Gay Electroshock- and Vomit-Aversion Therapy at BYU

[Guest]

Truly insignificant to those except they who were victims.

Okay subgenius, let's run some numbers. Let's figure out what it cost the Church in the one single case with which I am most familiar.

We can start with one insignificant homosexual individual (who, since he is gay, is obviously if little consequence in your scheme of things). But rather than talk about mere humans, or tearing apart families, or any of that inconsequential stuff, let's focus on what really seems to matter to the LDS Church- what the members hear about as much as any other subject, and more than most - money (in the form of tithing).

Here is a quick calculation to illustrate what driving one inconsequential gay individual out of the Church ended up costing the Church in tithing and contributions.

This gay individual left the Church, as did his father and the three brothers in the family: total combined salary + tithed capital gains= well north of $2 million per year.

Tithing and contributions lost to the LDS Church were more than $220,000 per year. Multiply this times a very conservative 30 year work life and it comes to something like 6.6 million dollars.

This is due to the loss of a single upper middle class gay individual and the consequent loss of his entire family including all parents, siblings, sibling spouses, and grandchildren. This is not theoretical. This is actual.

Next time you talk to your Stake President or Area Representative, why don't you tell him you stand ready to make a donation to the Church of 6.6 million dollars. See if his reaction seems appropriate for "inconsequential".

You really should read what you write before you post it. As I have in the past with some of DCP's comments, yours on this thread is one that I will be forwarding to certain doubting Mormons that I know, including some in my own family. Some of them have been quite effective in helping these folks see Mormonism for what it really is.

Well done.

[_Don]

Thanks, I don't have time now, but I saved the articles and I'm looking forward to reading them. This subject is especially interesting to my wife so you should assume her 'thanks' in advance.

/

...The Church did nothing wrong! All is well! All is well!

Wow, who are you trying to convince?

[_DrW]

Thanks, I don't have time now, but I saved the articles and I'm looking forward to reading them. This subject is especially interesting to my wife so you should assume her 'thanks' in advance.

...The Church did nothing wrong! All is well! All is well!

A little sarcasm, perhaps?

Wow, who are you trying to convince?

A little sarcasm, perhaps?

[_Don]

Thanks, I don't have time now, but I saved the articles and I'm looking forward to reading them. This subject is especially interesting to my wife so you should assume her 'thanks' in advance.

...The Church did nothing wrong! All is well! All is well!

A little sarcasm, perhaps?

Wow, who are you trying to convince?

A little sarcasm, perhaps?

There should be a sarcasm font.

[_harmony]

Yes, but did anyone FORCE them to go to BYU?

Did anyone FORCE them to go to college at all?

Did anyone FORCE them to be LDS?

These people FREELY CHOSE to enter an environment where they would be discriminated against and tortured so they would stop having same-sex attractions!

Even though you're being sarcastic... in a very real sense, you're correct.

[_Corpsegrinder]

DrW wrote:

Decided to "just have a quick look" at the Connell O'Donovan article and couldn't stop reading. Just blew my lunch hour reading this thing. Fascinating - very well done.

I used to think that Mormon history got dull and uninteresting after polygamy ended…boy was I ever wrong.

The thing that fascinates me the most is that the Church used to be rather tolerant of practicing gay and lesbian Mormons, at least until the Kook Faction rose to prominence among the Brethren. (By Kook Faction, I mean J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, Ernest L. Wilkenson, W. Cleon Skousen, …and Glenn Beck.)

Turns out this woman had never heard of this stuff before. As the conversation continued in this vein, she became more and more angry. Noticing her discomfort, I asked if her son (who had served an honorable mission) had even encountered Evergreen or this kind of rampant homophobia in the Church.

When she answered that he had not (at the level of electroshock anyway), I asked her why she seemed so upset. After all, I said, this is well known stuff. Sort of a mistake on my part - because it was not well known to her.

Was her son treated at Evergreen? Would you happen to know whether and how much Evergreen’s treatment program differs from that of BYU during the 70’s?

In any case, I’m glad her son made it out alive and healthy!

Harmony wrote:

Even though you're being sarcastic... in a very real sense, you're correct.

I agree, the wisest thing these gay and lesbian students could have done was to have gotten the hell out of BYU--and Mormonism--like they were getting the hell out of a burning building.

But for whatever reason they didn't--or couldn't--abandon the Church and, to a large extent, their families as well. It certainly didn’t help that BYU threatened them with expulsion, forfeiture of their tuition & academic credits, and excommunication. The social pressure to submit to these “experiments” must have been enormous.

And naturally BYU--and by extension the Church--was careful to cover its butt by insisting the students sign nondisclosure forms and legal liability waivers before undergoing treatment.

All in all, it casts BYU and the Church in a very ugly light.

[_DrW]

CG,

Thanks for asking.

The young gay man in question did not encounter Evergreen or BYU "therapy". What he did encounter was a home ward that not only shunned him when he came out after his mission, but to some degree, shunned the entire family, including siblings and spouses.

The father (my business partner) had been prominent in the ward. The treatment they received was especially difficult on the wife, whose whole life had revolved around her children and the Church.

I have described these events before on message boards, but in effect, the entire family decided to support the gay son and left the Church, en masse, from one week to the next.

This just broke the mother's heart. Now, years later, she still talks like a Mormon and acts like a Mormon, except she does not go to Church.

She does still go to lunch once a month with a group of women (including my wife) who started a lunch group when they were all active. Of this group of six, two have left the Church, one (my wife) is NOM and fading fast, and one just had her eternal husband serve divorce papers on her - out of the blue - so she is headed out as well. The two women who remain TBM are having some issues reconciling their attitudes about Church with what they see hapening to their friends. So, two thirds of that core group of former TBMs have essentially left the Church in the last four or five years. And, according to my wife, the two that are left certainly know that the Church is not what it claims to be.
_____________________________

by the way, the young man in question finished up his MBA and is now in charge of a division of a major financial services firm in Boston. He and his life partner just adopted a child.

[_Buffalo]

Of all the shameful things the church has done, this is easily in the top five. Which is really saying something.

[_Nomad]

At one point she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront one or more senior Church leaders (BKP was mentioned specifically) while well armed. The idea was actually discussed briefly and dropped. The rental contract on the car was up and she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.

Lovely. A group of exmormons contemplating murder.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius wrote:

i read most of each, and then passed out from boredom.

I started the thread at 08:02 (my local time).

<edge of seat>

At 08:13 (my local time) Subgenius posted: “This baby (Subgenius) says: BORING!”

a compliment to my ability to quickly discern the mundane, thank you.

You read both of these lengthy articles in eleven minutes? …yeah, right.

i never stated that i read "all" of them; would it have been more appropriate if it was 12 minutes?

Tell me, Subgenius, why do Mormon apologists find it necessary to lie?

so you keep asking, but with regards to this thread's OP.....what lie are you referring to?

At 10:27 (my local time) you posted:....<snip>
...indicating that in two hours and fourteen minutes you only managed to read the first four sentences of FAIR’s “boring” rebuttal, looked at some pictures in the O’Donovon article, and then “passed out form boredom”.

i also got a snack.

Tell me, Subgenius, why do Mormon apologists find it necessary to lie?

?

At 10:35 (my local time) Subgenius asked, “Was anyone ever forced to undergo any type of therapy? was anyone kidnapped and strapped to electrodes?”

This is an excellent question and the O’Donovon article answers it in great detail, but you would know that if you had actually read it.

The O'Don article uses the word "force(d)" - 37 times, "choose" -3 times "chose(n)"- 5 times. He scatters about quotes seasoned with his bias notions of the great persecution of the homosexual...blah blah blah. Bottom line was that no one was forced against their will to attend BYU and receive aversion therapy, and all universities have guinea-pig-students sign a release, duh. His self-noted obsession with homosexuality and Mormons is peculiar (to say the least) totaling some "8 lineal feet". There is little credibility given his resume and the actual historic documents he provides show little worth towards any significant means of condemnation.

Maybe i missed the big apologetic "lie" on this topic, but again, i did doze off.