-approved protocols, electrodes were attached to male genitalia during treatment that occurred on the BYU campus as well as off-campus under supervision of BYU faculty.”149 What kind of evidence does Prince refer to? The evidence cited by Prince is a blog, the Daily Kos. 150 The reported events date from 1995, and describe an experimental set-up precisely like McBride’s and the behaviorists’ of the 1960–1970s. The witness claims to have scars on his genitals from this procedure. It is theoretically possible that this did happen—and if it did, it would be grossly unethical by the standards of the 1970s and the 1990s."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm referring to this part:

“However,” Prince adds, “there is evidence that during the mid-1990s, in non-approved protocols, electrodes were attached to male genitalia during treatment that occurred on the BYU campus as well as off-campus under supervision of BYU faculty.”149 What kind of evidence does Prince refer to? The evidence cited by Prince is a blog, the Daily Kos. 150 The reported events date from 1995, and describe an experimental set-up precisely like McBride’s and the behaviorists’ of the 1960–1970s. The witness claims to have scars on his genitals from this procedure. It is theoretically possible that this did happen—and if it did, it would be grossly unethical by the standards of the 1970s and the 1990s."

Right. The only contravening evidence he looks at is from “a blog” as he puts it. This despite the fact that much more evidence is readily available (see wiki). Despite the fact that the “blog” contains a first person interview with someone that actually experienced this treatment - there is no quoting from this individual (a Jayce Cox). No reference to the physical scarring that jayce did show. No mention or even viewing of Jayce Cox’s documentary. Just a dismissal that it is unlikely it occurred and maybe the individual should be providing physical evidence if his genital scarring. Was an effort made to reach out to Mr Cox or any of the individuals quoted on wiki? 
 

Now did the therapy that Jayce says occurred actually occur? I have no idea. None the less his allegations are out there and we’re not adequately addressed in the deep dive. And his allegations aren’t the only ones even though they are the only ones mentioned in this treatment. 
 

I’m sorry but this just doesn’t pass muster on any level. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right. The only contravening evidence he looks at is from “a blog” as he puts it. This despite the fact that much more evidence is readily available (see wiki). Despite the fact that the “blog” contains a first person interview with someone that actually experienced this treatment - there is no quoting from this individual (a Jayce Cox). No reference to the physical scarring that jayce did show. No mention or even viewing of Jayce Cox’s documentary. Just a dismissal that it is unlikely it occurred and maybe the individual should be providing physical evidence if his genital scarring. Was an effort made to reach out to Mr Cox or any of the individuals quoted on wiki? 
 

Now did the therapy that Jayce says occurred actually occur? I have no idea. None the less his allegations are out there and we’re not adequately addressed in the deep dive. And his allegations aren’t the only ones even though they are the only ones mentioned in this treatment. 
 

I’m sorry but this just doesn’t pass muster on any level. 

It might not pass muster.  

Would you say that the wiki article passed muster?  I grew up in an era of scholarship (college level) where wiki was kind of the laughing stock of the scholarship world (and the quickest way to fail a paper was to cite it) so I have a general bias of it that is a holdover from those days.  I'm guessing it's come a long way since then though and I haven't looked at this article yet so I don't have a personal opinion on it specifically. 

In light of your criticisms on this article I'm interested in your views on the wiki one as well.

Edited March 17, 2022 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It might not pass muster.  

Would you say that the wiki article passed muster?  I grew up in an era of scholarship (college level) where wiki was kind of the laughing stock of the scholarship world (and the quickest way to fail a paper was to cite it) so I have a general bias of it that is a holdover from those days.  I'm guessing it's come a long way since then though and I haven't looked at this article yet so I don't have a personal opinion on it specifically. 

In light of your criticisms on this article I'm interested in your views on the wiki one as well.

No. I don’t think so as far as actually establishing what took place. Wiki is not the place for research. From a scholarly level, wiki should never be relied on as a source but it *is a great place to go to look for good source material (which was ignored in the FAIR article). It accurately summarizes the allegations, but that’s all it can do really. If FAIR wants to put this to bed, it ought to at least look at what is being alleged and by whom.

 

ps if someone is writing a 57 page treatment of the subject I’d hope it would be much more comprehensive than a wiki page. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It might not pass muster.  

Would you say that the wiki article passed muster?  I grew up in an era of scholarship (college level) where wiki was kind of the laughing stock of the scholarship world (and the quickest way to fail a paper was to cite it) so I have a general bias of it that is a holdover from those days.  I'm guessing it's come a long way since then though and I haven't looked at this article yet so I don't have a personal opinion on it specifically. 

In light of your criticisms on this article I'm interested in your views on the wiki one as well.

If the FAIR article would not pass muster, would I be amiss then, to expect equal if not greater criticism by yourself on the article’s lack of research ethics and academic rigour?

Yesterday you literally just ‘liked’ a poor defence of FAIR’s lack of scholarly peer-review and consultation, on account of it being volunteer-based.

So yeah, you might have a bias, but I wouldn’t call it in favour of actual scholarship.

If you can’t bring yourself to advocate more forcefully for greater validity, reliability, and ethics in FAIR research, esp. on such an important and painful subject, well, that’s interesting. 

Edit: punctuation.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Canadiandude
Punctuation on the first para.

[Canadiandude]

Feeling deep outrage right now. Like…temple-clearing-Jesus outrage.

 

[Tacenda]

I like the changes this guy is attempting.

https://www.facebook.com/100044219629929/posts/510948473722469/

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

If the FAIR article would not pass muster, would I be amiss then, to expect equal if not greater criticism by yourself on the article’s lack of research ethics and academic rigour?

Yesterday you literally just ‘liked’ a poor defence of FAIR’s lack of scholarly peer-review and consultation, on account of it being volunteer-based.

So yeah, you might have a bias, but I wouldn’t call it in favour of actual scholarship.

If you can’t bring yourself to advocate more forcefully for greater validity, reliability, and ethics in FAIR research, esp. on such an important and painful subject, well, that’s interesting. 

Edit: punctuation.

I don't know if it would pass muster or not.  And I've liked many different points of view on this thread.  The rest of your accusations are baseless enough that I don't feel the need to address them.

I am sorry that you are hurting.

[JustAnAustralian]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Just what in the 57 page explaination do you think redeems or downplays what happened at BYU?

Maybe you could quote the top 5 takeaways

That other institutions (such as Harvard) had done similar things in the late 60s (reported in the early 70s) and were in fact, referenced by McBride. (Birk paper in reference 139).

Quote

Besides a review of the relevant papers, McBride used a Sexual Behavior Inventory based on a “life history questionnaire and sexual disposition questionnaire” published previously.[139]

and

Quote

Thus in 1974, aversion therapy was the most common treatment method, and might even be improved upon according to these authors. That year also saw the publication of another successful case study.[106]

That McBride followed protocols previously done by others

Quote

McBride followed a previously published procedure to determine the proper “dose” of shock. [142]

He made it clear that the university itself didn't endorse it

Quote

It was mandatory that all S[ubject]s 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 S[ubject] as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to [e]nsure that all S[ubject]s were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.[134]

That the research done by other institutions claimed some success.

Quote

Yes. A landmark 1967 study was the largest and best so far. It focused only on homosexuality, and included 43 patients. Its design would be hugely influential, and would be duplicated repeatedly. In this case, the patient was exposed to either nude male or female slides. If he delayed too long in “dismissing” the male slides, he would receive a shock. For “positive” reinforcement, a female slide would appear after the male slide was dismissed.[52] The researchers enthused that their success rate of around 60% was far better than anything demonstrated by psychodynamic therapy (27% at most)

The Birk article (harvard) in reference 139 also claimed success (significant shifts in the kinsey scale) in some cases.

Quote

In assessing the practical clinical value of this technique then, one cannot overlook the fact that two of eight patients treated with "real" conditioning benefited directly and substantially, with a shift from a Kinsey homo sexuality of 6 to heterosexuality be ginning during the conditioning, and enduring over time (follow-up now is 3 1/2 years). The two durably improved patients, both now happily married, were treated in 79 hours and 106 hours (plus about ten hours [20 treatments] of conditioning) respectively. About 90% of these hours were in group psycho therapy. Since both conditioning and group psychotherapy are highly efficient hour for hour in terms of conserving psychiatric manpower, these results warrant more study. Hadden has reported anecdotally successful cases treated with group psychotherapy alone in almost as few hours, and we have had two cases (of 18) treated by group therapy only which were almost as successful in almost as few hours. In neither of our group-therapy-only cases, however, was there a full six-point shift from a Kinsey homo sexuality rating of 6 to heterosexuality; also, the two group-therapy-only cases were two out of 18, vs two of 8 for the "real" conditioning series.

 

So essentially, trying to use this study to claim that big bad byu was trying to convert gays using discredited methods doesn't really stack up, when McBride was basing his (not byu's) research on what other researchers at secular universities, and in multiple countries (both Canada [ref 61] and Australia[ref 110] are referenced in the document) had been doing and claiming some success in.

It doesn't make the fact that it was being done good, or right, or correct, but unless you're willing to call out other prestigious universities too, then you shouldn't only be calling out byu.

Edited March 18, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That other institutions (such as Harvard) had done similar things in the late 60s (reported in the early 70s) and were in fact, referenced by McBride. (Birk paper in reference 139).

and

That McBride followed protocols previously done by others

He made it clear that the university itself didn't endorse it

That the research done by other institutions claimed some success.

The Birk article in reference 139 also claimed success (significant shifts in the kinsey scale) in some cases.

 

So essentially, trying to use this study to claim that big bad byu was trying to convert gays using discredited methods doesn't really stack up, when McBride was basing his (not byu's) research on what other researchers at secular universities, and in multiple countries (both Canada [ref 61] and Australia[ref 110] are referenced in the document) had been doing and claiming some success in.

It doesn't make the fact that it was being done good, or right, or correct, but unless you're willing to call out other prestigious universities too, then you shouldn't only be calling out byu.

A couple of things.  I haven't called out BYU for doing experiments on gay students.  I have called out the lying about it.  And I also find the way they recruited gays to participate as being very unethical.  And I do think BYU should be condemned for their experiments on LGBT students as well as other universities that did this kind of human experimenting.

Do you think BYU should be condemned for allowing experiments on LGBT students since other schools also did it?

Do you think what BYU did was ethical and moral given that others also did it?

Are you claiming that Electrical Shock therapy works or even has some success?  If it is successful, do you think BYU should start doing it again?

What other experiments do you think BYU should be doing on LGBT students?

Edited March 18, 2022 by california boy

[JustAnAustralian]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you claiming that Electrical Shock therapy works or even has some success?

I'm not claiming it. Various study authors at the time did.

 

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I haven't called out BYU for doing experiments on gay students.

No, you've just called them out for treating gays badly

On 3/17/2022 at 1:31 AM, california boy said:

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

 

If not for the experiments, what did you mean by "this program", "dracularian behavior", and "what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU"?

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think what BYU did was ethical and moral given that others also did it?

No, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that singling out BYU for things that others were also doing, and making it sound as if they were the only ones doing it, isn't the argument that should be made.

If you want to make claims about DHO lying, that's fine, but that should be a separate argument, not interwoven with the nitty-gritty of McBride's research.

Edited March 18, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[JustAnAustralian]

And since there are other questions in that post...

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think BYU should be condemned for allowing experiments on LGBT students since other schools also did it?

Only if other schools are also being condemned for it. And what does condemned look like for a university institution in relation for research nearly 50 years ago. Also from reading about it, it was the department, not the university as a whole that allowed it. 

 

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

What other experiments do you think BYU should be doing on LGBT students?

Again, it wasn't BYU, it was a person that happened to be at BYU.

And as far as experiments on LGBT students, experiments happen on students (and non students) all the time, LGBT or otherwise. fMRI, EEG, hormone level tests, reaction times, effects of various drugs or prolonged drug use etc.

Off the top of my head, one that I could see happening (probably a multi-university collaboration) would be to examine sex-hormone levels and other physiological means (grip strength, muscle twitch speed) against athletic performance in a wide ranging longitudinal study in people who have or are transitioning. Lia Thomases are becoming more and more common. At some point sporting bodies are going to have to do something to counter the critics putting asterisks next to people's records.

[OGHoosier]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think BYU should be condemned for allowing experiments on LGBT students since other schools also did it?

Do you think what BYU did was ethical and moral given that others also did it?

It depends on what they knew and when they knew it. Our conceptions of the "moral" and the "ethical" are heavily impacted by our cultural environment and the extent of our knowledge. As a historian I am very much against presentism in making normative judgements of historical figures. 

The fact that "other schools did it" doesn't justify it by itself, but it does say something about the environment in which the relevant actors found themselves. Combine that with a study of the literature such as the one in the 57-pager and we find that the environment in which BYU was operating back then was less cut-and-dry in terms of knowledge and cultural defaults than it is now. I think that's a mitigating factor, though I'm not inclined to declare it as a wholly-acquitting factor.

Quote

 

Are you claiming that Electrical Shock therapy works or even has some success?  If it is successful, do you think BYU should start doing it again?

No. 

Quote

What other experiments do you think BYU should be doing on LGBT students?

Social science experiments involving LGBT students can and ought to be carried out in keeping with standard contemporary ethics, just like they can and ought to be with everybody else. More knowledge is needed.

I don't have any specific ideas in mind as I am not a social scientist. 

[mgy401]

On 3/16/2022 at 6:31 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

The “explainer” (what a horrid name) talks about how there was a scale of descriptions with “barely tolerable” used synonymously with “painful”—in other words, the threshold at which “discomfort” becomes “pain”; with each participant determining that threshold for themselves.  Elsewhere the explainer says that the strength never exceeded 4.5 milliamperes.  This site describes 5 milliamps as “Slight shock felt. Disturbing, but not painful. Most people can “let go.” However, strong involuntary movements can cause injuries.”  Burns don’t occur until you get around 5 amps (not milliamps; amps).

A novelty/prank shock pen may deliver  6 milliamps.  Stun guns apparently deliver 2-3.5 milliamps, but for a full 5 seconds rather than the 0.1-0.5 seconds apparently used in the McBride study.  The summary’s characterization of the shocks as “extremely weak” is probably somewhat hyperbolic; but by the same token, the claims of some self-proclaimed veterans of the study that the experience left them with electrical burns is scientifically impossible.

As for President Oaks’s purported recent “lie” about electroshock therapy during his administration:  I think the explainer shows that it is plausible that he was not aware that the McBride study even existed at the time it was being done.  The notion that he became aware of it at some point in the next forty-five years (and, even if he had, remembered it as a near-nonagenarian during an unprepped Q&A) presupposes that LGBTQ advocates live in President Oaks’s head just as much as he lives in theirs; which I somehow don’t think is likely.

Edited March 18, 2022 by mgy401

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

claims of some self-proclaimed veterans of the study that the experience left them with electrical burns

CFR for those claims. Specifically for veterans of McBrides study that have electrical burns. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'm not claiming it. Various study authors at the time did.

 

No, you've just called them out for treating gays badly

 

If not for the experiments, what did you mean by "this program", "dracularian behavior", and "what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU"?

No, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that singling out BYU for things that others were also doing, and making it sound as if they were the only ones doing it, isn't the argument that should be made.lamin

If you want to make claims about DHO lying, that's fine, but that should be a separate argument, not interwoven with the nitty-gritty of McBride's research.

 

It is 2:14 in the morning.  I just can't sleep.  This whole thread has triggered the same hurt and anger that I feel towards the Church on how it treats the LGBT community.  What these men went through is horrific.  However, it is in the past.  It can not be undone.  What could be changed is an effort to help these men recover from what they experienced.  That should now be the focus on putting this event in the past.  Rather than read about a thread that tries to whitewash, justify and downplay what happened, I would rather read about how the Church has apologized and did everything they could to help these men get past what happened, that the Church paid for therapy and asked for forgiveness and did all it could to help heal the pain.   I would rather read about members on this thread being understanding and showing some empathy towards these men.  Is that really too much to ask for?

Instead, this is a thread trying to justify that behavior, trying to downplay what happened, even blaming these men for volunteering to participate in this program while ignoring the situations and guilt placed on them simply for being gay that drove them to submit to this torture.  The reason I responded to your post is because your own statements feels like you are trying to justify what happened.  Do you really think this is something you should be defending?  How do you think these gay men and all the others in the LGBT community feel when they read that an apostle just 5 months ago outright lie about what happened by claiming that it wasn't going on while he was president of BYU is what is wrong.  Because it is related.  It is an apostle still trying to pretend nothing bad actually happened while he was President of BYU.  

There is another thread going on about why people leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I don't think it is any secret that one one of the main issues for people leaving is how the Church treats the LGBT community.  Downplaying what happened at BYU and trying to defend and justify what happened doesn't affect just those of us who are LGBT, but is also the exact kind of things that reinforce the struggle that many have with the Church on this issue.  Those that defend and try to downplay this treatment are the very ones that are contributing to these feelings of anger and hurt.  If the Church as well as those that are trying to defend what happened really wants this incident to be in the past and move on, a simple apology and an effort to rectify and heal these men would go a heck of a lot further in that healing process.  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, mgy401 said:

The “explainer” (what a horrid name) talks about how there was a scale of descriptions with “barely tolerable” used synonymously with “painful”—in other words, the threshold at which “discomfort” becomes “pain”; with each participant determining that threshold for themselves.  Elsewhere the explainer says that the strength never exceeded 4.5 milliamperes.  This site describes 5 milliamps as “Slight shock felt. Disturbing, but not painful. Most people can “let go.” However, strong involuntary movements can cause injuries.”  Burns don’t occur until you get around 5 amps (not milliamps; amps).

A novelty/prank shock pen may deliver  6 milliamps.  Stun guns apparently deliver 2-3.5 milliamps, but for a full 5 seconds rather than the 0.1-0.5 seconds apparently used in the McBride study.  The summary’s characterization of the shocks as “extremely weak” is probably somewhat hyperbolic; but by the same token, the claims of some self-proclaimed veterans of the study that the experience left them with electrical burns is scientifically impossible.

So the electrical shocks these gay men received are similar to novelty/prank shocks?  Really?  Nothing to see here?  Just a little fun in the back rooms at BYU.

 

8 hours ago, mgy401 said:

As for President Oaks’s purported recent “lie” about electroshock therapy during his administration:  I think the explainer shows that it is plausible that he was not aware that the McBride study even existed at the time it was being done.  The notion that he became aware of it at some point in the next forty-five years (and, even if he had, remembered it as a near-nonagenarian during an unprepped Q&A) presupposes that LGBTQ advocates live in President Oaks’s head just as much as he lives in theirs; which I somehow don’t think is likely.

Let's give President Oaks the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know that electroshock therapy wasn't happening during his administration.   But pretending that he is still not aware when there has been so much press and controversy about what happened is EXTREMELY hard to believe. I mean no one EVER asked President Oaks if he knew what was going on?  Is he that out of touch with what is happening around him?  When you consider how much President Oaks has talked about gay issues over the years it makes it even more difficult to believe he has never heard about this happing during his time as president of BYU?  And it is not purported, it is a FACT.  You can watch his answer yourself with your very eyes.  I absolutely hate when members are so in denial of what the Church does when those denials are not defendable.  

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 

It is 2:14 in the morning.  I just can't sleep.  This whole thread has triggered the same hurt and anger that I feel towards the Church on how it treats the LGBT community.  What these men went through is horrific.  However, it is in the past.  It can not be undone.  What could be changed is an effort to help these men recover from what they experienced.  That should now be the focus on putting this event in the past.  Rather than read about a thread that tries to whitewash, justify and downplay what happened, I would rather read about how the Church has apologized and did everything they could to help these men get past what happened, that the Church paid for therapy and asked for forgiveness and did all it could to help heal the pain.   I would rather read about members on this thread being understanding and showing some empathy towards these men.  Is that really too much to ask for?

Instead, this is a thread trying to justify that behavior, trying to downplay what happened, even blaming these men for volunteering to participate in this program while ignoring the situations and guilt placed on them simply for being gay that drove them to submit to this torture.  The reason I responded to your post is because your own statements feels like you are trying to justify what happened.  Do you really think this is something you should be defending?  How do you think these gay men and all the others in the LGBT community feel when they read that an apostle just 5 months ago outright lie about what happened by claiming that it wasn't going on while he was president of BYU is what is wrong.  Because it is related.  It is an apostle still trying to pretend nothing bad actually happened while he was President of BYU.  

There is another thread going on about why people leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I don't think it is any secret that one one of the main issues for people leaving is how the Church treats the LGBT community.  Downplaying what happened at BYU and trying to defend and justify what happened doesn't affect just those of us who are LGBT, but is also the exact kind of things that reinforce the struggle that many have with the Church on this issue.  Those that defend and try to downplay this treatment are the very ones that are contributing to these feelings of anger and hurt.  If the Church as well as those that are trying to defend what happened really wants this incident to be in the past and move on, a simple apology and an effort to rectify and heal these men would go a heck of a lot further in that healing process.  

One hundred percent but the problem is the current leaders. I hope the ones that will replace them when they have passed will get what you have said and do as the Savior would have one do and apologize for past leaders actions, or any actions they may make that are harmful or wrong, or they didn't get the correct revelation.

Of course we all know that Pres Oaks said the church doesn't apologize. Maybe I need to read that in context and why he would say such a thing, especially when we as members are taught to apologize, aren't we, maybe in lessons?

I wish the church had been the light shining all around the world for all the years it has been in existence. But that has not been the case, as far as equal rights. It should be the example to the world. 

I hope you gain some peace with all of this very soon california boy, and the words you read won't take you back to a time of such internal heartache. 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

I've said for years that I think the whole Skinnerian conditioned response approach was fundamentally mistaken on grounds that the real issue is the degree of obsession/compulsion in personal behavior, rather than orientation.  The electro shock approach was all about trying to redirect another person's obsession in an culturally acceptable direction, while leaving the fact of a life disrupting obsession/compulsion, unexamined, unacknowledged, and therefore, untreated.  I doubt that a person whose life choices/obsessions/values did not involve severe personal conflicts would sign a consent form for any sort of shock therapy.  Someone who could live day to day without obsessing about acting out, who did not feel, from moment to moment, like Heine's Atlas, that "I carry that which cannot be carried, and in my body my heart would like to break," would not be that desperate. 

It happens that two of the main diagnostic characteristics of an addicted person  are 1) a conviction that the particular behavior is a person's most important need, subjectively equivalent to survival, and 2) a conspicuous reliance on personal grievances, a fixation on other people's misbehavior as a means to avoid introspection, which also feeds self-justification.  Twelve step treatment addresses the biological and biographical aspects of addiction, and does so without recourse to electrodes.  A person goes through a period of abstenance to help their body heal, and performs a careful life review, looking closely at the costs of the behavior and the grievances that support it,  so that eventually, they no longer focus on the immediate gratifications, but the see larger context of any choice including eventual costs.  This is done privately, amongst people who learn to trust one another, and who see themselves in one another.  So that instead of being triggered and then inevitably acting out regardless of the costs and risks, they consciously choose to deal with threats, choosing for themselves and their loved ones, acceptable consequences and desired outcomes.  Addiction recovery is not about changing orientation, but freeing a person from the compulsion to act out whatever the cost to self and loved ones.

 One aspect of the ongoing obsession with the temporarly limited and numerically small number of cases at BYU, and far from exclusively so, is that it itself demonstrates not just a desire to control another party's behavior through a kind of punishment/rewards system, via frequent public denoucement and labeling, but that is so doing, it tacitly demonstrates a conviction that public humiliation and labeling is an acceptable means of not only controlling somone else, but also that doing so, as Joseph Campbell observes,  creates a mythology "sustains a social order". 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 18, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I doubt that a person whose life choices/obsessions/values did not involve severe personal conflicts would sign a consent form for any sort of shock therapy

Are you thinking of the reports of feared rejection by parents and threats by church leaders to remove their ecclesiastical approval so they would be kicked out of school or something else?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One aspect of the ongoing obsession with the temporarly limited and numerically small number of cases at BYU, and far from exclusively so, is that it itself demonstrates not just a desire to control another party's behavior through a kind of punishment/rewards system, via frequent public denoucement and labeling, but that is so doing, it tacitly demonstrates a conviction that public humiliation and lableing is an acceptable means of not only controlling somone else, but also that doing so, as Joseph Campbell observes,  creates a mythology "sustains a social order". 

It’s amazing to me how much people only seem bothered by this when they are on the receiving end. For years “public humiliation” and “labeling” were used by religion to shame and control others. There is a certain irony in seeing the same tool they perfected being used against them. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've said for years that I think the whole Skinnerian conditioned response approach was fundamentally mistaken on grounds that the real issue is the degree of obsession/compulsion in personal behavior, rather than orientation. 

What would you consider to be "obsession/compulsion" in this regard?

I am assuming that you are referring to the teaching that the orientation/desire is not the sin, but that the acting on it is a sin.

I have difficulty associating the diagnosis of obsession or compulsion with anyone who struggles and anguishes over the prospects of a life void of a marital relationship, and further still of complete celibacy.  Anyone who fails to live contrary to their innate and most fundamental human biological/physiological function are not obsessive/compulsive individuals.  They are human.   

Yes, people can and do live such a life, but that doesn't mean that all those who struggle suffer from mental illness. 

But maybe I am misunderstanding you.