In 2008, I posted my review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Ty Mansfield on Goodreads (the review can be found at the end of this post). Recently, someone read my review and posted some comments to which I responded. I have posted the conversation here. While his responses reflect the opinion of just one member of the church, my experience has been that his misconceptions about homosexual attraction are fairly common among the greater membership. In fact, in a poll recently conducted among registered Utah voters reports that 55% of LDS respondents said it is possible to change same-sex attractions, compared with 20% of non-LDS respondents.
Here is our conversation:
Reader: You really think this is unbiased and not politically-motivated?? What book were YOU reading?...
Me: I think Ty's book has been instrumental in challenging some of the prevailing attitudes among LDS psychologists like Dean Byrd who insist that if a person can't change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one, that they are somehow not relying on the Atonement, an idea that causes a lot of pain and unfortunately persists among many LDS. Ty's voice came at a time when I was looking for increased reconciliation between my faith and my sexuality, but couldn't find it because of some of the false ideas that were so prevalent in church culture.
Reader: I think Ty's book has done a lot of damage and teaches a lot of skewed ideas about sin and sexuality (not least of which validating self-identified homosexuality as an identity compatible with LDS doctrine). Interesting how different two perspectives on the same issue can be. The Gospel isn't about patting ourselves on the back and giving each other warm fuzzies, it's about hard and sometimes painful temporal truths and trials that lead to incomprehensible eternal happiness. Of course those who want to be coddled will find Ty's worldview comforting, but that doesn't make it true. Back to the point, he certainly has an agenda behind this book, and it is not the Lord's.
Dr. Byrd's writings on the subject are authoritative and beyond reproach.
Me: On the contrary, a homosexual identity is perfectly compatible with LDS doctrine. The church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter. I see no reason why a homosexual identity should necessarily preclude membership in the church anymore than a heterosexual one does. My acknowledgment of a homosexual orientation has not precluded mine. I am just as capable of responding honestly to the temple recommend interview questions as my straight brothers and sisters are. And as to the necessity of the gospel being painful, might I offer an alternative viewpoint? I like this quote from John Taylor:
"We like enjoyment here. That is right. God designs that we should enjoy ourselves. I do not believe in a religion that makes people gloomy, melancholy, miserable and ascetic... I should not think there was anything great or good associated with that, while everything around, the trees, birds, flowers and green fields, were so pleasing, the insects and bees buzzing and fluttering, the lambs frolicking and playing. While everything else enjoyed life, why should not we?"
Byrd may have something to bring to the table, but he does not have the last word on what is best for every person who finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex. There are bodies of evidence that refute many of his claims and it is important to consider what others have to say about the issue as well.
I wonder, have you ever spoken personally to a homosexually oriented member of the church? You might be surprised at what you would learn.
Reader: First of all, I think you should go back and listen to President Packer's General Conference address from October 2010. It very clearly contradicts your first sentences.
Christ didn't come to be a cozy electric blanket. He came to bring the sword. There is joy, yes, but there is more to this life than that. Without struggle and pain, we can't know true happiness. Besides, I think we're talking about things that are a little deeper than trees and flowers. Sometimes I think the focus in LDS culture is a little frothy, obviously to some detriment (see this book for a perfect example). His way wasn't easy, why should we ever think ours would be?
Dr. Byrd's word is definitely more viable than Brother Mansfield's. Whatever else the case may be, he at least is a close advisor to the Brethren. Also, there is no actual evidence disclaiming his theories, which are more scientifically and theologically sound than this inadequate book's pseudo-psychology and self-congratulatory intellectualism could ever hope to be.
As to your last question to me, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what very personal experience I have with Latter-day Saints who have struggled with (and overcome) this issue.
Me: I am happy to hear you have personal experience with members who deal with this issue. I can only imagine their experiences must have been invaluable to you in shaping your understanding. That's awesome. I do not discount those experiences. I am willing, however, to concede that sexual reorientation from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction is not absolutely representative of the diversity of circumstances in which same-sex attracted members find themselves and it is clear to me that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Byrd's approach may be helpful for some, but it is not helpful for everyone and on a personal level, it has not been helpful for me. Since there has been no divine injunction given that "Thou shalt be heterosexual," I am inclined to believe that there are other ways of reconciling religious and sexual identities that are also in harmony with church doctrine, particularly since the church's emphasis on this issue has dealt specifically with behaviors and not identity. Elder Packer's remarks were modified in some pretty significant ways in the printed version and Michael Otterson's subsequent remarks on behalf of the church further clarify the church's position. Be careful not to draw lines of exclusion. There is room enough for all of us.
Reader: Again, President Packer's comments (modified or not, though I think the modifications are minimal and hardly change his intent or prophetic counsel, and regardless of whatever political and social pressure-influenced response Brother Otterson delivered) and The Proclamation To the World: The Family. You'll find all the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots regarding gender roles and sexuality you need right there.
The Church's position is most certainly clear, but it is not to be found in this book. It is not doctrinal, nor is it written or approved by the Brethren, nor does it agree with what has been revealed and taught on the subject. It's a fluffy new-age self-"help" book, nothing more. It's been interesting. Best of luck.
Me: The Proclamation to the World: The Family is not so narrow in scope that it does not allow for individual adaptation to circumstances that would preclude some members of the church from achieving a successful heterosexual marriage, whatever the reason.
Another possibility as to why Elder Packer's remarks were changed and why the church felt the need to respond with further clarification is that it brings his remarks more in line with the church's official position, and more in line with previous comments made by Elder Packer himself. Recognizing the persistence of homosexual attraction, he stated: "That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."
For me and many other homosexually oriented members of the church, this is not about being "fluffy" or "new-age." It is about welcoming all members of the church regardless of their capacity to be fully functioning heterosexuals, and promoting a culture that allows them to feel valued and loved for their unique gifts and contributions. For me and many of my friends, a sacrifice of the kind that the church asks of its homosexually oriented members is easier to make if it is recognized for what it is: the giving up of something that is owned and real and not imagined away. This is no less fluffy than recognizing the breadth and depth of the Atonement as it applies to the diversity of human experience.
Reader: My real problem with this book is that it validates this as a viable lifestyle, rather than promoting the change that is not only possible, through the Gospel and the Atonement of Christ, but also necessary. I'm not as interested in the human experience, except as it relates to the hereafter, which is why revealed doctrine holds more sway for me.
How frustrating to feel so powerless over our own desires and appetites! It simply isn't so. This isn't hardwired or immutable or genetic or biologically determined, which belief this book espouses. It's just a bummer to me that people are allowing a reductive and false label based merely on self-identification and behavior to define who they are, when really, they are so much more.
Me: Acknowledgment of a homosexual attraction does not constitute a "lifestyle" any more than the acknowledgment of a heterosexual one does.
Power over desires and appetites does not mean ignoring them or obliterating them or changing them from one form to another. It means recognizing them for what they are and choosing to respond appropriately to them.
The change available through the Atonement is not about changing circumstances. All of us find ourselves in circumstances we did not choose. It is about changing our hearts to accept God's will and to thrive in the circumstances we have been given.
...
For more discussion along these lines, read the following:
A review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Dean Byrd
Ty Mansfield's response
Rejoinder
My review of "In Quiet Desperation" (2008):
I've been reading Ty Mansfield's book, "In Quiet Desperation," and I have to say I'm quite impressed. So much of what is written about homosexuality is so politically-motivated that I have a hard time finding an unbiased treatment of the subject. On the one hand you have those who argue that having certain tendencies or inclinations automatically justifies giving expression to those feelings through behaviors. On the other hand you have those who argue that God would never be so cruel as to give someone a trial, an innate attraction, that might preclude him or her from marrying in this life (I actually read a statement from a prominent reparative therapist who made a claim along those lines). While Mansfield is of course writing from a gospel perspective so it is biased in that sense, I like the fact that the book doesn't tout one particular therapeutic approach as the ideal, one-size-fits-all solution. I find myself skeptical of philosophies/therapies that assert that just because something feels natural to someone, that he ought to give in; but I also question approaches that promise the complete reversal of an orientation that is very much part of a person.
In addition, I believe too much of what is written focuses on causes, whether they be biological or psychological. My cursory reading of the literature leads me to believe we know very little about how a homosexual attraction develops, or even how a heterosexual attraction develops for that matter. While some people may find they are described by a particular set of causes or circumstances, there are likely many different ways of arriving at a homosexual orientation.
Ty Mansfield's book is unique in that he makes no attempt to explain the origins of homosexuality. Instead, his purpose is one of reconciliation of an overwhelmingly poorly understood challenge with the doctrines of the gospel. He explains how a homosexual attraction might fit within the plan of God, a plan in which the challenges of mortality are not necessarily obliterated according to our timetable, but the Lord's. The maturity of Mansfield's understanding regarding the Atonement is one that is often lacking in discussions of sexual orientation in religious spheres. In responding to homosexual attraction, too often the focus is on changing orientation rather than changing our hearts to accept the Lord's will for us.
I think I've pretty much decided that even among those who deal with this issue there is a spectrum of needs, and while one approach may work for some, it may not work for all.
The book also issues a call for increased compassion towards who have same-gender feelings whether they decide to engage in homosexual behaviors or not. I have been surprised at how many individuals, individuals whom I respect, admire, and love, have taken me into their confidence by sharing with me the fact that they deal with this. Current estimates are that approximately 5% of people have a same-gender orientation. I have no reason to suspect that prevalence in the church is any lower. I am also surprised at the ignorance of some church members in regards to this issue. I remember one acquaintance of mine at BYU who when the discussion came up of the possibility of a homosexually oriented person being in his ward he said if that were the case, he could never bring himself shake the person's hand. Clearly, something needs to be done about these misunderstandings.
Here is our conversation:
Reader: You really think this is unbiased and not politically-motivated?? What book were YOU reading?...
Me: I think Ty's book has been instrumental in challenging some of the prevailing attitudes among LDS psychologists like Dean Byrd who insist that if a person can't change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one, that they are somehow not relying on the Atonement, an idea that causes a lot of pain and unfortunately persists among many LDS. Ty's voice came at a time when I was looking for increased reconciliation between my faith and my sexuality, but couldn't find it because of some of the false ideas that were so prevalent in church culture.
Reader: I think Ty's book has done a lot of damage and teaches a lot of skewed ideas about sin and sexuality (not least of which validating self-identified homosexuality as an identity compatible with LDS doctrine). Interesting how different two perspectives on the same issue can be. The Gospel isn't about patting ourselves on the back and giving each other warm fuzzies, it's about hard and sometimes painful temporal truths and trials that lead to incomprehensible eternal happiness. Of course those who want to be coddled will find Ty's worldview comforting, but that doesn't make it true. Back to the point, he certainly has an agenda behind this book, and it is not the Lord's.
Dr. Byrd's writings on the subject are authoritative and beyond reproach.
Me: On the contrary, a homosexual identity is perfectly compatible with LDS doctrine. The church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter. I see no reason why a homosexual identity should necessarily preclude membership in the church anymore than a heterosexual one does. My acknowledgment of a homosexual orientation has not precluded mine. I am just as capable of responding honestly to the temple recommend interview questions as my straight brothers and sisters are. And as to the necessity of the gospel being painful, might I offer an alternative viewpoint? I like this quote from John Taylor:
"We like enjoyment here. That is right. God designs that we should enjoy ourselves. I do not believe in a religion that makes people gloomy, melancholy, miserable and ascetic... I should not think there was anything great or good associated with that, while everything around, the trees, birds, flowers and green fields, were so pleasing, the insects and bees buzzing and fluttering, the lambs frolicking and playing. While everything else enjoyed life, why should not we?"
Byrd may have something to bring to the table, but he does not have the last word on what is best for every person who finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex. There are bodies of evidence that refute many of his claims and it is important to consider what others have to say about the issue as well.
I wonder, have you ever spoken personally to a homosexually oriented member of the church? You might be surprised at what you would learn.
Reader: First of all, I think you should go back and listen to President Packer's General Conference address from October 2010. It very clearly contradicts your first sentences.
Christ didn't come to be a cozy electric blanket. He came to bring the sword. There is joy, yes, but there is more to this life than that. Without struggle and pain, we can't know true happiness. Besides, I think we're talking about things that are a little deeper than trees and flowers. Sometimes I think the focus in LDS culture is a little frothy, obviously to some detriment (see this book for a perfect example). His way wasn't easy, why should we ever think ours would be?
Dr. Byrd's word is definitely more viable than Brother Mansfield's. Whatever else the case may be, he at least is a close advisor to the Brethren. Also, there is no actual evidence disclaiming his theories, which are more scientifically and theologically sound than this inadequate book's pseudo-psychology and self-congratulatory intellectualism could ever hope to be.
As to your last question to me, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what very personal experience I have with Latter-day Saints who have struggled with (and overcome) this issue.
Me: I am happy to hear you have personal experience with members who deal with this issue. I can only imagine their experiences must have been invaluable to you in shaping your understanding. That's awesome. I do not discount those experiences. I am willing, however, to concede that sexual reorientation from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction is not absolutely representative of the diversity of circumstances in which same-sex attracted members find themselves and it is clear to me that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Byrd's approach may be helpful for some, but it is not helpful for everyone and on a personal level, it has not been helpful for me. Since there has been no divine injunction given that "Thou shalt be heterosexual," I am inclined to believe that there are other ways of reconciling religious and sexual identities that are also in harmony with church doctrine, particularly since the church's emphasis on this issue has dealt specifically with behaviors and not identity. Elder Packer's remarks were modified in some pretty significant ways in the printed version and Michael Otterson's subsequent remarks on behalf of the church further clarify the church's position. Be careful not to draw lines of exclusion. There is room enough for all of us.
Reader: Again, President Packer's comments (modified or not, though I think the modifications are minimal and hardly change his intent or prophetic counsel, and regardless of whatever political and social pressure-influenced response Brother Otterson delivered) and The Proclamation To the World: The Family. You'll find all the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots regarding gender roles and sexuality you need right there.
The Church's position is most certainly clear, but it is not to be found in this book. It is not doctrinal, nor is it written or approved by the Brethren, nor does it agree with what has been revealed and taught on the subject. It's a fluffy new-age self-"help" book, nothing more. It's been interesting. Best of luck.
Me: The Proclamation to the World: The Family is not so narrow in scope that it does not allow for individual adaptation to circumstances that would preclude some members of the church from achieving a successful heterosexual marriage, whatever the reason.
Another possibility as to why Elder Packer's remarks were changed and why the church felt the need to respond with further clarification is that it brings his remarks more in line with the church's official position, and more in line with previous comments made by Elder Packer himself. Recognizing the persistence of homosexual attraction, he stated: "That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."
For me and many other homosexually oriented members of the church, this is not about being "fluffy" or "new-age." It is about welcoming all members of the church regardless of their capacity to be fully functioning heterosexuals, and promoting a culture that allows them to feel valued and loved for their unique gifts and contributions. For me and many of my friends, a sacrifice of the kind that the church asks of its homosexually oriented members is easier to make if it is recognized for what it is: the giving up of something that is owned and real and not imagined away. This is no less fluffy than recognizing the breadth and depth of the Atonement as it applies to the diversity of human experience.
Reader: My real problem with this book is that it validates this as a viable lifestyle, rather than promoting the change that is not only possible, through the Gospel and the Atonement of Christ, but also necessary. I'm not as interested in the human experience, except as it relates to the hereafter, which is why revealed doctrine holds more sway for me.
How frustrating to feel so powerless over our own desires and appetites! It simply isn't so. This isn't hardwired or immutable or genetic or biologically determined, which belief this book espouses. It's just a bummer to me that people are allowing a reductive and false label based merely on self-identification and behavior to define who they are, when really, they are so much more.
Me: Acknowledgment of a homosexual attraction does not constitute a "lifestyle" any more than the acknowledgment of a heterosexual one does.
Power over desires and appetites does not mean ignoring them or obliterating them or changing them from one form to another. It means recognizing them for what they are and choosing to respond appropriately to them.
The change available through the Atonement is not about changing circumstances. All of us find ourselves in circumstances we did not choose. It is about changing our hearts to accept God's will and to thrive in the circumstances we have been given.
...
For more discussion along these lines, read the following:
A review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Dean Byrd
Ty Mansfield's response
Rejoinder
My review of "In Quiet Desperation" (2008):
I've been reading Ty Mansfield's book, "In Quiet Desperation," and I have to say I'm quite impressed. So much of what is written about homosexuality is so politically-motivated that I have a hard time finding an unbiased treatment of the subject. On the one hand you have those who argue that having certain tendencies or inclinations automatically justifies giving expression to those feelings through behaviors. On the other hand you have those who argue that God would never be so cruel as to give someone a trial, an innate attraction, that might preclude him or her from marrying in this life (I actually read a statement from a prominent reparative therapist who made a claim along those lines). While Mansfield is of course writing from a gospel perspective so it is biased in that sense, I like the fact that the book doesn't tout one particular therapeutic approach as the ideal, one-size-fits-all solution. I find myself skeptical of philosophies/therapies that assert that just because something feels natural to someone, that he ought to give in; but I also question approaches that promise the complete reversal of an orientation that is very much part of a person.
In addition, I believe too much of what is written focuses on causes, whether they be biological or psychological. My cursory reading of the literature leads me to believe we know very little about how a homosexual attraction develops, or even how a heterosexual attraction develops for that matter. While some people may find they are described by a particular set of causes or circumstances, there are likely many different ways of arriving at a homosexual orientation.
Ty Mansfield's book is unique in that he makes no attempt to explain the origins of homosexuality. Instead, his purpose is one of reconciliation of an overwhelmingly poorly understood challenge with the doctrines of the gospel. He explains how a homosexual attraction might fit within the plan of God, a plan in which the challenges of mortality are not necessarily obliterated according to our timetable, but the Lord's. The maturity of Mansfield's understanding regarding the Atonement is one that is often lacking in discussions of sexual orientation in religious spheres. In responding to homosexual attraction, too often the focus is on changing orientation rather than changing our hearts to accept the Lord's will for us.
I think I've pretty much decided that even among those who deal with this issue there is a spectrum of needs, and while one approach may work for some, it may not work for all.
The book also issues a call for increased compassion towards who have same-gender feelings whether they decide to engage in homosexual behaviors or not. I have been surprised at how many individuals, individuals whom I respect, admire, and love, have taken me into their confidence by sharing with me the fact that they deal with this. Current estimates are that approximately 5% of people have a same-gender orientation. I have no reason to suspect that prevalence in the church is any lower. I am also surprised at the ignorance of some church members in regards to this issue. I remember one acquaintance of mine at BYU who when the discussion came up of the possibility of a homosexually oriented person being in his ward he said if that were the case, he could never bring himself shake the person's hand. Clearly, something needs to be done about these misunderstandings.
Posts
6 comments:
It is people like your reader that make it so hard for me to do what you suggest in your other blog post from today! The arrogance that comes from being certain they have all the answers is a difficult thing for me to treat compassionately. You handled yourself well, though. I'm proud!
P.S. I read the FAIR review of the book (sneaky how they use a background on the website very similar to that of lds.org - innocent or purposefully misleading?). I didn't read much before I became angry (I'm a bit embarrassed the authors of the review are able to bill themselves as mental health scientists). I did find it incredibly ironic, though, that they used the same reductionist science, one-sided logic, and willful ignore-any-research-that-doesn't-agree-with-us-tactics of which they accuse Mansfield. If only things were as simple as many believers claim them to be.
This actually makes me happy. I think you're kinda great and I love your honest heart!
Great post, Adam. Thank you.
Amen to Brien's comments.
Your reader seems to espouse a perspective (logical fallacy used to bolster preconceived notions) I blogged about.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reader is a "struggler" and resents those who take what he/she assumes to be an "easier" path, wanting everyone to be miserable like unto him- or herself--I mean, find the "joy" they have found--or is a bit bitter about the supposed past or present apostasy or unhealthy decisions of some loved one, creating a very visceral attitude. Neither might be true, but the majority of people I know who speak this way and know who Byrd is fall into one of those categories.
Your reader also clearly isn't familiar with Ty Mansfield or the Matises. The assumptions about Ty's fluffy world view are as astounding as Byrd's in his review of the book, which does make me wonder if your reader actually read the book or if they skimmed parts and injected their own assumptions into it, having already assumed Byrd's analysis was correct. I kind of think every time someone says Byrd is beyond/above reproach, Byrd has a mini orgasm. I'm still amazed by the accusations he hurls and motivations he ascribes to people he _obviously_ doesn't know, a response which makes him look clearly defensive and threatened somehow.
Ty is lambasted by many gay people for his assertion that same-sex partnership is not compatible with "the gospel" and denounced for having been open to marrying a woman and, now, having done so. And certainly being single due to circumstances one may or may not be able to change (a proclamation made more than once over the pulpit at general conference) is not a "sinful lifestyle" or in conflict with 'official' LDS doctrine.
If the reader is really interested in the weight of the bulk of scholarly evidence, I think they will find that Byrd and is cohorts are--despite not being absolutely debunked in all cases--on shaky ground in the professional arena, but we all know the professional arena is not what this person trusts, since scientific understanding can and does evolve. The truth is as he/she stated: revealed proclamations, not evidence or personal experience, carry the majority of weight in their view. I used to think very similarly, so I completely understand that position and its imperviousness to the philosophies of men or scientific evidence. In fact, once upon a time, I probably might've written what he/she wrote. How's that for scary? I shudder to think of it...
Excellent post. Great discussion with the "Reader." Sometimes I'm hopeful we are making progress in educating and softening hearts, and then I read something like this and I wonder how long it will take the general membership to even desire to know the Lord's will for his homosexual children. Can't give up I guess. Your fireside was a great start in your area. I think the power of our examples, and our willingness to openly discuss with others is probably the best we can do for now. Thanks.
Post a Comment