FAIR - User contributions [en]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2016-01-13T14:25:34Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Myths */

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2016-01-13T14:10:29Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Myths */

Hoaxes related to Book of Mormon geography claims

2013-09-13T20:09:36Z

CassandraHedelius:

<noinclude>{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Hoaxes related to Book of Mormon geography}}
{{summary}}

=={{Topics label}}==</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Mormon/Geography/Hoaxes/Bat Creek Stone
|subject=Bat Creek Stone
|summary=The "Bat Creek Stone" purports to a stone written in Paleo-Hebrew reading "for the Jews". A preponderance of the evidence available argues that the stone is a modern forgery. As exciting as it would be to find a genuine ancient inscription, it would only harm others' belief in the Book of Mormon to advocate forgeries in contradiction of good evidence.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Mormon/Geography/Hoaxes/Burrows Cave artifacts
|subject=Burrows Cave artifacts
|summary=The Burrows Cave collection is a group of objects supposedly found in a Cave in Illinois, named after Russell Burrows, the person who claimed to have found the cave. To this day, Burrows Cave enthusiasts have never demonstrated the existence of the cave. The artifacts contain many obvious hallmarks of modern manufacture, including the so-called "mystic symbol" found on artifacts in the Michigan artifacts collection. This is offered as evidence that the hoaxers deliberately meant to associate these artifacts with the Michigan collection. Some LDS people have fallen prey to those who push these artifacts as genuine.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Mormon/Geography/Hoaxes/Michigan artifacts
|subject=Michigan artifacts
|summary=The "Michigan Artifacts" or "Michigan relics" are a group of "artifacts" produced by hoaxers in the late 19th century and around the turn of the 20th Century from Michigan. They wanted to produce "proof" of the existence of the ancient civilization known in 19th century lore as the Mound Builders. Many contain scenes from biblical stories. Some LDS members have been misled into believing that the artifacts are genuine. Not surprisingly, advocates of the Michigan artifacts also push the Burrows Cave collection.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Book of Mormon/Geography/Hoaxes/Newark Decalogue Stone and Newark "Holy Stones"
|subject=Newark Decalogue Stone
|summary=These items, which were presented to the public in 1860, have Hebrew writing on them. Some have used them as evidence for the Book of Mormon, but this is problematic on two grounds: (1) the items may be modern forgeries; and (2) even if authentic, the writing dates to around AD 100-300, which is too late to represent the 600 BC Lehi colony.
}} <noinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}</noinclude>

Mormonism and culture

2013-09-13T19:45:18Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Cultural biases */

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism: Shadow or Reality/Index

2013-09-13T19:41:12Z

CassandraHedelius: /* 81 */

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism: Shadow or Reality/Index

2013-09-13T19:40:26Z

CassandraHedelius: /* 81 */

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism: Shadow or Reality/Index

2013-09-13T19:39:40Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Index to claims made in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/FutureMissionary.com

2013-06-19T04:58:59Z

CassandraHedelius: /* The specific content of the FutureMissionary.com website is addressed in the articles listed below */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/FutureMissionary.com

2013-06-19T04:35:50Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Overview */

Question: How do Mormons believe that same-sex marriage affects religious freedoms?

2012-06-01T01:47:29Z

CassandraHedelius: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}

=={{Question label}}==

What are some of the dangers to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined?



=={{Conclusion label}}==
Listed here are only a few examples of possible or actual conflicts between religious liberty and the newly-declared "right" to same sex marriage. Given the creativity of those who use the courts as a means for social activism, as well as the complexities of relations in the public and private spheres, many others are sure to arise. Laws in one area interact with those of another in unexpected and often unforeseen ways--and this is especially true when state or federal courts are interpreting those laws.

Even if one supports gay marriage as public policy, if one is truly interested in liberty ''for all'', it should be clear that the above issues ought to be addressed as part of implementing that policy. The alternative is to subject everyone to the uncertainty, costs, and social conflict which litigating each area will inevitably produce—likely for decades. This type of culture war will not hasten the tolerance which homosexuals claim is their only goal, and in fact may retard it as religious believers come to feel more and more besieged and circumscribed by opponents who seem to want tolerance and liberty for themselves, but not for those who disagree with them. On the other hand, homosexuals will likely grow increasingly militant and angry that their legally declared rights to marriage are being contested by believers at every turn. This will not serve anyone well.

In fact, many observers have noted that “gay rights” groups have as a goal the marginalization and silencing of those who teach that same sex acts are wrong. (If this is so, then a strategy of sweeping judge-imposed, rather than legislated, law suits their purposes well.) The homosexual advocates are not content to be tolerated and protected from violence and discrimination—they want to silence those who would continue to claim that their actions are sinful. Eugene Volokh, an advocate of same sex marriage, noted:

:The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression-freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with ''delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior'' that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals'' {{ea}}.{{ref|volokh.104}}

Others have been even more blunt, noting that many homosexual activists want to "'discredit[] and force[] to the margin' religious practices that honor traditional marriage”{{ref|kmiec.8}}.

Those who believe in less government interference, rather than more, should likewise see that it is better for all concerned—and personal liberty—if these issues are acknowledged and addressed head-on, rather than with blithe promises that gay marriage will change nothing for others and it is only about “gay rights”. This is false, since the form in which those rights are implemented—or imposed—will have a substantial impact on the rights of religious believers.

== ==
{{Response label}}

==Introduction==

When supporters of same sex marriage discuss this issue, they often attempt to reassure those with religious concerns by promising that religious ministers will not be forced to perform same sex marriages within their own denominations. In an LDS context, this has been raised by both advocates and opponents of same sex marriage by discussing whether Mormons would be forced to perform gay marriages in temples.

Given the strong free exercise of religion protection in the Bill of Rights, many who have not examined the issue closely have concluded this ought not to be an issue of much concern.

However, it is generally not appreciated that the issue of gay marriage has a great deal of potential impact on issues of religious freedom more generally. These concerns have been virtually ignored by proponents of gay marriage, and opponents of gay marriage have not been very successful in articulating them, partly because they do not lend themselves well to quick, sound-bite explanations.

These concerns loom large, however, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' opposition to legalized same sex marriage in the United States. This is illustrated by the Church's indication that it is not opposed to the type of legal protection which civil unions could provide same sex couples (or others), "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family '''or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference'''."{{ref|unions.1}}

The Church also emphasizes this concern in its document, "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

:Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

:In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

:As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

::Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.

:The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

:''Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”'''

:The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

:Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

:Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished {{ea}}.{{ref|divine.institution}}

Latter-day Saints would be inclined to accept these cautions simply because they come from those they sustain as prophets. But, this perspective is shared by many who have studied and reflected upon the question from a purely legal perspective. The remainder of this article focuses on a secular analysis which supports the contention that same-sex marriage will inevitably intersect with religious liberty in unexpected and troubling ways.

==How would same sex marriage impact religious freedom?==
This question was addressed in great deal by a number of legal scholars from across the political and ideological spectrum. In December 2005, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "a non-profit, public interest legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions" invited a group of scholars to "take as a given that the legal definition of marriage [would be] expanded to include same-sex couples, and then to explore the religious freedom implications of that legal change."{{ref|picarello.xi}}

In his extensive review of the areas of potential conflict, Marc Stern{{ref|stern.1}} (an attorney with American Jewish Congress since 1977, and a leading expert on Church-state law) notes that instituting gay marriage "will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in ways that are unpredictable today" (1). Stern notes that "no one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," but he warns that "I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact [of same sex marriage] on religious dissenters. If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package" (1,57).

This demonstrates why the California example which required [[Church_involvement_in_politics/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8|Proposition 8]] was perhaps most likely to draw the Church's attention: the [[Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8#Church_involvement_in_the_.22Yes_on_8.22_effort|democratically-assessed]] vote of the California public was overturned. Judge-made law is a blunt instrument. Judges, when making rulings and writing opinions, are only allowed to consider the specific issues which have been raised in that case, and cannot branch out in order to provide additional protections. For instance, consider the example of the court case overturning Proposition 8. There were only two legal questions before the court: whether Proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and whether California officials, by enforcing Proposition 8, violate another federal law (the second issue is a derivative of the first). The parties were able to present many arguments for and against each possible outcome, and some of the arguments invoked religious liberty concerns, but at the end of the trial the judge was only able to answer "yes" or "no" to the two questions and state his reasoning. He had no ability to say "yes, but because I'm concerned for religious liberty, I also rule that the following religious protections shall also be law..." Religious liberty issues can be separately litigated, but must be considered one by one, at considerable cost to those bringing the cases and long delay before a resolution is reached. In such cases, the judge is also less likely to rule in favor of religious liberty when a previous ruling, like the one overturning Proposition 8, contains that judge's rejection of the argument that threats to religious liberty are a sufficient justification to not establish same-sex marriage via court case.

In short, law made by a judge's ruling on a case does not have the opportunity to protect the rights of religious believers who have moral objections to same sex marriage. Stern points out that being forced to perform marriages (which is not a real risk) is the least of religious believers' worries unless same-sex marriage is implemented ''along with the appropriate protections for religious groups''. It is far more likely that such protections can be put in place if they are ''legislated'' rather than ''litigated'' in the courts after the fact.

Risks to religious groups include the following (the relevant page numbers to Stern's paper are included, and should be consulted for further information); other sources are cited in the endnotes:

===Past experience with the courts and conflicts between civil liberties and religious freedom===
* Civil liberties legislation and religious exceptions have not fared well. Stern describes the "winner take all" mentality which results in an unwillingness to allow any religious exceptions, "no matter how limited and how justified":

::That clashes between religious liberty and the civil rights of participants in same-sex marriage are inevitable is shown not only by the cases discussed below, but by recent clashes over proposed legislation to protect religious liberty. Both clashes were won in a rout by those supporting unbending civil rights protection, chiefly gay rights....[A]fter revised federal legislation had been introduced to protect religious liberty to the extent Congress still had power to do so, the question arose of whether and how civil rights laws would be affected. Professor Douglas Laycock and I made the rounds of congressional offices to explain the legislation and respond to legislative concerns about civil rights. One of our appointments was with a liberal African-American member from the South, a man whose commitment to civil liberties I admire. The meeting was private-no press and only a few staff, all well versed in law. The congressman could not be persuaded that religious exemptions from the civil rights laws, no matter how limited and how justified, would not quickly deteriorate into a general assault on the civil rights citadel. He was not playing to a crowd; there was none....

::We argued to no avail that it was not likely that including religious liberty exemptions would lead to any substantial erosion of the ban on racial discrimination. We walked out of the office knowing that we had failed to persuade. The point is not that we were inarticulate (I might have been; Professor Laycock certainly was not) or that we had no case to make. The point is that people who have been the victims of discrimination believe (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) that forces of bigotry remain strong and are barely contained by law. Consequently, they see any exemption or weakening of resolve as likely to erode hard-earned gains. That fear goes beyond substantive secular disagreements over whether equality claims ought to generally trump liberty claims where the two conflict. It also goes beyond claims that protecting the dignity of man trumps the legalistic and moralistic-and, for many, outdated and immoral-prohibitions of Leviticus. Instead, the claim is that the search for exemptions is a back door effort to undermine equality rights generally. This claim is particularly acute in regard to gay rights. Much, if not almost all, of the opposition to the so-called "gay-rights agenda" comes from religious sources. Some of that opposition is hard to describe as anything other than raw bigotry (i.e., unfounded accusations of child abuse and the like). When each side thinks that the effort is not about the resolution between a localized conflict but a skirmish in a take-no-prisoners war, it is hard to expect either side to allow the other any victories (27-28).
* The lack of a legislative solution to these issues means that those who litigate them will have a variety of statues under which to lodge protest. "The plaintiffs can invoke any of these statutes as applicable, or, as in the case of California, they can invoke a global civil rights statute such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The most obvious advantage of this choice of weapons is that plaintiffs get the advantage of the statute with the narrowest or even non-existent statutory religious exemption and the broadest remedies (that is, attorney's fees)" (29).

===Freedom of expression===
* Religious believers' right to preach against same-sex behavior can be threatened (1-9). Such cases have already occurred abroad, and a review of the international data shows "gives some sense of how far the scales are tilted against expressions critical of homosexuality" (6). Despite the fact that one might think that "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," (1) Stern goes on to argue that "There is nevertheless reason to worry now in the United States. Principles governing sexual harassment in the workplace could easily encompass expressions by religious institutions and persons that oppose same-sex marriage" (7).
* It is an unsettled matter in current US law as to "what sorts of religiously affiliated institutions fall within the scope of religious exemptions. The National Labor Relations Board and reviewing courts are 'all over the map' in deciding what is a religious institution" (9). Given that unelected courts will be the ones to decide such issues, religious believers are right to be worried if their rights are not explicitly protected before hand.
* Religious students' right to express their views about whether same-sex acts are sinful may be threatened: "Schools in a democratic society must educate, not brainwash. Indeed, school officials have an obligation to teach students to deal with, tolerate, appropriately respond to, and shrug off disagreements, even offensive disagreements. How else will students learn to function as citizens of a democracy? Despite this duty, these cases suggest that school officials prefer to quash divisive speech rather than teach this essential skill of democratic citizenship" (13). One judgment demonstrates how exclusion that is prejudicial to religious believers might occur:
::Valid grounds [wrote the court] may include a school's concerns that a club's discriminatory policies would disadvantage, subordinate, or stigmatize the excluded students, debase the morals of students who practice the exclusion, or frustrate the teaching of the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." These values include "tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular," but also "disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others" (35, note 169).
* Religious believers may find their ability to speak out elsewhere in the public square (e.g., billboards or advertisements) threatened (17).

===Freedom of parents to choose what is taught to their children in the public schools about moral issues===
* The right of parents to control what their children are taught about moral issues such as same sex acts is also unclear: "There will also be clashes between schools and parents objecting to their children being taught the acceptability of same-sex relationships. Parents will assert that such instruction conflicts with their right to direct the moral upbringing of their children, interfering with their constitutionally protected right to do so. Such claims have been uniformly rejected.71 However, it is not within the competence of public schools to overtly criticize church groups opposed to same-sex relationships" (14).
* Student-led clubs in schools are also at risk if they oppose same sex acts or marriage: "Schools will undoubtedly argue that the well being of students whose parents are partners in a same-sex marriage is endangered by clubs devoted to opposing same-sex marriage.... Claims that tolerating hateful speech endangers others or denies their constitutional right to attend school have been made by school officials in analogous cases involving private student speech....[The relevant court decision] is a threat to anti-same-sex marriage speech because it authorizes schools to selectively limit student speech. It is an ominous precedent. Those seeking to protect the right to speak out against the very thing [pro-gay clubs] sought to advance, same-sex relationships, should have loudly criticized it. Unfortunately, the silence was deafening" (17). This is an excellent example of a broader problem--advocates of same sex acts and rights are vocal about ''their'' right to speak out and be heard, but are happy to see those who oppose their views silenced.

===Freedom for religious believers to be licensed by government or other regulatory bodies===
* Religious groups opposed to same sex marriage may find it difficult to receive necessary licenses from governments controlled by those who disagree with their stance (). At the least, such matters would result in costly and time-consuming litigation if not settled legislation before the fact (17-22).
* Religious believers who require professional licensure to carry out their profession are at risk of sanctions or delicensure if their views on same sex marriage do not accord with the licensing body's views of what is proper . As Stern notes:
::Conflicts between the helping professions and religious groups can be expected to increase. How will providers propose to deal with same-sex couples who come for marriage counseling? Will they refuse to provide counseling to such couples? Would a refusal violate public accommodation laws? Probably. Would religious professionals attempt to dissuade clients from same-sex activity? Would that be considered a breach of professional standards and therefore grounds for the loss of a professional license? …These conflicts erupted in Massachusetts with regard to the licensing of Catholic Charities to place children for adoption. Catholic Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts legislature refused to carve out a special rule for religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Opponents of such an exception labeled it unconstitutional. The president of the Massachusetts Senate said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination." The bill went nowhere.(24)
: As is well known, this required Catholic Charities to close its adoption services. Such conflicts and others like them can be expected to increase if they are not dealt with proactively by the legislature and must be settled by the blunt instrument of the courts.
* Professionals may be in jeopardy if they refuse to provide services (e.g., artificial insemination) for same-sex couples which they regard as immoral. Physicians have already been sued in California for such a refusal. It involves several extremely worrisome points:

::First, the plaintiff patient prevailed in the trial court ''even though the physicians were prepared to refer the patient to another physician in the same practice and to pay any additional expenses resulting from the referral''. [Thus, a physician cannot decline to provide the procedure but be certain that it is performed by someone who has no moral objection. This is a terrible threat to the conscience of religious professionals. - FAIR] The objecting physicians were willing to treat the patient for all other purposes, including a pregnancy resulting from the procedure, so that the tangible burden on the patient was virtually nil. (These facts are disputed, but the case has been litigated so far as though this factual dispute were irrelevant.)

::Second, this is not a case where physicians refused to treat a class of patients because they did not approve of their lifestyle and believed they were facilitating their patients' sins. The physicians are being asked to perform a procedure that they regarded as directly sinful...(45).

: Professional groups were cowed by public pressure, and backed down from defending a physician's right to refuse to perform a procedure he or she found morally repugnant:

::Third, it is noteworthy that the California Medical Association filed two briefs. The first emphasized physician autonomy, but was withdrawn after creating an uproar. The association then substituted another brief, expressing horror at the thought that a physician might engage in "invidious" discrimination, but otherwise expressing support for the right of a physician to exercise professional judgment about performing particular medical procedures (46).

: One might argue that no one can force a physician to perform an abortion, another practice which is freighted with moral objections. This is true, but this right is protected ''by statute''--that is, it was explicitly written into the law. "Absent such a statute, free exercise claims under Title VII's accommodation provision or the Constitution have not fared well" (46). "But civil rights laws and malpractice suits are not the only risks lurking. Licensing authorities may also exercise their authority to coerce religious conscience to yield to secular morality" {47). "There are sufficient unhappy instances of physicians yielding to prevailing morality in the past century to give pause to those who would insist otherwise-Tuskegee, eugenics, Soviet psychiatry" (47). Despite this, religious physicians (as well as other professionals) have ample reason to be concerned that without strong legislative protection for religious believers, they may well be forced to perform acts that violate their religious beliefs ''or'' suffer financial and professional penalties. "[P]rofessional groups-especially in the social services field-have been skeptical of religious claims for exemption. Marriage counselors, social workers, and psychologists can expect challenges under either public accommodation or licensure laws if they refuse to facilitate same-sex partnerships" (47).

===Issues of taxation and government funds===
* "There will also be substantial conflict over (1) eligibility for government funding for institutions that do not acknowledge same-sex marriage; and (2) conditions attached to government funds" (24).
* Likewise, "there will inevitably be challenges to the federal and state tax-exempt status of institutions discriminating in admissions against same-sex couples" (31). "The IRS rules for tax exemption for all private schools do require proof that a school's curriculum is not tinged with racism, although these rules have not been challenged in court. (One has to ask: would the IRS in the future require suppression of teachings hostile to same-sex marriage as a condition of tax exemption?)" (33).

===Religious education and other institutions===
* Institutions such as universities (e.g., BYU) could be vulnerable to legal charges if they "discriminated" by refusing to admit couples that were same-sex married (31). With the exception of schools training professional clergy, "matters are less clear-even for religious schools that endeavor to create an enveloping religious environment. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or membership in a same-sex couple is not 'religious discrimination,' which is the common formulation of exceptions to civil rights laws. Even Christian high schools in California have been sued for expelling a lesbian couple (31).
* For some religious groups, the issue may even arise of what to do about children raised by same-sex married parents. "Orthodox Jewish schools in New York have been grappling with whether to admit children of single mothers who conceived with assisted reproductive technology. On the one hand, they feel obligated to educate all Jewish children; on the other, they are reluctant to do anything that would signal approval of these untraditional arrangements. (One has to ask what the result would be if a school decides to exclude such children and is sued under an ordinance barring marital status discrimination.) Would it matter if a school generally insists on parental compliance with all of the school's religious norms or whether it singles out sexual orientation? In the former case, the exclusion will appear rooted in "religious" discrimination, in the latter, in "sexual orientation" or marital status. Paradoxically, this could mean that only the most insular groups, the ones most insistent on total student and parental compliance with religious norms, could avoid state coercion" (32).
* Housing at schools owned by religious bodies will also be an issue: "''Levin v. Yeshiva University'' held that a "married only" rule had the effect of discriminating against same-sex couples on the grounds of sexual orientation, since such persons cannot marry.165 A fortiori, a rule allowing only heterosexual couples into married housing will be illegal if same-sex marriage becomes legal" (33).
* "A final issue is whether, under either public accommodation statutes or statutes guaranteeing equal opportunity in education, religious universities need to allow clubs advocating gay rights to meet on their campuses, even if the clubs advocate positions at odds with a school's religious commitments concerning sexual morality....The results in the case law so far are mixed" (35-36).
* "Georgetown University...was successfully sued...and required to permit a gay-student club." This suit took place under public accommodation law, which typically governs such facilities as stores, hotels, theaters, stadiums, and the like (38). Likewise, "The New Jersey Civil Rights Commission is presently considering a public accommodation discrimination claim against a Methodist-owned camp meeting for refusing to rent a gazebo-sometimes used for church services-for holding a same-sex union ceremony" (39). Thus, religious educational institutions may be subject to suits under a wide variety of legal statutes. This illustrates how "Public accommodation law has in fact been used as a weapon to force ideological change on organizations" (39).
* Employment at religious schools will also likely see a great deal of litigation: "Parochial schools firing unmarried pregnant female teachers have found a mixed reception in the lower courts in the face of allegations of sex discrimination because males engaging in extra-marital sex are not discharged, if only because such activity by men is hard to prove. Hard litigation can be expected over youth leaders and the like" (50).

===Religious believers in the work-place===
* Much is properly said about avoiding discrimination and harassment in the work-place targeted at homosexuals. But, what of that which may be experienced by religious believers? What if someone chose a government career long before same-sex marriage was in anyone's plans? Now, with state-sanctioned same sex marriage, this religious believer may be forced to perform such marriages, even though he or she believes they are morally wrong. "There is as yet no law addressing the question of whether public employees will have any right to accommodation if they seek to recuse themselves from performing or recording same-sex marriages. The Vermont Supreme Court has suggested that no such constitutional right exists. Other courts in other contexts have been equally reluctant to allow public officials to invoke Title VII to pick and choose how they will enforce laws, even if others can fill in for them. And, as noted above, Title VII has not provided much help for professional employees seeking to refuse to assist sinners with their services. Given the absence of First Amendment speech rights for public employees, it seems very unlikely such rights of abstention will be recognized" (52). This is yet another case where religious rights must be protected by legislation, or they will likely not be protected at all. And, absent such protection such careers are essentially barred to religious believers who object to same-sex marriage.

===Joint commercial/religious undertakings===

* Sometimes religious groups rely on commercial entities which they do not directly control as part of their religious observance. This has direct relevance to LDS readers:
::At least in the Orthodox Jewish community, many religious goods and supplies are provided not directly by the synagogues and not even by not-for-profit corporations wholly under religious auspices. Instead they are provided either by freestanding not-for-profits not formally owned or controlled by a religious institution201 or by for-profit businesses acting in compliance with religious norms. I understand that the same is true of other churches. Communion wafers in the Catholic Church and temple garments worn by Mormons are not produced by the church itself, but by private companies under religious supervision.

: Stern goes on to describe the vast variety of potential problems which arise: some are theoretical at this point, and some have already been litigated. All pose potential problems for the reduction of religious liberty and association:

::1. A for-profit restaurant or catering hall, operating under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbinical group to insure that the food served is kosher, is asked to cater a lesbian commitment ceremony conducted by a rabbi from a different branch of Judaism. The Orthodox rabbinic organization threatens to remove its supervision for that affair. The couple insists on a kosher affair with Orthodox rabbinic supervision.
:::(a) May the restaurant refuse the affair on the ground that the rabbinic group will not permit its name to be used in this connection, and without its approval the restaurant's business would be destroyed?
:::(b) Does the rabbinic group itself become subject to the public accommodation laws because of its symbiotic relationship with the restaurant, undoubtedly a place of public accommodation?
:::(c) Could the restaurant accept the catering job, but post signs on its premises saying that it (or its supervising agency, or both) found the same-sex ceremony offensive?

::Fortunately for almost all concerned, the restaurant went bankrupt before the question had to be answered.

::2. Could a summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles-and without which conformity parents would not enroll their children-refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? Could it accept them on condition that the parents would not attend as a couple on visiting days? Should it matter if the camp is operated by a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation?
::3. What would be the legal options for a cemetery (or a funeral home) asked to perform a funeral for a member of a same-sex couple when the funeral (or, for example, a grave marker) will indicate that the deceased was the loving partner of a person of the same-sex? The problem will be more acute for the cemetery than the funeral home, since the latter is generally not held responsible for what is said of the deceased (i.e., no one blames a funeral home when the deceased is eulogized as generous and saintly, when he in fact was miserly and sybaritic). Would the result be different if, as in some faiths, funerals are regularly performed in the house of worship?
::4. What of a church-affiliated community center (gym, Little League, etc.) that offers family programs? Must it enroll same-sex couples as families? What of a church picnic for families that is advertised in the local general circulation newspaper?
::5. A religiously affiliated family service provider offers marriage-counseling services. Must it counsel same-sex couples in ways that facilitate or preserve the relationship? Would it matter if the service is advertised or is available only by referral of a minister? Would it violate the law to counsel partners to such marriages that their relations are sinful?
::6. Would a printer be required to print invitations to same-sex marriages? (39-41)

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|volokh.1}} Eugene Volokh, "Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes," ''Hofstra Law Review'' 33 (2005): 1155, 1178; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Douglas W. Kmiec|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Coming Antidiscrimination Campaigns Against Religion|pages=104}}
#{{note|kmiec.8}} Larry W. Yackle, ''Parading Ourselves: Freedom of Speech at the Feast of St. Patrick'', ''B.U. L. REV'' 73 (1993): 791, 792; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty:Short|author=Kmiec|pages=104}}
#{{note|unions.1}} {{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}
#{{note|divine.institution}} ''Ibid.''
#{{note|picarello.xi}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.|article=Introduction|pages=xi}}
#{{note|stern.1}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Marc J. Stern|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches|pages=1-57}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: How do Mormons believe that same-sex marriage affects religious freedoms?

2012-04-18T23:02:43Z

CassandraHedelius: /* How would same sex marriage impact religious freedom? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=={{Question label}}==

What are some of the dangers to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined?



=={{Conclusion label}}==
The above are only a few examples of possible or actual conflicts between religious liberty and the newly-declared "right" to same sex marriage. Given the creativity of those who use the courts as a means for social activism, as well as the complexities of relations in the public and private spheres, many others are sure to arise. Laws in one area interact with those of another in unexpected and often unforeseen ways--and this is especially true when state or federal courts are interpreting those laws.

Even if one supports gay marriage as public policy, if one is truly interested in liberty ''for all'', it should be clear that the above issues ought to be addressed as part of implementing that policy. The alternative is to subject everyone to the uncertainty, costs, and social conflict which litigating each area will inevitably produce—likely for decades. This type of culture war will not hasten the tolerance which homosexuals claim is their only goal, and in fact may retard it as religious believers come to feel more and more besieged and circumscribed by opponents who seem to want tolerance and liberty for themselves, but not for those who disagree with them. On the other hand, homosexuals will likely grow increasingly militant and angry that their legally declared rights to marriage are being contested by believers at every turn. This will not serve anyone well.

In fact, many observers have noted that “gay rights” groups have as a goal the marginalization and silencing of those who teach that same sex acts are wrong. (If this is so, then a strategy of sweeping judge-imposed, rather than legislated, law suits their purposes well.) The homosexual advocates are not content to be tolerated and protected from violence and discrimination—they want to silence those who would continue to claim that their actions are sinful. Eugene Volokh, an advocate of same sex marriage, noted:

:The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression-freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with ''delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior'' that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals'' {{ea}}.{{ref|volokh.104}}

Others have been even more blunt, noting that many homosexual activists want to "'discredit[] and force[] to the margin' religious practices that honor traditional marriage”{{ref|kmiec.8}}.

Those who believe in less government interference, rather than more, should likewise see that it is better for all concerned—and personal liberty—if these issues are acknowledged and addressed head-on, rather than with blithe promises that gay marriage will change nothing for others and it is only about “gay rights”. This is false, since the form in which those rights are implemented—or imposed—will have a substantial impact on the rights of religious believers.

== ==
{{Response label}}

==Introduction==

When supporters of same sex marriage discuss this issue, they often attempt to reassure those with religious concerns by promising that religious ministers will not be forced to perform same sex marriages within their own denominations. In an LDS context, this has been raised by both advocates and opponents of same sex marriage by discussing whether Mormons would be forced to perform gay marriages in temples.

Given the strong free exercise of religion protection in the Bill of Rights, many who have not examined the issue closely have concluded this ought not to be an issue of much concern.

However, it is generally not appreciated that the issue of gay marriage has a great deal of potential impact on issues of religious freedom more generally. These concerns have been virtually ignored by proponents of gay marriage, and opponents of gay marriage have not been very successful in articulating them, partly because they do not lend themselves well to quick, sound-bite explanations.

These concerns loom large, however, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' opposition to legalized same sex marriage in the United States. This is illustrated by the Church's indication that it is not opposed to the type of legal protection which civil unions could provide same sex couples (or others), "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family '''or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference'''."{{ref|unions.1}}

The Church also emphasizes this concern in its document, "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

:Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

:In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

:As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

::Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.

:The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

:''Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”'''

:The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

:Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

:Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished {{ea}}.{{ref|divine.institution}}

Latter-day Saints would be inclined to accept these cautions simply because they come from those they sustain as prophets. But, this perspective is shared by many who have studied and reflected upon the question from a purely legal perspective. The remainder of this article focuses on a secular analysis which supports the contention that same-sex marriage will inevitably intersect with religious liberty in unexpected and troubling ways.

==How would same sex marriage impact religious freedom?==
This question was addressed in great deal by a number of legal scholars from across the political and ideological spectrum. In December 2005, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "a non-profit, public interest legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions" invited a group of scholars to "take as a given that the legal definition of marriage [would be] expanded to include same-sex couples, and then to explore the religious freedom implications of that legal change."{{ref|picarello.xi}}

In his extensive review of the areas of potential conflict, Marc Stern{{ref|stern.1}} (an attorney with American Jewish Congress since 1977, and a leading expert on Church-state law) notes that instituting gay marriage "will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in ways that are unpredictable today" (1). Stern notes that "no one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," but he warns that "I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact [of same sex marriage] on religious dissenters. If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package" (1,57).

This demonstrates why the California example which required [[Church_involvement_in_politics/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8|Proposition 8]] was perhaps most likely to draw the Church's attention: the [[Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8#Church_involvement_in_the_.22Yes_on_8.22_effort|democratically-assessed]] vote of the California public was overturned. Judge-made law is a blunt instrument. Judges, when making rulings and writing opinions, are only allowed to consider the specific issues which have been raised in that case, and cannot branch out in order to provide additional protections. For instance, consider the example of the court case overturning Proposition 8. There were only two legal questions before the court: whether Proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and whether California officials, by enforcing Proposition 8, violate another federal law (the second issue is a derivative of the first). The parties were able to present many arguments for and against each possible outcome, and some of the arguments invoked religious liberty concerns, but at the end of the trial the judge was only able to answer "yes" or "no" to the two questions and state his reasoning. He had no ability to say "yes, but because I'm concerned for religious liberty, I also rule that the following religious protections shall also be law..." Religious liberty issues can be separately litigated, but must be considered one by one, at considerable cost to those bringing the cases and long delay before a resolution is reached. In such cases, the judge is also less likely to rule in favor of religious liberty when a previous ruling, like the one overturning Proposition 8, contains that judge's rejection of the argument that threats to religious liberty are a sufficient justification to not establish same-sex marriage via court case.

In short, law made by a judge's ruling on a case does not have the opportunity to protect the rights of religious believers who have moral objections to same sex marriage. Stern points out that being forced to perform marriages (which is not a real risk) is the least of religious believers' worries unless same-sex marriage is implemented ''along with the appropriate protections for religious groups''. It is far more likely that such protections can be put in place if they are ''legislated'' rather than ''litigated'' in the courts after the fact.

Risks to religious groups include the following (the relevant page numbers to Stern's paper are included, and should be consulted for further information); other sources are cited in the endnotes:

===Past experience with the courts and conflicts between civil liberties and religious freedom===
* Civil liberties legislation and religious exceptions have not fared well. Stern describes the "winner take all" mentality which results in an unwillingness to allow any religious exceptions, "no matter how limited and how justified":

::That clashes between religious liberty and the civil rights of participants in same-sex marriage are inevitable is shown not only by the cases discussed below, but by recent clashes over proposed legislation to protect religious liberty. Both clashes were won in a rout by those supporting unbending civil rights protection, chiefly gay rights....[A]fter revised federal legislation had been introduced to protect religious liberty to the extent Congress still had power to do so, the question arose of whether and how civil rights laws would be affected. Professor Douglas Laycock and I made the rounds of congressional offices to explain the legislation and respond to legislative concerns about civil rights. One of our appointments was with a liberal African-American member from the South, a man whose commitment to civil liberties I admire. The meeting was private-no press and only a few staff, all well versed in law. The congressman could not be persuaded that religious exemptions from the civil rights laws, no matter how limited and how justified, would not quickly deteriorate into a general assault on the civil rights citadel. He was not playing to a crowd; there was none....

::We argued to no avail that it was not likely that including religious liberty exemptions would lead to any substantial erosion of the ban on racial discrimination. We walked out of the office knowing that we had failed to persuade. The point is not that we were inarticulate (I might have been; Professor Laycock certainly was not) or that we had no case to make. The point is that people who have been the victims of discrimination believe (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) that forces of bigotry remain strong and are barely contained by law. Consequently, they see any exemption or weakening of resolve as likely to erode hard-earned gains. That fear goes beyond substantive secular disagreements over whether equality claims ought to generally trump liberty claims where the two conflict. It also goes beyond claims that protecting the dignity of man trumps the legalistic and moralistic-and, for many, outdated and immoral-prohibitions of Leviticus. Instead, the claim is that the search for exemptions is a back door effort to undermine equality rights generally. This claim is particularly acute in regard to gay rights. Much, if not almost all, of the opposition to the so-called "gay-rights agenda" comes from religious sources. Some of that opposition is hard to describe as anything other than raw bigotry (i.e., unfounded accusations of child abuse and the like). When each side thinks that the effort is not about the resolution between a localized conflict but a skirmish in a take-no-prisoners war, it is hard to expect either side to allow the other any victories (27-28).
* The lack of a legislative solution to these issues means that those who litigate them will have a variety of statues under which to lodge protest. "The plaintiffs can invoke any of these statutes as applicable, or, as in the case of California, they can invoke a global civil rights statute such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The most obvious advantage of this choice of weapons is that plaintiffs get the advantage of the statute with the narrowest or even non-existent statutory religious exemption and the broadest remedies (that is, attorney's fees)" (29).

===Freedom of expression===
* Religious believers' right to preach against same-sex behavior can be threatened (1-9). Such cases have already occurred abroad, and a review of the international data shows "gives some sense of how far the scales are tilted against expressions critical of homosexuality" (6). Despite the fact that one might think that "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," (1) Stern goes on to argue that "There is nevertheless reason to worry now in the United States. Principles governing sexual harassment in the workplace could easily encompass expressions by religious institutions and persons that oppose same-sex marriage" (7).
* It is an unsettled matter in current US law as to "what sorts of religiously affiliated institutions fall within the scope of religious exemptions. The National Labor Relations Board and reviewing courts are 'all over the map' in deciding what is a religious institution" (9). Given that unelected courts will be the ones to decide such issues, religious believers are right to be worried if their rights are not explicitly protected before hand.
* Religious students' right to express their views about whether same-sex acts are sinful may be threatened: "Schools in a democratic society must educate, not brainwash. Indeed, school officials have an obligation to teach students to deal with, tolerate, appropriately respond to, and shrug off disagreements, even offensive disagreements. How else will students learn to function as citizens of a democracy? Despite this duty, these cases suggest that school officials prefer to quash divisive speech rather than teach this essential skill of democratic citizenship" (13). One judgment demonstrates how exclusion that is prejudicial to religious believers might occur:
::Valid grounds [wrote the court] may include a school's concerns that a club's discriminatory policies would disadvantage, subordinate, or stigmatize the excluded students, debase the morals of students who practice the exclusion, or frustrate the teaching of the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." These values include "tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular," but also "disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others" (35, note 169).
* Religious believers may find their ability to speak out elsewhere in the public square (e.g., billboards or advertisements) threatened (17).

===Freedom of parents to choose what is taught to their children in the public schools about moral issues===
* The right of parents to control what their children are taught about moral issues such as same sex acts is also unclear: "There will also be clashes between schools and parents objecting to their children being taught the acceptability of same-sex relationships. Parents will assert that such instruction conflicts with their right to direct the moral upbringing of their children, interfering with their constitutionally protected right to do so. Such claims have been uniformly rejected.71 However, it is not within the competence of public schools to overtly criticize church groups opposed to same-sex relationships" (14).
* Student-led clubs in schools are also at risk if they oppose same sex acts or marriage: "Schools will undoubtedly argue that the well being of students whose parents are partners in a same-sex marriage is endangered by clubs devoted to opposing same-sex marriage.... Claims that tolerating hateful speech endangers others or denies their constitutional right to attend school have been made by school officials in analogous cases involving private student speech....[The relevant court decision] is a threat to anti-same-sex marriage speech because it authorizes schools to selectively limit student speech. It is an ominous precedent. Those seeking to protect the right to speak out against the very thing [pro-gay clubs] sought to advance, same-sex relationships, should have loudly criticized it. Unfortunately, the silence was deafening" (17). This is an excellent example of a broader problem--advocates of same sex acts and rights are vocal about ''their'' right to speak out and be heard, but are happy to see those who oppose their views silenced.

===Freedom for religious believers to be licensed by government or other regulatory bodies===
* Religious groups opposed to same sex marriage may find it difficult to receive necessary licenses from governments controlled by those who disagree with their stance (). At the least, such matters would result in costly and time-consuming litigation if not settled legislation before the fact (17-22).
* Religious believers who require professional licensure to carry out their profession are at risk of sanctions or delicensure if their views on same sex marriage do not accord with the licensing body's views of what is proper . As Stern notes:
::Conflicts between the helping professions and religious groups can be expected to increase. How will providers propose to deal with same-sex couples who come for marriage counseling? Will they refuse to provide counseling to such couples? Would a refusal violate public accommodation laws? Probably. Would religious professionals attempt to dissuade clients from same-sex activity? Would that be considered a breach of professional standards and therefore grounds for the loss of a professional license? …These conflicts erupted in Massachusetts with regard to the licensing of Catholic Charities to place children for adoption. Catholic Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts legislature refused to carve out a special rule for religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Opponents of such an exception labeled it unconstitutional. The president of the Massachusetts Senate said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination." The bill went nowhere.(24)
: As is well known, this required Catholic Charities to close its adoption services. Such conflicts and others like them can be expected to increase if they are not dealt with proactively by the legislature and must be settled by the blunt instrument of the courts.
* Professionals may be in jeopardy if they refuse to provide services (e.g., artificial insemination) for same-sex couples which they regard as immoral. Physicians have already been sued in California for such a refusal. It involves several extremely worrisome points:

::First, the plaintiff patient prevailed in the trial court ''even though the physicians were prepared to refer the patient to another physician in the same practice and to pay any additional expenses resulting from the referral''. [Thus, a physician cannot decline to provide the procedure but be certain that it is performed by someone who has no moral objection. This is a terrible threat to the conscience of religious professionals. - FAIR] The objecting physicians were willing to treat the patient for all other purposes, including a pregnancy resulting from the procedure, so that the tangible burden on the patient was virtually nil. (These facts are disputed, but the case has been litigated so far as though this factual dispute were irrelevant.)

::Second, this is not a case where physicians refused to treat a class of patients because they did not approve of their lifestyle and believed they were facilitating their patients' sins. The physicians are being asked to perform a procedure that they regarded as directly sinful...(45).

: Professional groups were cowed by public pressure, and backed down from defending a physician's right to refuse to perform a procedure he or she found morally repugnant:

::Third, it is noteworthy that the California Medical Association filed two briefs. The first emphasized physician autonomy, but was withdrawn after creating an uproar. The association then substituted another brief, expressing horror at the thought that a physician might engage in "invidious" discrimination, but otherwise expressing support for the right of a physician to exercise professional judgment about performing particular medical procedures (46).

: One might argue that no one can force a physician to perform an abortion, another practice which is freighted with moral objections. This is true, but this right is protected ''by statute''--that is, it was explicitly written into the law. "Absent such a statute, free exercise claims under Title VII's accommodation provision or the Constitution have not fared well" (46). "But civil rights laws and malpractice suits are not the only risks lurking. Licensing authorities may also exercise their authority to coerce religious conscience to yield to secular morality" {47). "There are sufficient unhappy instances of physicians yielding to prevailing morality in the past century to give pause to those who would insist otherwise-Tuskegee, eugenics, Soviet psychiatry" (47). Despite this, religious physicians (as well as other professionals) have ample reason to be concerned that without strong legislative protection for religious believers, they may well be forced to perform acts that violate their religious beliefs ''or'' suffer financial and professional penalties. "[P]rofessional groups-especially in the social services field-have been skeptical of religious claims for exemption. Marriage counselors, social workers, and psychologists can expect challenges under either public accommodation or licensure laws if they refuse to facilitate same-sex partnerships" (47).

===Issues of taxation and government funds===
* "There will also be substantial conflict over (1) eligibility for government funding for institutions that do not acknowledge same-sex marriage; and (2) conditions attached to government funds" (24).
* Likewise, "there will inevitably be challenges to the federal and state tax-exempt status of institutions discriminating in admissions against same-sex couples" (31). "The IRS rules for tax exemption for all private schools do require proof that a school's curriculum is not tinged with racism, although these rules have not been challenged in court. (One has to ask: would the IRS in the future require suppression of teachings hostile to same-sex marriage as a condition of tax exemption?)" (33).

===Religious education and other institutions===
* Institutions such as universities (e.g., BYU) could be vulnerable to legal charges if they "discriminated" by refusing to admit couples that were same-sex married (31). With the exception of schools training professional clergy, "matters are less clear-even for religious schools that endeavor to create an enveloping religious environment. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or membership in a same-sex couple is not 'religious discrimination,' which is the common formulation of exceptions to civil rights laws. Even Christian high schools in California have been sued for expelling a lesbian couple (31).
* For some religious groups, the issue may even arise of what to do about children raised by same-sex married parents. "Orthodox Jewish schools in New York have been grappling with whether to admit children of single mothers who conceived with assisted reproductive technology. On the one hand, they feel obligated to educate all Jewish children; on the other, they are reluctant to do anything that would signal approval of these untraditional arrangements. (One has to ask what the result would be if a school decides to exclude such children and is sued under an ordinance barring marital status discrimination.) Would it matter if a school generally insists on parental compliance with all of the school's religious norms or whether it singles out sexual orientation? In the former case, the exclusion will appear rooted in "religious" discrimination, in the latter, in "sexual orientation" or marital status. Paradoxically, this could mean that only the most insular groups, the ones most insistent on total student and parental compliance with religious norms, could avoid state coercion" (32).
* Housing at schools owned by religious bodies will also be an issue: "''Levin v. Yeshiva University'' held that a "married only" rule had the effect of discriminating against same-sex couples on the grounds of sexual orientation, since such persons cannot marry.165 A fortiori, a rule allowing only heterosexual couples into married housing will be illegal if same-sex marriage becomes legal" (33).
* "A final issue is whether, under either public accommodation statutes or statutes guaranteeing equal opportunity in education, religious universities need to allow clubs advocating gay rights to meet on their campuses, even if the clubs advocate positions at odds with a school's religious commitments concerning sexual morality....The results in the case law so far are mixed" (35-36).
* "Georgetown University...was successfully sued...and required to permit a gay-student club." This suit took place under public accommodation law, which typically governs such facilities as stores, hotels, theaters, stadiums, and the like (38). Likewise, "The New Jersey Civil Rights Commission is presently considering a public accommodation discrimination claim against a Methodist-owned camp meeting for refusing to rent a gazebo-sometimes used for church services-for holding a same-sex union ceremony" (39). Thus, religious educational institutions may be subject to suits under a wide variety of legal statutes. This illustrates how "Public accommodation law has in fact been used as a weapon to force ideological change on organizations" (39).
* Employment at religious schools will also likely see a great deal of litigation: "Parochial schools firing unmarried pregnant female teachers have found a mixed reception in the lower courts in the face of allegations of sex discrimination because males engaging in extra-marital sex are not discharged, if only because such activity by men is hard to prove. Hard litigation can be expected over youth leaders and the like" (50).

===Religious believers in the work-place===
* Much is properly said about avoiding discrimination and harassment in the work-place targeted at homosexuals. But, what of that which may be experienced by religious believers? What if someone chose a government career long before same-sex marriage was in anyone's plans? Now, with state-sanctioned same sex marriage, this religious believer may be forced to perform such marriages, even though he or she believes they are morally wrong. "There is as yet no law addressing the question of whether public employees will have any right to accommodation if they seek to recuse themselves from performing or recording same-sex marriages. The Vermont Supreme Court has suggested that no such constitutional right exists. Other courts in other contexts have been equally reluctant to allow public officials to invoke Title VII to pick and choose how they will enforce laws, even if others can fill in for them. And, as noted above, Title VII has not provided much help for professional employees seeking to refuse to assist sinners with their services. Given the absence of First Amendment speech rights for public employees, it seems very unlikely such rights of abstention will be recognized" (52). This is yet another case where religious rights must be protected by legislation, or they will likely not be protected at all. And, absent such protection such careers are essentially barred to religious believers who object to same-sex marriage.

===Joint commercial/religious undertakings===

* Sometimes religious groups rely on commercial entities which they do not directly control as part of their religious observance. This has direct relevance to LDS readers:
::At least in the Orthodox Jewish community, many religious goods and supplies are provided not directly by the synagogues and not even by not-for-profit corporations wholly under religious auspices. Instead they are provided either by freestanding not-for-profits not formally owned or controlled by a religious institution201 or by for-profit businesses acting in compliance with religious norms. I understand that the same is true of other churches. Communion wafers in the Catholic Church and temple garments worn by Mormons are not produced by the church itself, but by private companies under religious supervision.

: Stern goes on to describe the vast variety of potential problems which arise: some are theoretical at this point, and some have already been litigated. All pose potential problems for the reduction of religious liberty and association:

::1. A for-profit restaurant or catering hall, operating under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbinical group to insure that the food served is kosher, is asked to cater a lesbian commitment ceremony conducted by a rabbi from a different branch of Judaism. The Orthodox rabbinic organization threatens to remove its supervision for that affair. The couple insists on a kosher affair with Orthodox rabbinic supervision.
:::(a) May the restaurant refuse the affair on the ground that the rabbinic group will not permit its name to be used in this connection, and without its approval the restaurant's business would be destroyed?
:::(b) Does the rabbinic group itself become subject to the public accommodation laws because of its symbiotic relationship with the restaurant, undoubtedly a place of public accommodation?
:::(c) Could the restaurant accept the catering job, but post signs on its premises saying that it (or its supervising agency, or both) found the same-sex ceremony offensive?

::Fortunately for almost all concerned, the restaurant went bankrupt before the question had to be answered.

::2. Could a summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles-and without which conformity parents would not enroll their children-refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? Could it accept them on condition that the parents would not attend as a couple on visiting days? Should it matter if the camp is operated by a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation?
::3. What would be the legal options for a cemetery (or a funeral home) asked to perform a funeral for a member of a same-sex couple when the funeral (or, for example, a grave marker) will indicate that the deceased was the loving partner of a person of the same-sex? The problem will be more acute for the cemetery than the funeral home, since the latter is generally not held responsible for what is said of the deceased (i.e., no one blames a funeral home when the deceased is eulogized as generous and saintly, when he in fact was miserly and sybaritic). Would the result be different if, as in some faiths, funerals are regularly performed in the house of worship?
::4. What of a church-affiliated community center (gym, Little League, etc.) that offers family programs? Must it enroll same-sex couples as families? What of a church picnic for families that is advertised in the local general circulation newspaper?
::5. A religiously affiliated family service provider offers marriage-counseling services. Must it counsel same-sex couples in ways that facilitate or preserve the relationship? Would it matter if the service is advertised or is available only by referral of a minister? Would it violate the law to counsel partners to such marriages that their relations are sinful?
::6. Would a printer be required to print invitations to same-sex marriages? (39-41)

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|volokh.1}} Eugene Volokh, "Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes," ''Hofstra Law Review'' 33 (2005): 1155, 1178; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Douglas W. Kmiec|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Coming Antidiscrimination Campaigns Against Religion|pages=104}}
#{{note|kmiec.8}} Larry W. Yackle, ''Parading Ourselves: Freedom of Speech at the Feast of St. Patrick'', ''B.U. L. REV'' 73 (1993): 791, 792; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty:Short|author=Kmiec|pages=104}}
#{{note|unions.1}} {{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}
#{{note|divine.institution}} ''Ibid.''
#{{note|picarello.xi}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.|article=Introduction|pages=xi}}
#{{note|stern.1}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Marc J. Stern|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches|pages=1-57}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T19:45:53Z

CassandraHedelius: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=Questions For Mitt Romney (Complied by Richard Packham)
|author=Richard Packham
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes=
}}
{{CriticalWorkInfobox
|title= Questions For Mitt Romney
|type=E-mail and web posting (The item is labeled: "COPYRIGHT: This material is not copyrighted in the hope that it will receive wide distribution in any form")
|author=Richard Packham
|affiliation=Atheist former member of the Church; Founder of Exmormon Foundation.
|accuracy=Virtually every item either subtly or overtly distorts LDS belief and teachings
|templecontent=None, though Packham has elsewhere discussed temple matters in great detail.
}}

==Summary==
{{NoPolitics}}
In 2008, during Mitt Romney's run for the presidential nomination, Richard Packham, an ex-Mormon and atheist, compiled a list of questions for the media that were designed to turn evangelical Christians against a Mormon political candidate. In 2012, this list was resurrected in an attempt to gain media interest. The following was posted by Richard Packham on an ex-Mormon message board on April 12, 2012.
<blockquote>
'''Journalistic scrutiny of TSCC [The So-Called Church] intensifies'''

...In a way it is very frustrating, because few of these non-Mormon journalists know enough to ask the right questions (even the one from Utah!), and - as we saw in the BBC and Al-Jazeera shows - to know when they are being lied to or deceived. On the other hand, it is gratifying to be able to open the eyes of these journalists to everything the church wants to keep hidden.

And I am hoping that as November approaches the whole world will know all they need to know about Mormonism.

It is a time when we all can make a difference: the Mormons are mobilizing their troops to flood news stories with favorable comments, trying to rebut anything negative in the reports. We need to make sure OUR voices are heard there, too.

Please do what you can! Message posted by Richard Packham on the ''Recovery from Mormonism'' message board, April 12, 2012 07:05PM
</blockquote>

===Sources used===
* None included. The argument is by assertion only.

=={{Conclusion label}}==
The list of questions is predominantly oriented toward biasing evangelical Christians against a Mormon candidate. Coming from an atheist, this is particularly ironic and indicates that the purpose is simply to harm the Church in the public eye. It is highly unlikely that such religious-based questions will gain much traction from the mainstream media. One commenter notes,
<blockquote>
University of Utah political-science professor Matthew Burbank also doubts anti-Mormon lines of enquiry will tangle up the GOP candidate. Burbank likens church critics assailing Romney to the “birther” movement that tried to discredit Obama’s candidacy in the 2008 election by suggesting he was born in Africa instead of the United States. Burbank doesn’t see the religious-obedience question resonating with the general public the way financial or sex scandals do. “It’s unlikely at the campaign level that that’s going to be a big issue,” Burbank says. Eric S. Peterson, [http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-77-15770-the-anti-mormon-moment.html The Anti-Mormon Moment LDS Critics Capitalize On Romney's GOP Nom], ''City Weekly'', April 18, 2012.
</blockquote>

==FAIR's evaluation of the "Questions For Mitt Romney"==

Quotations from Packham's list are in the blue boxes below. (All language is as in the original, except where LDS temple language has been removed. FAIR will not discuss temple specifics in a public forum.) FAIR's commentary and links for further reading are included below each section.

FAIR does not, of course, speak for Governor Romney. FAIR does not endorse or oppose any political candidate for any office. Our concern here is only with correcting misapprehensions or distortions about LDS belief and practice.
== ==
{{Claim|News reports say that Governor Romney, looking ahead to the possibility of presenting himself as a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, is meeting privately with Christian leaders to allay their concerns about the fact that he is a Mormon. (See Boston Globe, Nov 2, 2006 at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/02/romney_consults_evangelical_leaders) These leaders apparently are concentrating on areas such as Romney's view of gay marriage, abortion, and whether Romney is really a Christian. Undoubtedly Romney's answers in those areas will satisfy most of these Christian leaders. 

However, not knowing much about Mormon doctrine and practices, most Christians are unaware of some of the areas in which the idea of a Mormon as president would raise serious doubts in their minds. They simply don't know what to ask the governor. 

Below are some suggested questions which should be asked of Governor Romney, both by Christian leaders and by journalists.}}

It is ironic that Packham, an atheist, is instructing Christians about what should concern them. The list is a clear effort to alienate Christian voters from a Mormon candidate by distorting LDS theology.

Readers should remember that Packham does not share Christians' concerns, beliefs, or theology—he just wants to use them to potentially embarrass Romney and his faith.

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture, the founder of your church (Joseph Smith) was told by God in 1820 that all the churches of the day were "an abomination." Do you agree with God's view of other churches, as quoted by Joseph Smith? (Pearl of Great Price, {{s||JS-H|1|18-19}})}}

This is a standard anti-Mormon claim, and it is false. Joseph Smith did not say that "all the churches of the day" were "an abomination."

Instead, Joseph reported that ''God'' said that the false ''creeds'' taught were an abomination. False beliefs keep people from approaching God more fully. Joseph Smith praised the true beliefs of other Christian groups: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'."{{ref|js.1}}

This attitude probably matches those of most Christian denominations: each tradition believes that it is the 'best' approach to Christian truth, but does not deny that other branches of Christianity contain truths and things of value. (Almost all Christians, for example, share the LDS belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine son of God born in the flesh.)

Church leaders have also taught that members of other faiths are [[Mormonism_and_culture/Attitude_toward_non-members|also instruments for the accomplishment of God's purposes]].

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Were all the churches of the day claimed to be "an abomination"
|subject=Was Joseph Smith told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination?"
|summary=Some critics claim that Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision that he was told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?}}

Yes.

The Eighth Article of Faith:
<blockquote>
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the Bible/Basics
|subject=The Bible as part of Latter-day Saint canon
|summary=Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture.
}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Basics
|subject=Book of Mormon basics
|summary=What is the Book of Mormon? This article orients new readers to the nature and content of this volume of scripture.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon there are only two churches: the "church of the Lamb of God [presumably the Mormon church]" and the "church of the devil," "the whore of all the earth." Do you agree with that Mormon scripture? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)}}

Packham's "presumption" is false. There are members of "the church of the Lamb of God" outside the Church, and there are members of the "church of the devil" within the Church. He is here displaying either his ignorance of LDS teaching, or his willingness to mislead his readers.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Great and abominable church
|subject=Great and abominable church
|summary=What is the "great and abominable church" referred to in the Book of Mormon? Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptural terms "church of the devil," the "great and abominable church," and the "whore of all the earth" refer to a specific denomination. Critics claim that the Book of Mormon teaches that "all mainstream Christians fall into the world system know as the devil's church (or Satan's kingdom)."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)}}

Packham is simply wrong: The Book of Mormon does ''not'' say "a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous." Rather, the Lamanite curse was a ''specific'' curse against a ''specific'' people at a ''specific'' time, and nowhere indicates that it is a general curse applied across other times and peoples.

A close reading of the Book of Mormon shows that the Lamanite curse was one of separation from the blessings of God, and the mark itself was not the curse.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Curse
|subject=Lamanite curse
|summary=Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned. "Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon doctrine, the president of the Mormon church is a prophet of God, receiving revelations and commandments (God's laws) directly from God. Do you believe that? (Doctrine and Covenants , 21:5, 43:3, 58:18)}}

Sure, although we're at a loss to understand what relevance this religious question has to politics. Perhaps this is an attempt to imply that Mormon politicians are not going to take direction from their constituents? There are plenty of Mormon politicians in both of the major political parties—enough to easily disprove this assertion.

Here is the text of the scriptures quoted.

{{s||D&C|21|5}}
<blockquote>
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|43|3}}
<blockquote>
And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|58|18}}
<blockquote>
And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and politics/Church involvement
|subject=Church involvement
|summary=Why does the Church speak out on political matters? Church leaders encourage members to be active in politics and to exercise their right to vote. The Church does not, however, specify how members should vote or which political party they ought to belong to. Occasionally, however, the First Presidency issues a letter which is read over the pulpit urging members to act upon some political matter.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|One of the most sacred rituals for adult Mormons, performed only in a Mormon temple, is a ceremony called "the endowment." Have you undergone this ritual? If so, in what year?}}

This question is not controversial in and of itself; it's merely a setup for a later question on aspects of the temple endowment that changed after Romney received his own endowment.

Romney left to serve an LDS mission in France in July 1966. It has long been the practice to endow missionaries shortly before they leave for service, so it's likely that Romney received his temple endowment within a few weeks or months prior to this date.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment
|subject=Endowment
|summary=A number of criticisms are related to the Latter-day Saint Endowment ceremony. Latter-day Saints consider the ceremony to be sacred in nature. Note that as members of FAIR, we are fully committed to keeping our temple covenants, and we will not discuss certain details related to the ceremony. There are, however, criticisms that we can respond to. This set of articles addresses criticisms related to the Endowment.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|To be admitted to the temple for the endowment ceremony a Mormon must be "in good standing" in the church and undergo a personal interview with church leaders, who examine the member as to whether the member obeys church commandments, supports church leaders, pays full ten percent tithe, wears the prescribed Mormon underwear, abstains from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and extramarital sex, and other matters. If the member answers correctly, a pass to the temples (called a "temple recommend") is issued, good for two years. Do you have such a temple recommend now, indicating that you are in good standing in your church?}}

It is unclear as to why Packham believes the media would want to know of a Mormon politician's temple worthiness or consider it relevant to his or her campaign.

== ==
{{Claim|In the secret Mormon temple ceremony Mormons take an oath of obedience to "the law of the Lord." Did you take that oath?}}

Mormons do commit to obey God's law, similar to promises made by many observant non-Mormon Christians and Jews. Again, this question seems to imply that a Mormon politician may ignore his or her constituents in favor of Church leadership. Given the number of Mormon politicians that have held or currently hold an elected office, this assertion is absurd.

LDS scripture specifically states that those who obey the law of God do not need to disobey the law of the land:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.21-22?lang=eng#20 D&C 58:21-22]
:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
:22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet

== ==
{{Claim|Before 1990, the endowment ceremony required members to take an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything that happened in the temple under penalty of death. Did you take that oath?}}

This is a gross exaggeration. In the temple endowment, Latter-day Saints promise to not reveal a few, very specific aspects of the ceremony, not "anything that happened." The Church has published numerous explanations of the temple ceremony; open houses at newly-built temples take non-members through tours of the temple and explain what goes on in each room; and any endowed Latter-day Saint is free to discuss the endowment in general terms, as long as it is done with respect and reverence.

Readers should remember that Packham himself made these same promises, and now breaks them. (According to information on his website, Packham was endowed in 1952, while Romney was still a young child.)

Prior to April 1990, the temple endowment included "penalties," which were symbolic of the endowed person's personal commitment to not discuss these few aspects of the ceremony. They were not meant to be taken literally, and there is no credible evidence that any Latter-day Saint has ever been put to death for revealing or breaking his temple covenants.

The penalties symbolically expressed what one was willing to do ''rather than'' break covenants and promises to God. In a similar way, a man might say, "I would rather die than cheat on my wife." This does not mean that his wife has license to kill him if he cheats on her.

{{Main|Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Endowment penalties}}

== ==
{{Claim|In the temple ceremony Mormons also take a secret oath to [dedicate everything you have to God] Did you take that oath? Would you consider the office of the presidency of the U.S. to be a "blessing" with which the Lord had blessed you?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|subject=Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|summary=Critics claim that covenants that they make to consecrate all they they have to the Church implies that those who have been elected to political office must be subservient to the dictates of Church leaders rather than their constituents.
}}

*Note the use of the phrase "secret oath." One might reasonably wonder why Packham would use the adjective "secret" in this instance since, by his bringing up the oath, it seems like a modifier without meaning. (If Packham and others know about the oath, how secret is it, really?)

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man/Gods of their own planets
|subject=Gods of their own planets?
|summary=Critics claim that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Although your church presently condemns the practice of polygamy, the scripture commanding it is still in the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Many early Mormons were polygamous and married ("sealed") to numerous wives "for eternity." Do you believe then that there will be polygamous families in Mormon heaven?}}

Yes, but not exclusively and not compulsorily. Remember that many early Mormons were also non-polygamous. We believe that there will be families after this life, provided those families are sealed together as a unit during this life, and provided that those families were faithful and true to the promises they made with God.

*Note the pejorative use of the term "Mormon heaven." Given that Mr. Packham is an atheist, it is obvious that the use of this term is designed to appeal to evangelical Christians.

== ==
{{Claim|The extensive interest of Mormons in genealogical research is to enable them to perform "baptisms for the dead," thus posthumously inducting previous generations into the Mormon church. Many non-Mormons become angry when they learn that the names of their ancestors - having often been faithful members of some other religion during life - have been used in this way. often without permission of the living descendants. The posthumous baptism of many Holocaust victims caused considerable anger among Jewish groups, and your church agreed to stop the practice as to them (but admitted that it was unable to do so). Do you feel that such anger is justified? (Would you feel anger if some voodoo cult was using your deceased grandparents' names in some voodoo ritual, and then announcing to all the world that they were now voodoo worshippers?)}}

There are numerous problems here:
*No one is "posthumously inducted" into the LDS Church through [[Mormonism_and_temples/Baptism_for_the_dead|baptism for the dead]]. This rite merely makes the ordinance of baptism ''available'' to those who have died; the deceased individual still has to accept the gospel and the proxy baptism held in his or her behalf. No one is forced to accept the temple baptism in the next world. Again, either Packham knows this and is deliberately misleading his readers, or he is utterly ignorant about a basic aspect of LDS theology.
*It is an overstatement to claim that "many" non-Mormons are angry over the LDS practice of baptism for the dead. Some prominent Jewish groups have asked the Church not to perform proxy baptisms for victims of the Nazi Holocaust; after several attempts to respect this request, in 2012 the Church put [[Mormonism_and_temples/Work_for_Holocaust_victims|strong restrictions]] in place to prevent this. Other than this single example, there are no other organized groups who have asked the Church to do the same. There is no evidence that "many" people are "angry" about it. Packham is attempting to stir up anger--but is doing so by misrepresenting (through either malice or ignorance) LDS theology.
*Is anger at LDS proxy baptisms "justified"? Only if a non-Mormon believed that LDS baptism for the dead had any effect at all (in which case, why isn't he a Mormon?). If the Mormon faith is not correct—as many including Packham believe—then LDS proxy ordinances have no effect, and anger over them is nonsensical. If a Mormon does not believe that voodoo rituals have any effect, then voodoo use of his or her ancestors' names shouldn't be of any concern.

== ==
{{Claim|It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do you feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God? (See the book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Mormon historian Todd Compton for detailed biographies of these wives.)}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. It is likely that this was a method of binding believers together into one great family—interestingly, there is little evidence that these relationships were consummated.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule (Article of Faith number ten), presumably as a single theocracy. Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?}}

This seems to be a reference to the alleged "White Horse Prophecy." Unfortunately, the only accounts of the alleged prophecy were provided second-hand years after the Prophet's death, and cannot be corroborated with other contemporary sources. However, based upon the information that is extant, one can see that the prediction is that Latter-day Saints would ''support and uphold'' the government, not ''take over'' the government. It is absolutely clear that this is not a prophecy that is considered in any way true or binding on the membership of the Church. Those who would try to hold the Church to their interpretation of this so-called prophecy do so improperly and without any verifiable reason to do so.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Prophecies/White Horse prophecy
|subject=The "White Horse Prophecy"
|summary=Critics claim that the "White Horse" prophecy predicts the "transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy." Critics assert that the "White Horse" prophecy "continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers" because they believe that they will be "officers and administrators" during Christ's millennial reign.
}}

Once more, Packham misrepresents LDS doctrine through either ignorance or design. LDS doctrine teaches that many faiths (and none) will exist during Christ's millennial reign, that no one will be compelled in their belief, and that there will be no religious persecution:

* "In the millennium men will have the privilege of being Presbyterians, Methodists or Infidels, but they will not have the privilege of treating the name and character of Deity as they have done heretofore." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=12|pages=274|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/12/53}}

* "In those days, the Methodists and Presbyterians, headed by their priests, will not be allowed to form into a mob to drive, kill, and rob the Latter-day Saints; neither will the Latter-day Saints be allowed to rise up and say, "We will kill you Methodists, Presbyterians, &c.," neither will any of the different sects of Christendom be allowed to persecute each other." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=2|pages=316|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/2/47}}

* "Not long hence and the voice of the people shall be obeyed, and the true gospel of peace shall dominate the hearts of the mighty. It will then be impossible for war lords to have power over the life and death of millions of men as they now have, to decree the ruin of commerce, industry, and growing fields, or to cause untold mental agony and human misery like plague and pestilence to prevail over the nations....the self-constituted monarchs must give way to rulers chosen by the people, who shall be guided by the doctrines of love and peace as taught in the gospel of our Lord. There will then be instituted a new social order in which the welfare of all shall be uppermost, and all shall be permitted to live in the utmost liberty and happiness." - {{IE|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=17|num=11|date=September 1914|pages=1074}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief
|subject=Joseph Smith: Status in LDS belief
|summary=Do members worship Joseph Smith or treat him as more than a man? Critics charge that since Joseph claimed (or it was claimed in his behalf) the right to "approve whether or not someone gets into heaven," this arrogates to a mortal a right properly reserved for God and Jesus Christ. Some critics have even charged that "Mormons worship Joseph Smith."
}}

* As an atheist, it's unlikely that Packham believes that all of the above religious figures have done ''anything'' for the salvation of mankind. He is again attempting to exploit religious believers' faith for his own purposes.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|js.1}} {{HC1|vol=5|start=517}}
[[fr:Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney]]

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T19:43:26Z

CassandraHedelius: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=Questions For Mitt Romney (Complied by Richard Packham)
|author=Richard Packham
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes=
}}
{{CriticalWorkInfobox
|title= Questions For Mitt Romney
|type=E-mail and web posting (The item is labeled: "COPYRIGHT: This material is not copyrighted in the hope that it will receive wide distribution in any form")
|author=Richard Packham
|affiliation=Atheist former member of the Church; Founder of Exmormon Foundation.
|accuracy=Virtually every item either subtly or overtly distorts LDS belief and teachings
|templecontent=None, though Packham has elsewhere discussed temple matters in great detail.
}}

==Summary==
{{NoPolitics}}
In 2008, during Mitt Romney's run for the presidential nomination, Richard Packham, an ex-Mormon and atheist, compiled a list of questions for the media that were designed to turn evangelical Christians against a Mormon political candidate. In 2012, this list was resurrected in an attempt to gain media interest. The following was posted by Richard Packham on an ex-Mormon message board on April 12, 2012.
<blockquote>
'''Journalistic scrutiny of TSCC [The So-Called Church] intensifies'''

...In a way it is very frustrating, because few of these non-Mormon journalists know enough to ask the right questions (even the one from Utah!), and - as we saw in the BBC and Al-Jazeera shows - to know when they are being lied to or deceived. On the other hand, it is gratifying to be able to open the eyes of these journalists to everything the church wants to keep hidden.

And I am hoping that as November approaches the whole world will know all they need to know about Mormonism.

It is a time when we all can make a difference: the Mormons are mobilizing their troops to flood news stories with favorable comments, trying to rebut anything negative in the reports. We need to make sure OUR voices are heard there, too.

Please do what you can! Message posted by Richard Packham on the ''Recovery from Mormonism'' message board, April 12, 2012 07:05PM
</blockquote>

===Sources used===
* None included. The argument is by assertion only.

=={{Conclusion label}}==
The list of questions is predominantly oriented toward biasing evangelical Christians against a Mormon candidate. Coming from an atheist, this is particularly ironic and indicates that the purpose is simply to harm the Church in the public eye. It is highly unlikely that such religious-based questions will gain much traction from the mainstream media. One commenter notes,
<blockquote>
University of Utah political-science professor Matthew Burbank also doubts anti-Mormon lines of enquiry will tangle up the GOP candidate. Burbank likens church critics assailing Romney to the “birther” movement that tried to discredit Obama’s candidacy in the 2008 election by suggesting he was born in Africa instead of the United States. Burbank doesn’t see the religious-obedience question resonating with the general public the way financial or sex scandals do. “It’s unlikely at the campaign level that that’s going to be a big issue,” Burbank says. Eric S. Peterson, [http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-77-15770-the-anti-mormon-moment.html The Anti-Mormon Moment LDS Critics Capitalize On Romney's GOP Nom], ''City Weekly'', April 18, 2012.
</blockquote>

==FAIR's evaluation of the "Questions For Mitt Romney"==

Quotations from Packham's list are in the blue boxes below. (All language is as in the original, except where LDS temple language has been removed. FAIR will not discuss temple specifics in a public forum.) FAIR's commentary and links for further reading are included below each section.

FAIR does not, of course, speak for Governor Romney. FAIR does not endorse or oppose any political candidate for any office. Our concern here is only with correcting misapprehensions or distortions about LDS belief and practice.
== ==
{{Claim|News reports say that Governor Romney, looking ahead to the possibility of presenting himself as a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, is meeting privately with Christian leaders to allay their concerns about the fact that he is a Mormon. (See Boston Globe, Nov 2, 2006 at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/02/romney_consults_evangelical_leaders) These leaders apparently are concentrating on areas such as Romney's view of gay marriage, abortion, and whether Romney is really a Christian. Undoubtedly Romney's answers in those areas will satisfy most of these Christian leaders. 

However, not knowing much about Mormon doctrine and practices, most Christians are unaware of some of the areas in which the idea of a Mormon as president would raise serious doubts in their minds. They simply don't know what to ask the governor. 

Below are some suggested questions which should be asked of Governor Romney, both by Christian leaders and by journalists.}}

It is ironic that Packham, an atheist, is instructing Christians about what should concern them. The list is a clear effort to alienate Christian voters from a Mormon candidate by distorting LDS theology.

Readers should remember that Packham does not share Christians' concerns, beliefs, or theology—he just wants to use them to potentially embarrass Romney and his faith.

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture, the founder of your church (Joseph Smith) was told by God in 1820 that all the churches of the day were "an abomination." Do you agree with God's view of other churches, as quoted by Joseph Smith? (Pearl of Great Price, {{s||JS-H|1|18-19}})}}

This is a standard anti-Mormon claim, and it is false. Joseph Smith did not say that "all the churches of the day" were "an abomination."

Instead, Joseph reported that ''God'' said that the false ''creeds'' taught were an abomination. False beliefs keep people from approaching God more fully. Joseph Smith praised the true beliefs of other Christian groups: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'."{{ref|js.1}}

This attitude probably matches those of most Christian denominations: each tradition believes that it is the 'best' approach to Christian truth, but does not deny that other branches of Christianity contain truths and things of value. (Almost all Christians, for example, share the LDS belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine son of God born in the flesh.)

Church leaders have also taught that members of other faiths are [[Mormonism_and_culture/Attitude_toward_non-members|also instruments for the accomplishment of God's purposes]].

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Were all the churches of the day claimed to be "an abomination"
|subject=Was Joseph Smith told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination?"
|summary=Some critics claim that Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision that he was told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?}}

Yes.

The Eighth Article of Faith:
<blockquote>
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the Bible/Basics
|subject=The Bible as part of Latter-day Saint canon
|summary=Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture.
}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Basics
|subject=Book of Mormon basics
|summary=What is the Book of Mormon? This article orients new readers to the nature and content of this volume of scripture.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon there are only two churches: the "church of the Lamb of God [presumably the Mormon church]" and the "church of the devil," "the whore of all the earth." Do you agree with that Mormon scripture? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)}}

Packham's "presumption" is false. There are members of "the church of the Lamb of God" outside the Church, and there are members of the "church of the devil" within the Church. He is here displaying either his ignorance of LDS teaching, or his willingness to mislead his readers.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Great and abominable church
|subject=Great and abominable church
|summary=What is the "great and abominable church" referred to in the Book of Mormon? Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptural terms "church of the devil," the "great and abominable church," and the "whore of all the earth" refer to a specific denomination. Critics claim that the Book of Mormon teaches that "all mainstream Christians fall into the world system know as the devil's church (or Satan's kingdom)."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)}}

Packham is simply wrong: The Book of Mormon does ''not'' say "a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous." Rather, the Lamanite curse was a ''specific'' curse against a ''specific'' people at a ''specific'' time, and nowhere indicates that it is a general curse applied across other times and peoples.

A close reading of the Book of Mormon shows that the Lamanite curse was one of separation from the blessings of God, and the mark itself was not the curse.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Curse
|subject=Lamanite curse
|summary=Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned. "Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon doctrine, the president of the Mormon church is a prophet of God, receiving revelations and commandments (God's laws) directly from God. Do you believe that? (Doctrine and Covenants , 21:5, 43:3, 58:18)}}

Sure, although we're at a loss to understand what relevance this religious question has to politics. Perhaps this is an attempt to imply that Mormon politicians are not going to take direction from their constituents? There are plenty of Mormon politicians in both of the major political parties—enough to easily disprove this assertion.

Here is the text of the scriptures quoted.

{{s||D&C|21|5}}
<blockquote>
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|43|3}}
<blockquote>
And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|58|18}}
<blockquote>
And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his acounselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the bprophets of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and politics/Church involvement
|subject=Church involvement
|summary=Why does the Church speak out on political matters? Church leaders encourage members to be active in politics and to exercise their right to vote. The Church does not, however, specify how members should vote or which political party they ought to belong to. Occasionally, however, the First Presidency issues a letter which is read over the pulpit urging members to act upon some political matter.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|One of the most sacred rituals for adult Mormons, performed only in a Mormon temple, is a ceremony called "the endowment." Have you undergone this ritual? If so, in what year?}}

This question is not controversial in and of itself; it's merely a setup for a later question on aspects of the temple endowment that changed after Romney received his own endowment.

Romney left to serve an LDS mission in France in July 1966. It has long been the practice to endow missionaries shortly before they leave for service, so it's likely that Romney received his temple endowment within a few weeks or months prior to this date.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment
|subject=Endowment
|summary=A number of criticisms are related to the Latter-day Saint Endowment ceremony. Latter-day Saints consider the ceremony to be sacred in nature. Note that as members of FAIR, we are fully committed to keeping our temple covenants, and we will not discuss certain details related to the ceremony. There are, however, criticisms that we can respond to. This set of articles addresses criticisms related to the Endowment.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|To be admitted to the temple for the endowment ceremony a Mormon must be "in good standing" in the church and undergo a personal interview with church leaders, who examine the member as to whether the member obeys church commandments, supports church leaders, pays full ten percent tithe, wears the prescribed Mormon underwear, abstains from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and extramarital sex, and other matters. If the member answers correctly, a pass to the temples (called a "temple recommend") is issued, good for two years. Do you have such a temple recommend now, indicating that you are in good standing in your church?}}

It is unclear as to why Packham believes the media would want to know of a Mormon politician's temple worthiness or consider it relevant to his or her campaign.

== ==
{{Claim|In the secret Mormon temple ceremony Mormons take an oath of obedience to "the law of the Lord." Did you take that oath?}}

Mormons do commit to obey God's law, similar to promises made by many observant non-Mormon Christians and Jews. Again, this question seems to imply that a Mormon politician may ignore his or her constituents in favor of Church leadership. Given the number of Mormon politicians that have held or currently hold an elected office, this assertion is absurd.

LDS scripture specifically states that those who obey the law of God do not need to disobey the law of the land:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.21-22?lang=eng#20 D&C 58:21-22]
:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
:22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet

== ==
{{Claim|Before 1990, the endowment ceremony required members to take an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything that happened in the temple under penalty of death. Did you take that oath?}}

This is a gross exaggeration. In the temple endowment, Latter-day Saints promise to not reveal a few, very specific aspects of the ceremony, not "anything that happened." The Church has published numerous explanations of the temple ceremony; open houses at newly-built temples take non-members through tours of the temple and explain what goes on in each room; and any endowed Latter-day Saint is free to discuss the endowment in general terms, as long as it is done with respect and reverence.

Readers should remember that Packham himself made these same promises, and now breaks them. (According to information on his website, Packham was endowed in 1952, while Romney was still a young child.)

Prior to April 1990, the temple endowment included "penalties," which were symbolic of the endowed person's personal commitment to not discuss these few aspects of the ceremony. They were not meant to be taken literally, and there is no credible evidence that any Latter-day Saint has ever been put to death for revealing or breaking his temple covenants.

The penalties symbolically expressed what one was willing to do ''rather than'' break covenants and promises to God. In a similar way, a man might say, "I would rather die than cheat on my wife." This does not mean that his wife has license to kill him if he cheats on her.

{{Main|Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Endowment penalties}}

== ==
{{Claim|In the temple ceremony Mormons also take a secret oath to [dedicate everything you have to God] Did you take that oath? Would you consider the office of the presidency of the U.S. to be a "blessing" with which the Lord had blessed you?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|subject=Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|summary=Critics claim that covenants that they make to consecrate all they they have to the Church implies that those who have been elected to political office must be subservient to the dictates of Church leaders rather than their constituents.
}}

*Note the use of the phrase "secret oath." One might reasonably wonder why Packham would use the adjective "secret" in this instance since, by his bringing up the oath, it seems like a modifier without meaning. (If Packham and others know about the oath, how secret is it, really?)

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man/Gods of their own planets
|subject=Gods of their own planets?
|summary=Critics claim that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Although your church presently condemns the practice of polygamy, the scripture commanding it is still in the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Many early Mormons were polygamous and married ("sealed") to numerous wives "for eternity." Do you believe then that there will be polygamous families in Mormon heaven?}}

Yes, but not exclusively and not compulsorily. Remember that many early Mormons were also non-polygamous. We believe that there will be families after this life, provided those families are sealed together as a unit during this life, and provided that those families were faithful and true to the promises they made with God.

*Note the pejorative use of the term "Mormon heaven." Given that Mr. Packham is an atheist, it is obvious that the use of this term is designed to appeal to evangelical Christians.

== ==
{{Claim|The extensive interest of Mormons in genealogical research is to enable them to perform "baptisms for the dead," thus posthumously inducting previous generations into the Mormon church. Many non-Mormons become angry when they learn that the names of their ancestors - having often been faithful members of some other religion during life - have been used in this way. often without permission of the living descendants. The posthumous baptism of many Holocaust victims caused considerable anger among Jewish groups, and your church agreed to stop the practice as to them (but admitted that it was unable to do so). Do you feel that such anger is justified? (Would you feel anger if some voodoo cult was using your deceased grandparents' names in some voodoo ritual, and then announcing to all the world that they were now voodoo worshippers?)}}

There are numerous problems here:
*No one is "posthumously inducted" into the LDS Church through [[Mormonism_and_temples/Baptism_for_the_dead|baptism for the dead]]. This rite merely makes the ordinance of baptism ''available'' to those who have died; the deceased individual still has to accept the gospel and the proxy baptism held in his or her behalf. No one is forced to accept the temple baptism in the next world. Again, either Packham knows this and is deliberately misleading his readers, or he is utterly ignorant about a basic aspect of LDS theology.
*It is an overstatement to claim that "many" non-Mormons are angry over the LDS practice of baptism for the dead. Some prominent Jewish groups have asked the Church not to perform proxy baptisms for victims of the Nazi Holocaust; after several attempts to respect this request, in 2012 the Church put [[Mormonism_and_temples/Work_for_Holocaust_victims|strong restrictions]] in place to prevent this. Other than this single example, there are no other organized groups who have asked the Church to do the same. There is no evidence that "many" people are "angry" about it. Packham is attempting to stir up anger--but is doing so by misrepresenting (through either malice or ignorance) LDS theology.
*Is anger at LDS proxy baptisms "justified"? Only if a non-Mormon believed that LDS baptism for the dead had any effect at all (in which case, why isn't he a Mormon?). If the Mormon faith is not correct—as many including Packham believe—then LDS proxy ordinances have no effect, and anger over them is nonsensical. If a Mormon does not believe that voodoo rituals have any effect, then voodoo use of his or her ancestors' names shouldn't be of any concern.

== ==
{{Claim|It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do you feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God? (See the book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Mormon historian Todd Compton for detailed biographies of these wives.)}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. It is likely that this was a method of binding believers together into one great family—interestingly, there is little evidence that these relationships were consummated.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule (Article of Faith number ten), presumably as a single theocracy. Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?}}

This seems to be a reference to the alleged "White Horse Prophecy." Unfortunately, the only accounts of the alleged prophecy were provided second-hand years after the Prophet's death, and cannot be corroborated with other contemporary sources. However, based upon the information that is extant, one can see that the prediction is that Latter-day Saints would ''support and uphold'' the government, not ''take over'' the government. It is absolutely clear that this is not a prophecy that is considered in any way true or binding on the membership of the Church. Those who would try to hold the Church to their interpretation of this so-called prophecy do so improperly and without any verifiable reason to do so.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Prophecies/White Horse prophecy
|subject=The "White Horse Prophecy"
|summary=Critics claim that the "White Horse" prophecy predicts the "transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy." Critics assert that the "White Horse" prophecy "continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers" because they believe that they will be "officers and administrators" during Christ's millennial reign.
}}

Once more, Packham misrepresents LDS doctrine through either ignorance or design. LDS doctrine teaches that many faiths (and none) will exist during Christ's millennial reign, that no one will be compelled in their belief, and that there will be no religious persecution:

* "In the millennium men will have the privilege of being Presbyterians, Methodists or Infidels, but they will not have the privilege of treating the name and character of Deity as they have done heretofore." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=12|pages=274|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/12/53}}

* "In those days, the Methodists and Presbyterians, headed by their priests, will not be allowed to form into a mob to drive, kill, and rob the Latter-day Saints; neither will the Latter-day Saints be allowed to rise up and say, "We will kill you Methodists, Presbyterians, &c.," neither will any of the different sects of Christendom be allowed to persecute each other." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=2|pages=316|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/2/47}}

* "Not long hence and the voice of the people shall be obeyed, and the true gospel of peace shall dominate the hearts of the mighty. It will then be impossible for war lords to have power over the life and death of millions of men as they now have, to decree the ruin of commerce, industry, and growing fields, or to cause untold mental agony and human misery like plague and pestilence to prevail over the nations....the self-constituted monarchs must give way to rulers chosen by the people, who shall be guided by the doctrines of love and peace as taught in the gospel of our Lord. There will then be instituted a new social order in which the welfare of all shall be uppermost, and all shall be permitted to live in the utmost liberty and happiness." - {{IE|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=17|num=11|date=September 1914|pages=1074}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief
|subject=Joseph Smith: Status in LDS belief
|summary=Do members worship Joseph Smith or treat him as more than a man? Critics charge that since Joseph claimed (or it was claimed in his behalf) the right to "approve whether or not someone gets into heaven," this arrogates to a mortal a right properly reserved for God and Jesus Christ. Some critics have even charged that "Mormons worship Joseph Smith."
}}

* As an atheist, it's unlikely that Packham believes that all of the above religious figures have done ''anything'' for the salvation of mankind. He is again attempting to exploit religious believers' faith for his own purposes.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|js.1}} {{HC1|vol=5|start=517}}
[[fr:Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney]]

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T19:40:32Z

CassandraHedelius: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=Questions For Mitt Romney (Complied by Richard Packham)
|author=Richard Packham
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes=
}}
{{CriticalWorkInfobox
|title= Questions For Mitt Romney
|type=E-mail and web posting (The item is labeled: "COPYRIGHT: This material is not copyrighted in the hope that it will receive wide distribution in any form")
|author=Richard Packham
|affiliation=Atheist former member of the Church; Founder of Exmormon Foundation.
|accuracy=Virtually every item either subtly or overtly distorts LDS belief and teachings
|templecontent=None, though Packham has elsewhere discussed temple matters in great detail.
}}

==Summary==
{{NoPolitics}}
In 2008, during Mitt Romney's run for the presidential nomination, Richard Packham, an ex-Mormon and atheist, compiled a list of questions for the media that were designed to turn evangelical Christians against a Mormon political candidate. In 2012, this list was resurrected in an attempt to gain media interest. The following was posted by Richard Packham on an ex-Mormon message board on April 12, 2012.
<blockquote>
'''Journalistic scrutiny of TSCC [The So-Called Church] intensifies'''

...In a way it is very frustrating, because few of these non-Mormon journalists know enough to ask the right questions (even the one from Utah!), and - as we saw in the BBC and Al-Jazeera shows - to know when they are being lied to or deceived. On the other hand, it is gratifying to be able to open the eyes of these journalists to everything the church wants to keep hidden.

And I am hoping that as November approaches the whole world will know all they need to know about Mormonism.

It is a time when we all can make a difference: the Mormons are mobilizing their troops to flood news stories with favorable comments, trying to rebut anything negative in the reports. We need to make sure OUR voices are heard there, too.

Please do what you can! Message posted by Richard Packham on the ''Recovery from Mormonism'' message board, April 12, 2012 07:05PM
</blockquote>

===Sources used===
* None included. The argument is by assertion only.

=={{Conclusion label}}==
The list of questions is predominantly oriented toward biasing evangelical Christians against a Mormon candidate. Coming from an atheist, this is particularly ironic and indicates that the purpose is simply to harm the Church in the public eye. It is highly unlikely that such religious-based questions will gain much traction from the mainstream media. One commenter notes,
<blockquote>
University of Utah political-science professor Matthew Burbank also doubts anti-Mormon lines of enquiry will tangle up the GOP candidate. Burbank likens church critics assailing Romney to the “birther” movement that tried to discredit Obama’s candidacy in the 2008 election by suggesting he was born in Africa instead of the United States. Burbank doesn’t see the religious-obedience question resonating with the general public the way financial or sex scandals do. “It’s unlikely at the campaign level that that’s going to be a big issue,” Burbank says. Eric S. Peterson, [http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-77-15770-the-anti-mormon-moment.html The Anti-Mormon Moment LDS Critics Capitalize On Romney's GOP Nom], ''City Weekly'', April 18, 2012.
</blockquote>

==FAIR's evaluation of the "Questions For Mitt Romney"==

Quotations from Packham's list are in the blue boxes below. (All language is as in the original, except where LDS temple language has been removed. FAIR will not discuss temple specifics in a public forum.) FAIR's commentary and links for further reading are included below each section.

FAIR does not, of course, speak for Governor Romney. FAIR does not endorse or oppose any political candidate for any office. Our concern here is only with correcting misapprehensions or distortions about LDS belief and practice.
== ==
{{Claim|News reports say that Governor Romney, looking ahead to the possibility of presenting himself as a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, is meeting privately with Christian leaders to allay their concerns about the fact that he is a Mormon. (See Boston Globe, Nov 2, 2006 at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/02/romney_consults_evangelical_leaders) These leaders apparently are concentrating on areas such as Romney's view of gay marriage, abortion, and whether Romney is really a Christian. Undoubtedly Romney's answers in those areas will satisfy most of these Christian leaders. 

However, not knowing much about Mormon doctrine and practices, most Christians are unaware of some of the areas in which the idea of a Mormon as president would raise serious doubts in their minds. They simply don't know what to ask the governor. 

Below are some suggested questions which should be asked of Governor Romney, both by Christian leaders and by journalists.}}

It is ironic that Packham, an atheist, is instructing Christians about what should concern them. The list is a clear effort to alienate Christian voters from a Mormon candidate by distorting LDS theology.

Readers should remember that Packham does not share Christians' concerns, beliefs, or theology—he just wants to use them to potentially embarrass Romney and his faith.

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture, the founder of your church (Joseph Smith) was told by God in 1820 that all the churches of the day were "an abomination." Do you agree with God's view of other churches, as quoted by Joseph Smith? (Pearl of Great Price, {{s||JS-H|1|18-19}})}}

This is a standard anti-Mormon claim, and it is false. Joseph Smith did not say that "all the churches of the day" were "an abomination."

What Joseph reported that God said was that the false ''creeds'' taught were an abomination. False beliefs keep people from approaching God more fully. Joseph Smith praised the true beliefs of other Christian groups: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'."{{ref|js.1}}

This attitude probably matches those of most Christian denominations: each tradition believes that it is the 'best' approach to Christian truth, but does not deny that other branches of Christianity contain truths and things of value. (Almost all Christians, for example, share the LDS belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine son of God born in the flesh.)

Church leaders have also taught that members of other faiths are [[Mormonism_and_culture/Attitude_toward_non-members|also instruments for the accomplishment of God's purposes]].

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Were all the churches of the day claimed to be "an abomination"
|subject=Was Joseph Smith told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination?"
|summary=Some critics claim that Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision that he was told that "all the churches of the day were an abomination."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?}}

Yes.

The Eighth Article of Faith:
<blockquote>
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the Bible/Basics
|subject=The Bible as part of Latter-day Saint canon
|summary=Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture.
}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Basics
|subject=Book of Mormon basics
|summary=What is the Book of Mormon? This article orients new readers to the nature and content of this volume of scripture.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon there are only two churches: the "church of the Lamb of God [presumably the Mormon church]" and the "church of the devil," "the whore of all the earth." Do you agree with that Mormon scripture? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)}}

Packham's "presumption" is false. There are members of "the church of the Lamb of God" outside the Church, and there are members of the "church of the devil" within the Church. He is here displaying either his ignorance of LDS teaching, or his willingness to mislead his readers.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Great and abominable church
|subject=Great and abominable church
|summary=What is the "great and abominable church" referred to in the Book of Mormon? Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptural terms "church of the devil," the "great and abominable church," and the "whore of all the earth" refer to a specific denomination. Critics claim that the Book of Mormon teaches that "all mainstream Christians fall into the world system know as the devil's church (or Satan's kingdom)."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)}}

Packham is simply wrong: The Book of Mormon does ''not'' say "a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous." Rather, the Lamanite curse was a ''specific'' curse against a ''specific'' people at a ''specific'' time, and nowhere indicates that it is a general curse applied across other times and peoples.

A close reading of the Book of Mormon shows that the Lamanite curse was one of separation from the blessings of God, and the mark itself was not the curse.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Curse
|subject=Lamanite curse
|summary=Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned. "Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon doctrine, the president of the Mormon church is a prophet of God, receiving revelations and commandments (God's laws) directly from God. Do you believe that? (Doctrine and Covenants , 21:5, 43:3, 58:18)}}

Sure, although we're at a loss to understand what relevance this religious question has to politics. Perhaps this is an attempt to imply that Mormon politicians are not going to take direction from their constituents? There are plenty of Mormon politicians in both of the major political parties—enough to easily disprove this assertion.

Here is the text of the scriptures quoted.

{{s||D&C|21|5}}
<blockquote>
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|43|3}}
<blockquote>
And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.
</blockquote>

{{s||D&C|58|18}}
<blockquote>
And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his acounselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the bprophets of God.
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and politics/Church involvement
|subject=Church involvement
|summary=Why does the Church speak out on political matters? Church leaders encourage members to be active in politics and to exercise their right to vote. The Church does not, however, specify how members should vote or which political party they ought to belong to. Occasionally, however, the First Presidency issues a letter which is read over the pulpit urging members to act upon some political matter.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|One of the most sacred rituals for adult Mormons, performed only in a Mormon temple, is a ceremony called "the endowment." Have you undergone this ritual? If so, in what year?}}

This question is not controversial in and of itself; it's merely a setup for a later question on aspects of the temple endowment that changed after Romney received his own endowment.

Romney left to serve an LDS mission in France in July 1966. It has long been the practice to endow missionaries shortly before they leave for service, so it's likely that Romney received his temple endowment within a few weeks or months prior to this date.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment
|subject=Endowment
|summary=A number of criticisms are related to the Latter-day Saint Endowment ceremony. Latter-day Saints consider the ceremony to be sacred in nature. Note that as members of FAIR, we are fully committed to keeping our temple covenants, and we will not discuss certain details related to the ceremony. There are, however, criticisms that we can respond to. This set of articles addresses criticisms related to the Endowment.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|To be admitted to the temple for the endowment ceremony a Mormon must be "in good standing" in the church and undergo a personal interview with church leaders, who examine the member as to whether the member obeys church commandments, supports church leaders, pays full ten percent tithe, wears the prescribed Mormon underwear, abstains from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and extramarital sex, and other matters. If the member answers correctly, a pass to the temples (called a "temple recommend") is issued, good for two years. Do you have such a temple recommend now, indicating that you are in good standing in your church?}}

It is unclear as to why Packham believes the media would want to know of a Mormon politician's temple worthiness or consider it relevant to his or her campaign.

== ==
{{Claim|In the secret Mormon temple ceremony Mormons take an oath of obedience to "the law of the Lord." Did you take that oath?}}

Mormons do commit to obey God's law, similar to promises made by many observant non-Mormon Christians and Jews. Again, this question seems to imply that a Mormon politician may ignore his or her constituents in favor of Church leadership. Given the number of Mormon politicians that have held or currently hold an elected office, this assertion is absurd.

LDS scripture specifically states that those who obey the law of God do not need to disobey the law of the land:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.21-22?lang=eng#20 D&C 58:21-22]
:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
:22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet

== ==
{{Claim|Before 1990, the endowment ceremony required members to take an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything that happened in the temple under penalty of death. Did you take that oath?}}

This is a gross exaggeration. In the temple endowment, Latter-day Saints promise to not reveal a few, very specific aspects of the ceremony, not "anything that happened." The Church has published numerous explanations of the temple ceremony; open houses at newly-built temples take non-members through tours of the temple and explain what goes on in each room; and any endowed Latter-day Saint is free to discuss the endowment in general terms, as long as it is done with respect and reverence.

Readers should remember that Packham himself made these same promises, and now breaks them. (According to information on his website, Packham was endowed in 1952, while Romney was still a young child.)

Prior to April 1990, the temple endowment included "penalties," which were symbolic of the endowed person's personal commitment to not discuss these few aspects of the ceremony. They were not meant to be taken literally, and there is no credible evidence that any Latter-day Saint has ever been put to death for revealing or breaking his temple covenants.

The penalties symbolically expressed what one was willing to do ''rather than'' break covenants and promises to God. In a similar way, a man might say, "I would rather die than cheat on my wife." This does not mean that his wife has license to kill him if he cheats on her.

{{Main|Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Penalties|l1=Endowment penalties}}

== ==
{{Claim|In the temple ceremony Mormons also take a secret oath to [dedicate everything you have to God] Did you take that oath? Would you consider the office of the presidency of the U.S. to be a "blessing" with which the Lord had blessed you?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|subject=Consecration of time and talents to the Church
|summary=Critics claim that covenants that they make to consecrate all they they have to the Church implies that those who have been elected to political office must be subservient to the dictates of Church leaders rather than their constituents.
}}

*Note the use of the phrase "secret oath." One might reasonably wonder why Packham would use the adjective "secret" in this instance since, by his bringing up the oath, it seems like a modifier without meaning. (If Packham and others know about the oath, how secret is it, really?)

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man/Gods of their own planets
|subject=Gods of their own planets?
|summary=Critics claim that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe."
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Although your church presently condemns the practice of polygamy, the scripture commanding it is still in the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Many early Mormons were polygamous and married ("sealed") to numerous wives "for eternity." Do you believe then that there will be polygamous families in Mormon heaven?}}

Yes, but not exclusively and not compulsorily. Remember that many early Mormons were also non-polygamous. We believe that there will be families after this life, provided those families are sealed together as a unit during this life, and provided that those families were faithful and true to the promises they made with God.

*Note the pejorative use of the term "Mormon heaven." Given that Mr. Packham is an atheist, it is obvious that the use of this term is designed to appeal to evangelical Christians.

== ==
{{Claim|The extensive interest of Mormons in genealogical research is to enable them to perform "baptisms for the dead," thus posthumously inducting previous generations into the Mormon church. Many non-Mormons become angry when they learn that the names of their ancestors - having often been faithful members of some other religion during life - have been used in this way. often without permission of the living descendants. The posthumous baptism of many Holocaust victims caused considerable anger among Jewish groups, and your church agreed to stop the practice as to them (but admitted that it was unable to do so). Do you feel that such anger is justified? (Would you feel anger if some voodoo cult was using your deceased grandparents' names in some voodoo ritual, and then announcing to all the world that they were now voodoo worshippers?)}}

There are numerous problems here:
*No one is "posthumously inducted" into the LDS Church through [[Mormonism_and_temples/Baptism_for_the_dead|baptism for the dead]]. This rite merely makes the ordinance of baptism ''available'' to those who have died; the deceased individual still has to accept the gospel and the proxy baptism held in his or her behalf. No one is forced to accept the temple baptism in the next world. Again, either Packham knows this and is deliberately misleading his readers, or he is utterly ignorant about a basic aspect of LDS theology.
*It is an overstatement to claim that "many" non-Mormons are angry over the LDS practice of baptism for the dead. Some prominent Jewish groups have asked the Church not to perform proxy baptisms for victims of the Nazi Holocaust; after several attempts to respect this request, in 2012 the Church put [[Mormonism_and_temples/Work_for_Holocaust_victims|strong restrictions]] in place to prevent this. Other than this single example, there are no other organized groups who have asked the Church to do the same. There is no evidence that "many" people are "angry" about it. Packham is attempting to stir up anger--but is doing so by misrepresenting (through either malice or ignorance) LDS theology.
*Is anger at LDS proxy baptisms "justified"? Only if a non-Mormon believed that LDS baptism for the dead had any effect at all (in which case, why isn't he a Mormon?). If the Mormon faith is not correct—as many including Packham believe—then LDS proxy ordinances have no effect, and anger over them is nonsensical. If a Mormon does not believe that voodoo rituals have any effect, then voodoo use of his or her ancestors' names shouldn't be of any concern.

== ==
{{Claim|It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do you feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God? (See the book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Mormon historian Todd Compton for detailed biographies of these wives.)}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. It is likely that this was a method of binding believers together into one great family—interestingly, there is little evidence that these relationships were consummated.
}}

== ==
{{Claim|Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule (Article of Faith number ten), presumably as a single theocracy. Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?}}

This seems to be a reference to the alleged "White Horse Prophecy." Unfortunately, the only accounts of the alleged prophecy were provided second-hand years after the Prophet's death, and cannot be corroborated with other contemporary sources. However, based upon the information that is extant, one can see that the prediction is that Latter-day Saints would ''support and uphold'' the government, not ''take over'' the government. It is absolutely clear that this is not a prophecy that is considered in any way true or binding on the membership of the Church. Those who would try to hold the Church to their interpretation of this so-called prophecy do so improperly and without any verifiable reason to do so.

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Prophecies/White Horse prophecy
|subject=The "White Horse Prophecy"
|summary=Critics claim that the "White Horse" prophecy predicts the "transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy." Critics assert that the "White Horse" prophecy "continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers" because they believe that they will be "officers and administrators" during Christ's millennial reign.
}}

Once more, Packham misrepresents LDS doctrine through either ignorance or design. LDS doctrine teaches that many faiths (and none) will exist during Christ's millennial reign, that no one will be compelled in their belief, and that there will be no religious persecution:

* "In the millennium men will have the privilege of being Presbyterians, Methodists or Infidels, but they will not have the privilege of treating the name and character of Deity as they have done heretofore." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=12|pages=274|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/12/53}}

* "In those days, the Methodists and Presbyterians, headed by their priests, will not be allowed to form into a mob to drive, kill, and rob the Latter-day Saints; neither will the Latter-day Saints be allowed to rise up and say, "We will kill you Methodists, Presbyterians, &c.," neither will any of the different sects of Christendom be allowed to persecute each other." - {{JDwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=2|pages=316|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/2/47}}

* "Not long hence and the voice of the people shall be obeyed, and the true gospel of peace shall dominate the hearts of the mighty. It will then be impossible for war lords to have power over the life and death of millions of men as they now have, to decree the ruin of commerce, industry, and growing fields, or to cause untold mental agony and human misery like plague and pestilence to prevail over the nations....the self-constituted monarchs must give way to rulers chosen by the people, who shall be guided by the doctrines of love and peace as taught in the gospel of our Lord. There will then be instituted a new social order in which the welfare of all shall be uppermost, and all shall be permitted to live in the utmost liberty and happiness." - {{IE|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=17|num=11|date=September 1914|pages=1074}}

== ==
{{Claim|According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief
|subject=Joseph Smith: Status in LDS belief
|summary=Do members worship Joseph Smith or treat him as more than a man? Critics charge that since Joseph claimed (or it was claimed in his behalf) the right to "approve whether or not someone gets into heaven," this arrogates to a mortal a right properly reserved for God and Jesus Christ. Some critics have even charged that "Mormons worship Joseph Smith."
}}

* As an atheist, it's unlikely that Packham believes that all of the above religious figures have done ''anything'' for the salvation of mankind. He is again attempting to exploit religious believers' faith for his own purposes.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|js.1}} {{HC1|vol=5|start=517}}
[[fr:Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney]]

Question: Is it impossible to receive salvation because no one can keep the commandments continually?

2011-07-24T21:00:55Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Did President Ezra Taft Benson's General Conference address, "Beware of Pride," plagiarize from C.S. Lewis' chapter on pride in Mere Christianity?

2011-05-23T04:32:28Z

CassandraHedelius: Created page with "{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header ..."

FAIR Study Aids/Seminary/Old Testament

2011-05-17T21:10:48Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Could Lehi's group have made a transoceanic crossing as described in the Book of Mormon?

2011-05-03T12:52:02Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Could Lehi's group have made a transoceanic crossing as described in the Book of Mormon?

2011-04-21T22:16:45Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Could Lehi's group have made a transoceanic crossing as described in the Book of Mormon?

2011-04-21T22:10:32Z

Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?

2011-04-04T17:38:58Z

CassandraHedelius: /* LDS church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction */

Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?

2011-04-04T17:36:29Z

CassandraHedelius: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?

2011-04-04T04:42:18Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?

2011-04-04T03:49:50Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the History of Mexico to produce the Book of Ether?

2011-04-04T02:57:27Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the History of Mexico to produce the Book of Ether?

2011-03-31T17:27:28Z

CassandraHedelius:

Topical Guide/Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations

2011-03-31T17:24:53Z

CassandraHedelius:

Topical Guide/Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations

2011-03-31T17:23:54Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the History of Mexico to produce the Book of Ether?

2011-03-31T04:23:07Z

CassandraHedelius:

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the History of Mexico to produce the Book of Ether?

2011-03-31T04:21:35Z

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-31T03:26:10Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Bancroft */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time.

There is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. LDS Church leadership does not typically dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University.

There are reports that some bishops counseled members struggling with same-sex attraction to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel members of their congregations who are struggling with these or similar problems to undergo standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what he feels is best for the members of his ward. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

We reiterate that the Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the points mentioned by Elder Oaks above.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and their help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be correctly evaluated.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. It is likely that this was because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation, there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Aversion therapy at other universities ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431.
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
University of Vermont
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
?
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
?
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study wanted help to change their sexual orientation and contemporary medical associations recommended this therapy. This was the basis for the research program undertaken at BYU. If it had been known that aversion therapy could be harmful, it would obviously never have been administered.

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

Given the negative consequences reported by some as a result of these therapies, we might wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that could have been done. The church does not make it a practice to direct or oversee scientific research at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments, since they were conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and were only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. The Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-29T18:49:19Z

CassandraHedelius: /* McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time.

There is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. LDS Church leadership does not typically dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University.

There are reports that some bishops counseled members struggling with same-sex attraction to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel members of their congregations who are struggling with these or similar problems to undergo standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what he feels is best for the members of his ward. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

We reiterate that the Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the points mentioned by Elder Oaks above.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and their help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be correctly evaluated.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. It is likely that this was because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation, there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Aversion therapy at other universities ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341. This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
University of Vermont
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
?
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
?
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study wanted help to change their sexual orientation and contemporary medical associations recommended this therapy. This was the basis for the research program undertaken at BYU. If it had been known that aversion therapy could be harmful, it would obviously never have been administered.

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

Given the negative consequences reported by some as a result of these therapies, we might wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that could have been done. The church does not make it a practice to direct or oversee scientific research at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments, since they were conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-29T18:48:54Z

CassandraHedelius: /* McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time.

There is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. LDS Church leadership does not typically dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University.

There are reports that some bishops counseled members struggling with same-sex attraction to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel members of their congregations who are struggling with these or similar problems to undergo standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what he feels is best for the members of his ward. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

We reiterate that the Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the points mentioned by Elder Oaks above.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and their help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be correctly evaluated.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. It is likely that this was because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation, there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Aversion therapy at other universities ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341. This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
University of Vermont
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
?
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
?
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study wanted help to change their sexual orientation and contemporary medical associations recommended this therapy. This was the basis for the research program undertaken at BYU. If it had been known that aversion therapy could be harmful, it would obviously never have been administered.

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

Given the negative consequences reported by some as a result of these therapies, we might wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that could have been done. The church does not make it a practice to direct or oversee scientific research at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments, since they were conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-29T18:42:41Z

CassandraHedelius: /* McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time.

There is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. LDS Church leadership does not typically dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University.

There are reports that some bishops counseled members struggling with same-sex attraction to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel members of their congregations who are struggling with these or similar problems to undergo standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what he feels is best for the members of his ward. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

We reiterate that the Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the points mentioned by Elder Oaks above.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and their help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be correctly evaluated.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. It is likely that this was because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation, there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Aversion therapy at other universities ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341. This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], "Archives of Sexual Behavior" Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
University of Vermont
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
?
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
?
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study wanted help to change their sexual orientation and contemporary medical associations recommended this therapy. This was the basis for the research program undertaken at BYU. If it had been known that aversion therapy could be harmful, it would obviously never have been administered.

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

Given the negative consequences reported by some as a result of these therapies, we might wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that could have been done. The church does not make it a practice to direct or oversee scientific research at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments, since they were conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-29T18:32:38Z

CassandraHedelius: /* McConaghy & Barr */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time.

There is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. LDS Church leadership does not typically dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University.

There are reports that some bishops counseled members struggling with same-sex attraction to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel members of their congregations who are struggling with these or similar problems to undergo standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what he feels is best for the members of his ward. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

We reiterate that the Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the points mentioned by Elder Oaks above.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and their help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be correctly evaluated.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. It is likely that this was because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation, there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Aversion therapy at other universities ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341. This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
University of Vermont
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
?
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
?
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study wanted help to change their sexual orientation and contemporary medical associations recommended this therapy. This was the basis for the research program undertaken at BYU. If it had been known that aversion therapy could be harmful, it would obviously never have been administered.

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

Given the negative consequences reported by some as a result of these therapies, we might wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that could have been done. The church does not make it a practice to direct or oversee scientific research at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments, since they were conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T16:56:46Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

The Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!Notes
|-
|Fookes||1960||27||?||aversion shock therapy||British Journal of Psychiatry||[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]
|-
|Freund||1960||67||University of Toronto||aversion apomorphine therapy||{{ref|toronto1}}
|-
|James||1962||1||Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)||Aversion apomorphine therapy||British Medical Journal||This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male. It was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|glenside1}}
|-
|MacCulloch, Pinshoff & Feldman||1965||4||?||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||||
|-
|Solyom & Miller||1965||6||Allan Memorial Institute||aversion shock therapy|| ||{{ref|allan1}}
|-
|MacCulloch & Feldman||1967||43||Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||British Medical Journal||This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects. The study was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|crumpsall1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1969||40||The University of New South Wales||aversion apomorphine therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||{{ref|sciencedirect1}}
|-
|Bancroft||1969||16||?||aversive shock therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.{{ref|royal.college1}}
|-
|Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler||1971||18||Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago||Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning||Archives of General Psychiatry|| This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.{{ref|harvard.chicago1}}||
|-
|Colson||1972||1||Illinois State University||Olfactory aversion therapy||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.{{ref|illinoisstate1}}
|-
|Hallam & Rachman||1972||7||King's College, London||aversion shock therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||{{ref|kings1}}
|-
|Hanson & Adesso||1972||1||University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee||Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. {{ref|wisconsin1}}
|-
|McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr||1972||40||Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)||apomorphine aversion conditioning||Archives of Sexual Behavior||This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|Callahan & Leitenberg||1973||23||University of Vermont||aversion shock therapy||The Journal of Abnormal Psychology||This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.{{ref|univofvermont1}}
|-
|McConaghy & Barr||1973||46||?||Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning||
|-
|Tanner||1974||16||Center for Behavior Change||aversion shock therapy||Concluded that it aversion therapy was safe. {{ref|behaviorchange1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1975||31||University of New South Wales||aversion shock therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.{{ref|newsouthwales1}}
|-
|Tanner||1975||16||Northeast Guidance Center||aversion shock therapy||{{ref|northeast1}}
|-
|Freeman & Meyer||1975||9||University of Louisville||aversion shock therapy||||{{ref|louisville1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1976||157||?||aversion apomorphine therapy||
|-
|James||1978||40||?||Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance||
|-
|McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski||1981||20||?||aversive therapy||
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''
#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156
#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007
#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994
#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
#{{note|sciencedirect1}}[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723] {{nw}}
#{{note|harvard.chicago1}}Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323.
#{{note|royal.college1}}JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341.
#{{note|univofvermont1}}Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."]
#{{note|glasgow1}}R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
#{{note|illinoisstate1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717]
#{{note|louisville1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420] {{nw}}
#{{note|glenside1}}BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768.
#{{note|toronto1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm] {{nw}}
#{{note|kings1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111] {{nw}}
#{{note|wisconsin1}}Richard W. Hansonb, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325
#{{note|crumpsall1}}M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597.
#{{note|allan1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|newsouthwales1}}N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319
#{{note|northeast1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870] {{nw}}
#{{note|behaviorchange1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542] {{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T15:04:05Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T15:01:38Z

CassandraHedelius: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

The Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!Notes
|-
|Fookes||1960||27||?||aversion shock therapy||British Journal of Psychiatry||[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]
|-
|Freund||1960||67||University of Toronto||aversion apomorphine therapy||{{ref|toronto1}}
|-
|James||1962||1||Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)||Aversion apomorphine therapy||British Medical Journal||This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male. It was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|glenside1}}
|-
|MacCulloch, Pinshoff & Feldman||1965||4||?||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||||
|-
|Solyom & Miller||1965||6||Allan Memorial Institute||aversion shock therapy|| ||{{ref|allan1}}
|-
|MacCulloch & Feldman||1967||43||Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||British Medical Journal||This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects. The study was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|crumpsall1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1969||40||The University of New South Wales||aversion apomorphine therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||{{ref|sciencedirect1}}
|-
|Bancroft||1969||16||?||aversive shock therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.{{ref|royal.college1}}
|-
|Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler||1971||18||Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago||Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning||Archives of General Psychiatry|| This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.{{ref|harvard.chicago1}}||
|-
|Colson||1972||1||Illinois State University||Olfactory aversion therapy||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.{{ref|illinoisstate1}}
|-
|Hallam & Rachman||1972||7||King's College, London||aversion shock therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||{{ref|kings1}}
|-
|Hanson & Adesso||1972||1||University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee||Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. {{ref|wisconsin1}}
|-
|Callahan & Leitenberg||1973||23||University of Vermont||aversion shock therapy||The Journal of Abnormal Psychology||This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.{{ref|univofvermont1}}
|-
|McConaghy & Barr||1973||46||?||Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning||
|-
|Tanner||1974||16||Center for Behavior Change||aversion shock therapy||Concluded that it aversion therapy was safe. {{ref|behaviorchange1}}
|-
|McConaghy, Proctor & Barr||1975||40||University of New South Wales||aversion apomorphine therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a||
|-
|Tanner||1975||16||Northeast Guidance Center||aversion shock therapy||{{ref|northeast1}}
|-
|Freeman & Meyer||1975||9||University of Louisville||aversion shock therapy||||{{ref|louisville1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1976||157||?||aversion apomorphine therapy||
|-
|James||1978||40||?||Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance||
|-
|McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski||1981||20||?||aversive therapy||
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''
#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156
#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007
#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994
#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
#{{note|sciencedirect1}}[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723] {{nw}}
#{{note|harvard.chicago1}}Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323.
#{{note|royal.college1}}JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341.
#{{note|univofvermont1}}Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."]
#{{note|glasgow1}}R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
#{{note|illinoisstate1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717]
#{{note|louisville1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420] {{nw}}
#{{note|glenside1}}BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768.
#{{note|toronto1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm] {{nw}}
#{{note|kings1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111] {{nw}}
#{{note|wisconsin1}}Richard W. Hansonb, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325
#{{note|crumpsall1}}M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597.
#{{note|allan1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|newsouthwales1}}N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319
#{{note|northeast1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870] {{nw}}
#{{note|behaviorchange1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542] {{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T14:55:17Z

CassandraHedelius: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"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."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

The Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of 17 male participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

: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.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!Notes
|-
|Fookes||1960||27||?||aversion shock therapy||British Journal of Psychiatry||[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]
|-
|Freund||1960||67||University of Toronto||aversion apomorphine therapy||{{ref|toronto1}}
|-
|James||1962||1||Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)||Aversion apomorphine therapy||British Medical Journal||This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male. It was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|glenside1}}
|-
|MacCulloch, Pinshoff & Feldman||1965||4||?||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||||
|-
|Solyom & Miller||1965||6||Allan Memorial Institute||aversion shock therapy|| ||{{ref|allan1}}
|-
|MacCulloch & Feldman||1967||43||Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)||Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy||British Medical Journal||This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects. The study was published in the British Medical Journal.{{ref|crumpsall1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1969||40||The University of New South Wales||aversion apomorphine therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||{{ref|sciencedirect1}}
|-
|Bancroft||1969||16||?||aversive shock therapy||The British Journal of Psychiatry||This British study was published in 1969. It involved ten test subjects and follow-up studies from one to three years. The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.{{ref|royal.college1}}
|-
|Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler||1971||18||Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago||Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning||Archives of General Psychiatry|| This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.{{ref|harvard.chicago1}}||
|-
|Colson||1972||1||Illinois State University||Olfactory aversion therapy||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.{{ref|illinoisstate1}}
|-
|Hallam & Rachman||1972||7||King's College, London||aversion shock therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||{{ref|kings1}}
|-
|Hanson & Adesso||1972||1||University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee||Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning||Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry||This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. {{ref|wisconsin1}}
|-
|Callahan & Leitenberg||1973||23||University of Vermont||aversion shock therapy||The Journal of Abnormal Psychology||This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.{{ref|univofvermont1}}
|-
|McConaghy & Barr||1973||46||?||Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning||
|-
|Tanner||1974||16||Center for Behavior Change||aversion shock therapy||Concluded that it aversion therapy was safe. {{ref|behaviorchange1}}
|-
|McConaghy, Proctor & Barr||1975||40||University of New South Wales||aversion apomorphine therapy||Behaviour Research and Therapy||This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a||
|-
|Tanner||1975||16||Northeast Guidance Center||aversion shock therapy||{{ref|northeast1}}
|-
|Freeman & Meyer||1975||9||University of Louisville||aversion shock therapy||||{{ref|louisville1}}
|-
|McConaghy||1976||157||?||aversion apomorphine therapy||
|-
|James||1978||40||?||Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance||
|-
|McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski||1981||20||?||aversive therapy||
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could lose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''
#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156
#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007
#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994
#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
#{{note|sciencedirect1}}[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723] {{nw}}
#{{note|harvard.chicago1}}Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323.
#{{note|royal.college1}}JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431. ; B. H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] The British Journal of Psychiatry (1969) 115: 339-341.
#{{note|univofvermont1}}Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."]
#{{note|glasgow1}}R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
#{{note|illinoisstate1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717]
#{{note|louisville1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420] {{nw}}
#{{note|glenside1}}BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768.
#{{note|toronto1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm] {{nw}}
#{{note|kings1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111] {{nw}}
#{{note|wisconsin1}}Richard W. Hansonb, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325
#{{note|crumpsall1}}M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597.
#{{note|allan1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|newsouthwales1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|northeast1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870] {{nw}}
#{{note|behaviorchange1}}[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542] {{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T14:52:26Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-26T14:43:20Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T20:25:55Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T19:59:39Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Academic freedom at BYU */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T04:56:06Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T04:40:41Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T04:10:08Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T03:51:54Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T03:47:29Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T02:32:09Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-25T02:18:02Z

CassandraHedelius: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */