Is this True? Gay Electroshock Therapy within the Church


clbent04
 Share

Recommended Posts

First time I’ve come across this. I wanted to see if this was truly condoned by the Church.

1959 – Church leaders begin their electroshock aversion therapy program on BYU campus in an attempt to change the sexual orientation of gay teens and men. The program lasted over two decades until at least 1983.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, clbent04 said:

First time I’ve come across this. I wanted to see if this was truly condoned by the Church.

1959 – Church leaders begin their electroshock aversion therapy program on BYU campus in an attempt to change the sexual orientation of gay teens and men. The program lasted over two decades until at least 1983.

Obviously, it’s hideous to all decent people in 2021. I’m sure even back in 1959 some people found it disturbing.
 

Sadly, sometimes people/institutions do heinous things like this out of ignorance because they were popular at the time. The best we can do is accept that it happened, don’t try to sweep it under the rug, and do our best to ensure that it never happens again.  

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that electroshock aversion therapy is still used today; just not for the purpose of trying to change sexual orientation.  BYU was one of numerous college campuses, both religious and secular, that experimented with this practice throughout the 50s and up into the 80s.  Even in that less-enlightened era, there were academically-imposed ethical constraints regarding the voluntariness of those who were subjected to the treatment.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Why wouldn't it have been condoned? This was state-of-the-art, cutting-edge research. You're not one of those science deniers, are you?

Indeed...  Most of the time when it is brought up it is designed to cause the person being attacked to respond emotionally based on presentism, and Hollywood imagery.

The program started 60+ years ago...  Back then Homosexuallity was classified as a mental illness... and they we trying to find ways to cure it.  Now... that line of thought gets you labeled a Homophobic, but that change is really really recent.

When people think electroshock therapy they think Hollywood horror stories, but these were scientist working to cure and help people.  In their learning they made mistakes and they got things wrong... That is the nature of science.  But they did learn and they did change.  Today's electroshock therapy is so much better then it was 60+ years ago but it is still being used with some degrees of effectiveness in various cases.  But we wouldn't be here now with such without the learning that happened in programs like the one BYU was a part of.

Yet people think that a God commands us to learn, and will turn our mistakes to our gain, would for some reason reach down and say "No don't do that, because people 60 years from now will think they are more 'enlightened' then you while completely ignoring the cost it took to gain that 'enlightenment'."   

And yes that learning includes greater moral/ethical consideration to volunteers used as test subjects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Why wouldn't it have been condoned? This was state-of-the-art, cutting-edge research. You're not one of those science deniers, are you?

I’m asking if Church leadership condoned it. Is the Church designed to follow whatever society stamps as state of the art and cutting edge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Yet people think that a God commands us to learn, and will turn our mistakes to our gain, would for some reason reach down and say "No don't do that, because people 60 years from now will think they are more 'enlightened' then you while completely ignoring the cost it took to gain that 'enlightenment'."   

And yes that learning includes greater moral/ethical consideration to volunteers used as test subjects.

When is it not okay for God’s church to behave like a science experiment over being a divinely inspired institution? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, clbent04 said:

I’m asking if Church leadership condoned it. Is the Church designed to follow whatever society stamps as state of the art and cutting edge?

Given that the Church leadership serves on the board of BYU, I think it’s inescapable to conclude that they were aware that the therapy was going on and chose not to stop it; which is certainly a form of condoning it.  

I’m not sure why you (seem to) think electroshock aversion therapy is something the Church leadership ought to have opposed (other than the obvious-now-but-not-obvious-then conclusion that, when it comes to changing sexual orientation, it just plain doesn’t work).  Can you help me to understand your concerns a little better?

Is it the duty of the Church leadership to foresee the results of every unsuccessful academic practice or experiment that might be done in a Church-owned university, and to use that seership to prevent the practice/experiment from ever happening at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

When is it not okay for God’s church to behave like a science experiment over being a divinely inspired institution? 

Because it wasn't God's church that did it... at best it was God's University, (And yes I know people will debate that) following God's command learn, not only by Faith but by studies.  Thus to answer your question yes it is OK to follow Gods command to the best of your ablity, even more, so if you are a school devoted to learning

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

When is it not okay for God’s church to behave like a science experiment over being a divinely inspired institution? 

I would add that, from what I found in interviews, this was all voluntary too (though social pressure probably had an affect). BYU wasn’t kidnapping people and electrocuting them. And this was done across the US. It was a tool used to help people stop being gay (which today we see as being ridiculous. Additionally, we still use aversion therapy today, just not with electricity.

Here is an interview with a guy who went through it while at BYU.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get properly worked up about this story, you have to have an image like this in your mind:

image.png.70ae2845eac71f2baa825d374d841eca.png

 

Also, to stay good and troubled about it, I'd recommend you don't study the history of medicine.  The more you learn about stuff like leeches, bloodletting, mercury poultices, cutting holes in skulls to let out the humours, opium and cocaine and heroin treatments, radium water, plombage, gasoline-based lice treatments, starvation to treat tumors, skull-vibration to cure hysteria, lobotomies, the less you can stay outraged that the human race didn't spring from the garden of eden with a fully formed hospital system.  God let us discover stuff for our own, and we didn't always know as much as we do now.   I mean, back in the 4th century, the Catholic Church dominated the direction medicine went, and they figured  illnesses were punishments from God and those who were ill were so because they were sinners.

Oh- and don't forget - the absolute best way to stay worked up about something like this, is to believe that prophets are supposed to be infallible, so when they believed what the science of the past was telling them, that means the church isn't true. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Obviously, it’s hideous to all decent people in 2021. I’m sure even back in 1959 some people found it disturbing.
 

Sadly, sometimes people/institutions do heinous things like this out of ignorance because they were popular at the time. The best we can do is accept that it happened, don’t try to sweep it under the rug, and do our best to ensure that it never happens again.  

What if electroshock therapy had of been universally condemned at the time the Church decided to use it?

Would the Church still have used it?

The motive of my question is to understand how much society impacts the Church’s positions. 

To say society has zero influence over the Church’s positions is inaccurate (consider the Word of Wisdom, polygamy, men's clean-shaven standard…).

How much societal influence is okay? 

Considering some Church positions are influenced by society, I think it’s entirely possible that in 20 years the Church lessens its stance of the severity of homosexuality as a sin. 

In 20 years, if the Church said as long as you practice chastity as a heterosexual couple is expected to, then homosexuality is no longer a sin, would you be okay with that?

In my opinion, if the Church took that position today, it would lose its base. It would be absolutely detrimental to the Church to no longer condemn homosexual practices.

But in 20 years, in the year 2041, what is the Church’s base going to look like? Maybe more liberal than it is now?

As long as the Church stays at least 3 steps more conservative than society, I think that’s where it’s base is happy. And when society moves it’s conservative-value goalposts up a step, pressure is put on the Church to do the same. 

Do you think the Church would have ever allowed a queer woman to mention her sexuality over the pulpit in the 1950’s?

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Can you help me to understand your concerns a little better?

Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay?

I get that the Church is a living, breathing thing, but the gospel is the gospel, right?

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

What if electroshock therapy had of been universally condemned at the time the Church decided to use it?

 

I’d find it disturbing, and I wouldn’t be alone in that. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Would the Church still have used it?

No idea. 

 

24 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

then homosexuality is no longer a sin, would you be okay with that?

Honestly? I’d have zero problem with it. No apologies. I know you want me to say I do, but I don’t. 

24 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

But in 20 years, in the year 2041, what is the Church’s base going to look like? Maybe more liberal than it is now?

 

Much more liberal. The church is already changing, it’s taking small steps. 

 

24 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

 

Do you think the Church would have ever allowed a queer woman to mention her sexuality over the pulpit in the 1950’s?

No, and that right there proves that the church is changing. Thanks. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay?

I get that the Church is a living, breathing thing, but the gospel is the gospel, right?

I’m still not quite sure I understand the question.  We all exist in a society, both us as individuals and the Church as an institution.  As-worded, your question seems to me like asking “how much water can a fish drink before it’s not a true fish anymore?”.

I feel like there’s an implicit assumption in your question, to the effect that that electroshock aversion therapy is contrary to the principles of “The Gospel”.  But it’s hard for me to engage with that assumption at this point because as near as I can tell, you haven’t really articulated the specific reasons for that assumption yet. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I feel like there’s an implicit assumption in your question, to the effect that that electroshock aversion therapy is contrary to the principles of “The Gospel”.  But it’s hard for me to engage with that assumption at this point because as near as I can tell, you haven’t really articulated the specific reasons for that assumption yet. 

I'm questioning these topics to get a better idea on where I stand personally with society's influence in the Church, and assessing how I would feel if the Church continues to evolve around society rather than society evolving around it.

I really should have just made one OP about societal influences within the Church, but instead it's branched out into two involving gay electroshock therapy and homosexuality as a sin.

Me 10 years ago about my opinion on the Church changing it's stance on homosexuality as a sin: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, WASTE OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT!

Me 5 years ago:  ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, WASTE OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT!

Me today: Okay, I could possibly see it happening in another 20 years. Things are happening within the Church today I would have never guessed. The Church went from actively trying to thwart the legality of gay marriage to now allowing children of gay parents to be baptized in the Church.

You and I both are probably perfectly fine with the children of gay parents being allowed to be baptized in the Church.  But what would we have thought of that even 13 years ago back in 2008?  The Church had a strong position at the time to not allow such a thing.

Think of how in 2008, the Church was actively trying to promote the banning of gay marriage in California of all places (Prop 8).  Now look at the map of the legality of gay marriage in the US.  I think we would be kidding ourselves if we think this trend isn't going to affect some of the Church's positions in the coming years.

IMG_4324.thumb.jpg.954c30bb29af3143f677a3cd52f633ef.jpg

 

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay?

I've had a hard time with this question myself. My thoughts will probably be unpopular in a conservative group like this, but, here they are anyway.

Many "justifications" for the apparent tolerance and even acceptance of slavery from Abraham to Brigham Young involve some kind of "all the other clans/tribes/peoples were doing it, so why not Israel?" The Church's race and the priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining how the Church was just segregating by race just like the rest of 19th and early 20th century America complete with the same "Biblical" (now disavowed) justifications for the practice. Yes, just how much influence does broader (Christian) society have on what the Church believes and teaches? Ancient Israel lobbied God for a king, and God eventually relented, and it all started because Israel wanted a king like all her neighbors. How much influence does broader culture and society have on what prophets, apostles, and the Church teaches? It seems that God might allow for at least some influence. And He seems willing to allow that influence to make something as categorically immoral as slavery be tolerated and accepted by His people.

For better or for worse, it seems to me that if God can allow His people to accept something as categorically immoral as slavery for most of human history, I see no reason -- whether same sex marriage is moral or immoral -- why God could not allow the Church to condone same sex marriage when the broader society and culture deem it acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

I've had a hard time with this question myself. My thoughts will probably be unpopular in a conservative group like this, but, here they are anyway.

Many "justifications" for the apparent tolerance and even acceptance of slavery from Abraham to Brigham Young involve some kind of "all the other clans/tribes/peoples were doing it, so why not Israel?" The Church's race and the priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining how the Church was just segregating by race just like the rest of 19th and early 20th century America complete with the same "Biblical" (now disavowed) justifications for the practice. Yes, just how much influence does broader (Christian) society have on what the Church believes and teaches? Ancient Israel lobbied God for a king, and God eventually relented, and it all started because Israel wanted a king like all her neighbors. How much influence does broader culture and society have on what prophets, apostles, and the Church teaches? It seems that God might allow for at least some influence. And He seems willing to allow that influence to make something as categorically immoral as slavery be tolerated and accepted by His people.

For better or for worse, it seems to me that if God can allow His people to accept something as categorically immoral as slavery for most of human history, I see no reason -- whether same sex marriage is moral or immoral -- why God could not allow the Church to condone same sex marriage when the broader society and culture deem it acceptable.

So you are saying you are seeing a change like going from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Law of Moses...   God pretty much saying ok you will not live the higher laws so here is a lesser law...  There is some precedence for that at least... But we would also have to recognize it as a step backwards, a condemnation, a loss of light because of disobedience, rather then an advancement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay?

I get that the Church is a living, breathing thing, but the gospel is the gospel, right?

Just for the sake of locking down this conversation, tell me, what specifically is wrong with electro-shock therapy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

For better or for worse, it seems to me that if God can allow His people to accept something as categorically immoral as slavery for most of human history, I see no reason -- whether same sex marriage is moral or immoral -- why God could not allow the Church to condone same sex marriage when the broader society and culture deem it acceptable.

In my mind, clearly slavery is the more serious sin than homosexuality, which, if practicing slavery is the furthest the Lord will allow His people to go, that allows for a lot of leniency for everything in-between.

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Just for the sake of locking down this conversation, tell me, what specifically is wrong with electro-shock therapy?

Like I was stating above, I really should have just made one OP about societal influences within the Church, but instead it's branched out into two involving gay electroshock therapy and homosexuality as a sin.  Societal influences in the Church is the main topic of interest I'm addressing. 

I have no idea what kind of voltages they did or didn't use.  I've also read that in addition to the shock therapy, BYU would induce the patient to vomit whenever shown a picture of something homosexual.  Patients reported issues of PTSD-like symptoms later on in life when faced with a sexual situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So you are saying you are seeing a change like going from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Law of Moses...   God pretty much saying ok you will not live the higher laws so here is a lesser law...  There is some precedence for that at least... But we would also have to recognize it as a step backwards, a condemnation, a loss of light because of disobedience, rather then an advancement.

Is it possible we revert back to the lesser law? Are we headed in that direction? Does that contradict statements about how these are the latter days, and we are preparing for the end of times? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share