Posted by Jeffrey Thayne
Â
| Recap: In my previous post, I said that I appreciate Jeffrey Robinson’s account of same-gender attraction for two reasons: (1) it preserves human agency, and (2) it explains the experiences of those who struggle with same-gender attraction in such a way that does not trivialize their experiences. Theories that account for same-gender attraction in purely genetic or biological terms ignore human agency and, I believe, turn us into victims of our genes or circumstances. Theories that depict same-gender attraction as a deliberate choice ignore the very real experiences of those who actually struggle with same-gender attraction. |
 |
| Gravity is the reason things fall … right? |
In this series, I will detail some of Jeffrey Robinson’s ideas, as found in his article, “Homosexuality: What Works and What Doesn’t Work.” To preface his discussion, Robinson takes a little time to clarify the language we use to talk about same-gender attraction. He believes that we make two major mistakes when we discuss the issues surrounding same-gender attraction. In this post, I will address the first of those two mistakes.
Descriptions vs. Explanations
The first mistake we make, says Robinson, is that we treat our descriptions as explanations. Last year, I wrote a post about how we sometimes think we’ve explained something about the world, when in reality we’ve only described it. I used gravity as an example of this. Scientists have developed mathematical equations that allow them to predict with great accuracy how things will fall towards the earth. One of these equations is often referred to as “the law of gravity.” We commonly make the mistake, however, of thinking we have explained why things fall, when we have only produced a description of how they are likely to fall. The law of gravity is descriptive (even predictive), but not explanatory.
Jeffrey Robinson uses this same example. He says:
 If I let go of this pen, what will happen? It will fall. Why? Gravity. People say gravity; the pen falls because of gravity. The fact of the matter is, we don’t why the pen falls; all we know is that things that are unsupported fall. Gravity is one of the four fundamental physical forces of the universe that explain everything else, but nothing explains them. We just know that everything that is unsupported falls, and we call that fact gravity. We label the fact that things fall gravity.
We tend to think the world’s pretty explained; we label it and call it gravity, and then we do an interesting thing: we talk about it as though we have explained it. So why does the pen fall? Well, because of gravity. Well, how do you know there’s gravity? Well, because things fall. What makes them fall? Well, gravity.1
What Robinson is pointing out here is what is called the nomological fallacy. We commit this fallacy when we think we’ve explained a phenomenon when we’ve really only given it a name. This isn’t an unforgivable fallacy—in fact, we do it all the time! There are many examples of this. It is one of the things that helps us to communicate with each other. It becomes problematic, however, when it muddies the waters of a very important discussion, such as same-gender attraction.
Another Example of the Nomological Fallacy
As Robinson continues, he provides us with another example of the nomological fallacy:
Do you see it just goes in a circle? It doesn’t really add any information; we do that all the time in our society, in our culture: talk about things, label them, and then describe them as having acted as a result of the label. We do it a lot in the social sciences; take, for example, the concept of self-esteem.
Self-esteem began as a description of what people were doing. People who said or thought good things about themselves had high self-esteem. People who said or thought bad things about themselves had low self-esteem. But what began as a description of what people were doing—saying or thinking good or bad things about themselves—came to be talked about as though it was the reason they were doing it. Why does that guy say such bad things about himself? Well, it’s because he’s got low self-esteem. How do you know he has low self-esteem? Well, because he says such bad things about himself. Why does he do that? Low self-esteem.
You and I grew up in a culture that taught us through its language that we have something inside of us called our self-esteem that can make us do things. We don’t have a lot of agency or a lot of choice in the matter; it makes us do things. Why are you so down on yourself? It’s my self-esteem. We have government programs to increase self-esteem, and it is simply a manifestation of language.1
It is beyond the topic of this post to discuss the nature of self-esteem. Certainly, many people experience themselves as inadequate to challenges they face. Many people fixate their time and energies in the belief that others think poorly of them. However, labeling these habits of thought and action “low self-esteem” does not explain why people have formed these habits any more than a mathematical equation explains why things fall.
Nomological Fallacy in Same-gender Attraction
Robinson then describes the nomological fallacy we often commit in our discussion of same-gender attraction:
Now the same thing is true when it comes to talking about homosexuality. Why is that man sexually attracted to other men? It’s because he’s homosexual. How do you know he’s homosexual? Because he’s sexually attracted to other men. What makes him do that? Homosexuality. We have created a condition, a trait, a disease, an orientation called homosexuality and given it power to make people do things.
The implications of this are pretty important. Because of that, you’ve probably heard people say something like this: “You know, when I found out I was gay …†The implications of that simple phrase, “when I found out I was gay,†are astounding. It means, before I had any homosexual thoughts, any homosexual feelings, or any homosexual behaviors, I was already gay. And when those things began to occur in my life, they were simply manifestations of an underlying condition that had already been there.1
I believe that Robinson is simply trying to be perfectly clear about the language that we use to discuss the issue. When we talk about the term “homosexuality” as a condition that makes us think sexual thoughts towards people of our same gender, we have simply labeled a phenomenon (same-gender attraction) and now treat it as an explanation. This is scarcely different than when we label self-derogatory thoughts “low self-esteem,” and then treat “low self-esteem” as a cause of self-derogatory thoughts.2
Conclusion
I need to be perfectly clear: so far, Robinson’s discussion has focused solely on the language we use to describe same-gender attraction. At this point in the discussion, he hasn’t advanced any theories of his own. He has simply pointed out that way we talk about the issue can automatically assume certain kinds of explanations and preclude others.
Let’s consider: there are a certain number of people who find themselves thinking sexual thoughts about people of their own sex, rather than the opposite sex. When we label this “homosexuality,” and then talk about it as an explanation of our habits of thought or action (i.e., a trait that we discover about ourselves), we automatically assume that (1) these habits are caused by something inside of us, (2) there is something immutable about the condition, because (3) even when we aren’t thinking sexual thoughts about people of the same sex or haven’t yet formed these habits, we are still homosexual, we just don’t know it yet. These assumptions may or may not be true—however, we should be aware of how they are embedded in the language we use, so that we can better discern when our allegiance to certain assumptions is due to experience and when it is due to the absence of an alternative way of talking about the issue. When we lock ourselves into this kind of language,we mask alternative ways of investigating and discussing same-gender attraction.Â
In my next post, I will detail the second mistake Robinson believes that we make when we talk about same-gender attraction. As this is a fairly controversial subject, I invite our readers to be patient as I continue to present Robinson’s ideas, and to avoid making assumptions about what has not yet been said.
Notes
1. Jeffrey Robinson, “Homosexuality: What Works and What Doesn’t Work,†TheGuardrail.com.
2. For yet another (facetious) example of the nomological fallacy at work, see “A Modest Lifestyle Proposal,” under the first heading, “A Conversation on Eating Disorders.”
It is interesting that you use Gravity as the example of description vs. explanation. It is also interesting that Robinson states it is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Have you considered the dichotomy in explaining something that is a fundamental law?
Explain: To make clear or understandable.
With fundamental laws, it is impossible to really explain them in words. It is a self-evident principle. We use fundamental laws to explain other things that are controlled by them. But the fundamental things themselves cannot be explained. Have you ever asked what is mass? Temperature? Even physicists have difficulty with these issues.
All we can do is give them a name, describe them, and recognize how they work. By doing this and working with it, we gain enough familiarity that we begin to understand it through experience and use them for predictions. We CANNOT explain them in words. That is what makes them fundamental.
Language itself is perfect example of how this happens. There are concepts that we give names to for communication. Do these labels explain them? No. In fact they don’t even describe them. And words (except for rare things like onomatopoeia) don’t have any connection to the concepts themselves. Language is arbitrary. But through working with the words we hear as an infant, a child, and beyond, we get familiar enough with them that the word IS the concept. This is not literal, of course. But it is the shorthand we must use because of the limits of language and our finite life spans.
I’m not sure why you brought up homosexuality. If you want to have a discussion about the causes of homosexuality, as the article’s title indicates, I’d be happy to. As I read, I interpreted that your intent was to go over the nomological fallacy again. But this time you went further into homosexuality rather than gravity.
Carborendum,
Thanks for your comments!
In this case, I guess I’ve used the word “explain” in a different sense than “to make understandable.” I seem to have used it in this sense: to provide a causal account for, to identify the source or cause of action. Interesting how ambiguous language can be. 🙂
In this series, I’m presenting a detailed commentary of Jeffrey Robinson’s ideas on homosexuality. This post was simply presenting his concerns about the language we use to discuss the issue, and for that reason, I focused on linguistic issues. Particularly, how we sometimes make the nomological fallacy when talking about homosexuality. Perhaps the title was misleading, since I don’t plan on discussing Robinson’s ideas about the causes of homosexuality until later in the series. This post is simply a reminder that when we talk about homosexuality as a trait that causes homosexual thoughts and actions, we have reified a linguistic construct and given it power to “make us do things.” In short, we have committed the nomological fallacy.
Basically, language is huge, especially in this kind of discussion. The language we use has embedded in it certain assumptions about the phenomenon of discussion, and we should be aware of those assumptions. If those assumptions confuse the issue, perhaps we can invent a new way of talking about the issue, or consider alternative ways of talking about it. Alternative language can invite us to consider new and alternative paradigms, paradigms that may be hidden or obscured by the language we presently use. This will be discussed in more detail in the next post. In my next post, I’ll talk more about some of the linguistic metaphors we use while discussing homosexuality.
Carborendum: I’m not sure why you brought up homosexuality.
Do you see how the nomological fallacy can be used to obscure our understanding of homosexuality? Let me give a different example. (I don’t mean to beat this example into the ground, but it’s been a useful illustration in the past.)
I started with (1) a pattern of behaviors and (2) gave it a label. Then I looked for reasons for those behaviors. As I searched and discussed the pattern, I kept hearing people (3) use the label itself as an explanation. It slowly changes the way I see things until I (4) stop looking for a cause because I mistakenly think I’ve already found one. If this kind of thinking were widespread, people would remain unaware of the factors that really lead to bulimia, and a lot of people would go through a lot of unnecessary pain and confusion.
That’s what seems to have happened with homosexuality. That word began as a descriptive label of certain feelings and behaviors. But people have begun to use it as though it were the cause of those feelings and behaviors. And so we cease trying to understand what factors might contribute to those feelings and behaviors.
In contrast, if we are aware of the nomological fallacy and how it has bent our way of thinking, we can shake ourselves awake and realize, “We don’t have an explanation at all—let’s keep looking for one.” Until we do that, there is no impetus to keep looking, and the real causes of homosexuality will remain hidden.
Nathan,
Thanks for that helpful example!
To be clear, I think most people realize that we don’t really know that cause of homosexuality, and thus are still looking for other underlying factors. The challenge, however, is that the language in question can inadvertently lead us to make assumptions about the kind of underlying factors we will discover, and lead us to dismiss possibilities that don’t meet these implicit criteria.
In other words, when we use the word “homosexuality” to refer to a trait that people possess that makes them think and act a certain way (that homosexuality is the cause of thoughts and actions, rather than merely a descriptive label), we will gravitate towards theories that describe homosexuality as an immutable condition, as something that is part of us. We will be more likely to reject or question paradigms that involve agency and interpreted experience, because those paradigms are not as immediately available in the traditional language we use to talk about the issue.
Again, this will be fleshed out more clearly in the next post.
Good point. Thanks for making that distinction!
In the imaginary scenario above, it would lead a person to only look for explanations that describe bulimia as an inherent characteristic of a person, even before they ever had any bulimic feelings or behaviors. In reality, we often look to other factors, such as someone not handling stress, change, or anxiety in the right way. This makes bulimia a result of some mental actions, rather than an intrinsic trait.
I have a good friend who has worked at an eating disorder treatment center for a few years, and one of the major steps every girl has to go through is to realize that the eating disorder is not an intrinsic part of them. They often use the words, “I am not my disorder,” in the process of realizing this. It’s often a huge moment when they first recognize it.
In discussing the causes of homosexuality, I’d like to point out the following article:
http://borngay.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=19
The interesting thing is that both sides of the fence (if you look around the internet on this issue) point to this study as PROOF that they are right (genetics or choice). I have an alternative point of view.
If 100% (or close enough) of twins showed the same characteristics, then it would be proof that it is the way we are born. OR since only about 5% (this is an average of various studies) of the population is homosexual, the number should be closer to 5%? Since the overall number from this study is around 30%, that tells me it is something in between or a combination of things.
I believe there is a “gay gene”. But that is just a label (let’s not be confused by labels and language again). There are many genes that give people certain characteristics that will make them more prone to accepting the gay lifestyle. It is then the upbringing that hinders or helps that tendency. The combination of these determines the actual choice of the individual. Then the choice is determined ultimately by our spirits that were formed by pre-mortal experiences and our original intelligences.
As far as the actual cause — until we determine all the fundamental causes of individuality, I don’t think we will be able to answer this question. I believe there are too many variables to wrap our heads around this. And I believe there are many more variables we have not yet discovered.
You provided an explanation of homosexuality as a “realized” experience. That there is circular reasoning involved. I do not agree with such an assumption. It is of social consequence to “identify” as gay. It is not so much a realization on the part of the gay person, as it is a growing “acceptance”. You do not appear to have had this experience. I have.
Jeff, I can’t help but notice that despite your caveat in the “conclusion” section, you are approaching the issue in this post (your “recap”) based on what you believe is beneficial to believe, rather than what may be true.
For example, Nathan’s bulimia example above is somewhat misleading; I think that most people understand the process of eating disorders (a person’s distorted self-image has led them to drastic measures to preserve the same unrealistic image). The resulting treatment can and will likely involve counseling, medication and attempts to address the related problems of self-image, confidence, possible depression and stress (each of which have their own underlying causes) leading an individual toward demonstration of eating disorder behavior or excessive exercise.
Of course, each individual case is vastly different, so using the term as a catch-all envelope to throw all sufferers into rather than a convenient way of describing what they have in common is definitely not beneficial. Still, a materialistic, unrealistic society and/or a culture fixated on weight loss don’t necessarily lead everybody to eating disorders, and it’s not necessarily the weakest, most unbalanced people who end up with one. Certainly there may be a genetic basis as well to some counts of eating disorders (certainly people are very likely to relapse), but we’re not necessarily having this debate because we see it as a condition.
Likewise it may be that homosexuality involves a wide range of factors – some genetic and some representing both conscious and unconscious choices – of which individuals may demonstrate some or all. Looking at homosexuality as, essentially, a choice (to simplify Robinson’s thesis) will have a rehabilitative effect (for those who believe homosexuality is wrong) only on those who have “deluded” themselves onto that side of the fence as Robinson describes. Acknowledging one’s choice not to act on or develop lusts that they don’t want to is one thing, but treating the issue as one which can be solved pragmatically by framing the debate in a certain way (even under the guise of fixing existing illogical beliefs) is most likely wrong.
Clumpy,
Looking at homosexuality as, essentially, a choice (to simplify Robinson’s thesis)
I suspect Dr. Robinson would disagree with this ‘simplification.’ I don’t remember choosing to be heterosexual, and neither do most of those who struggle with homosexuality remember choosing that struggle. Dr. Robinson (and myself) claim that there is agency involved, but I must insist that the involvement of agency does not mean that homosexuality is a self-chosen challenge. Please don’t grossly distort the idea by simplifying it to the extent that it loses all of its strengths. Remember, my whole thesis is that Robinson’s ideas present an account of same-sex attraction that both preserves agency and does not trivialize the real experiences of those involved. Saying that ‘Robinson believes that homosexuality is a choice’ does just that: it puts Robinson in the position of trivializing the experiences of anyone involved in the issue. Robinson doesn’t do that. He fully recognizes people don’t actively or willfully choose to experience the world this way (even though there is agency involved).
Also, it is certainly true that framing a debate in a certain way precludes many pragmatic solutions to the challenge. Framing the issue as one of genetic inevitability precludes any possibility of genuine change. I personally think it is unkind for us to insist that people can’t be helped, and that change is not possible. So yes, I believe it is more ‘beneficial’ to recast the issue in different terms – in terms that preserves the possibility of hope and change.
I think it’s pretty clear that Robinson’s claim is that homosexuality is a symptom of self-deception and unconscious personality “training,” thus making it an unconscious “choice” of sorts the same way that somebody could train themselves to like a certain food by making the proper mental associations. It’s sort of Pavlovian, but he’s definitely implying that homosexuals have taken their normal sexual urges and applied them to their own sex by subverting them. Maybe an unqualified “choice” was the wrong word but it’s in that ballpark.
“Remember, my whole thesis is that Robinson’s ideas present an account of same-sex attraction that both preserves agency and does not trivialize the real experiences of those involved.”
I think it trivializes their experiences by making the above claims without positive proof, and that the alleged positive effects this theory has don’t matter without this proof (and while “genetic inevitability” may be the tendency in a culture that believes sexual urges to be insatiable, it’s perfectly logical to believe that the urge may stem from some internal factor but an individual has full power over what they actually do with it). We don’t evaluate theories or explanations on that basis. Attempting to “recast the debate” in another narrow way just because the existing discourse doesn’t make any sense is just as wrong.
Attempting to “recast the debate†in another narrow way just because the existing discourse doesn’t make any sense is just as wrong.
I don’t understand. If the current way doesn’t make any sense, why is it wrong to suggest another way? Isn’t that what all hyotheses are? New ways of looking at something because the old way doesn’t account for all the details?
I think it trivializes their experiences by making the above claims without positive proof
By your same criteria, any claim that genetics are related to homosexuality (a claim you have made a few times) also trivializes those experiences. In fact, by that criteria, any interpretation of those experiences will do so, since scientific proof is, as I have said many times, a fiction. There will always be alternative ways to interpret any evidence, any experience. Various ways of interpreting evidence and experience often have moral implications, and I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with evaluating interpretations based upon those implications.
If the existing discourse doesn’t make sense, then it is imperative that we recast the discourse in different terms. I don’t see what is so narrow about exploring alternatives. Also, how does exploring alternative ways of looking at the problem (particularly if those ways are more hopeful than the traditional discourse) trivialize anybody’s experience?
Clumpy: Nathan’s bulimia example above is somewhat misleading; I think that most people understand the process of eating disorders.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you, but let me see if this clears things up: I’d agree that we do understand eating disorders better than homosexuality. I think one reason could be that with homosexuality, we are using some of the incorrect assumptions or language that Jeff is talking about in this series. That’s why we understand eating disorders better.
“I don’t understand. If the current way doesn’t make any sense, why is it wrong to suggest another way?”
What I’m saying is that modern science isn’t generally disagreeing about the cause of homosexuality (it’s too controversial), but just generally saying that people don’t have a choice and must act however they’re inclined. However, arguing that the actual inclination was brought on through self-deception and attempting to change the discourse accordingly also doesn’t address the issue of behavior, which is fully a matter of choice. It’s just unprovable.
“By your same criteria, any claim that genetics are related to homosexuality (a claim you have made a few times) also trivializes those experiences.”
But I’m not arguing this. I’m saying that I don’t know, and don’t want to overextend my knowledge (indeed, humanity’s knowledge) by making anything up for philosophical points. I feel that individual cases probably vary, and that some may have a genetic component. Keeping an open mind while addressing the issue of behavior is totally reasonable. It doesn’t trivialize one’s experiences to admit that we all have differences, individual strengths, weaknesses and inclinations and we’re responsible for what we do with them. Just because the belief in empiricism is itself nonempirical doesn’t mean that an idea’s ramifications are more important than its basis.
@Nathan:
You might have noticed that I started out rejecting your comparison in my last post and then sort of talked myself full circle into understanding the equation of the two issues :). Indeed I think bullets would help me clarify myself:
Eating Disorders/Homosexuality:
* Some people may be inclined toward poor self-images/homosexuality.
* Others may develop these things themselves unconsciously.
* Regardless, a (materialistic society that focuses on weight loss and unrealistic expectations/society that tells us to follow our own inclinations and appetites) enables self-destructive behavior by blurring the lines between the inclination and its associated behavior, leading people to believe that the behavior must necessarily follow the inclination. This is plainly not true – we all have a choice and wrong behavior is still wrong.
* The solution, in my mind, both to homosexuality (speaking uniquely under the LDS perspective I share, of course) and eating disorders is to understand that you have control over your own behavior. You “rule your passions” not by eliminating them, but by making concerted efforts to mold your behavior in positive directions. As we believe that homosexual behavior as well as the self-destructive behaviors associated with eating disorders are wrong, implying that the inclination is somehow their fault may be counterproductive as well as wrong or uninformed (though it might be neither – I’m inclined to believe it’s both, for one of your reasons: the “name” associated with each inclination/behavior pattern puts both those “genetically” inclined in the same camp as those who may have arrived at their current state through other roads).
However, arguing that the actual inclination was brought on through self-deception and attempting to change the discourse accordingly also doesn’t address the issue of behavior, which is fully a matter of choice… implying that the inclination is somehow their fault may be counterproductive as well as wrong or uninformed
You are right. It isn’t addressing behavior. It isn’t meant to. We already know we are responsible for our behaviors, and that guilt resides only in misconduct, not temptation. However, some people experience the temptation to have sex with their same gender. They feel and fear that this temptation is inherent in their genes. If it isn’t, isn’t that good news?
Also, I think fault is the wrong word here, because it implies guilt. That is not the intent. You are absolutely right that guilt is associated with conduct, not temptation. Again, please please please please know that because agency is involved does not imply guilt or sin. Just because, from this perspective, there is agency involved in the temptation itself does not mean those who are tempted have sinned. Can I say that enough? Behavior is chosen. That is an established fact. But where does the particular temptation come from? That is the issue at hand, and there is nothing counter-productive about exploring a possibility that can open up new ways of understanding our most serious temptations.
You seem to imply that delving at all into the issue of where same-sex attraction (mind you, attraction, not behavior) comes from is unproductive. I don’t see how that is the case. Just because there is no scientific consensus on the issue doesn’t mean we can’t explore the implications of competing claims. Of course it is unprovable. Nothing is provable. I know it is unprovable. Please don’t say that again. I know it. I will be the first to emphatically insist it, since I believe nothing is provable. But being unprovable doesn’t mean it can’t open up whole new ways of understanding ourselves and others around us — and that can certainly be helpful.
For example, is not the possibility that even our so-called inclinations can be retrained a hopeful and productive thought? Let’s not dismiss the possibility just because others might misunderstand it and feel guilty. The focus of this series isn’t to address the distinction between temptation and behavior; that is a prior assumption of the whole project. We already know there is a difference. The purpose of this series is to explore the philosophical ramifications of the traditional discourse about the origins of the temptation, and the strengths of a potential alternative.
I’m sorry for being redundant, but I need to be perfectly clear, because you seem confused about what we are trying to say. We are NOT trying to establish guilt for merely being tempted. We are simply proposing an alternative way to understand the problem that may, for some, lead to a way out of the temptation itself, and for others, allow them to understand the temptation in new and less nihilistic ways. Isn’t that wonderful?
Consider: the present dialogue (even the paradigm you present) pits will against passion. We have passion/temptation, and but we can control it anyways. In other words, we have wishes and desires that we must deny in order to live a moral and chaste life. Our agency gives us freedom to act contrary to our deepest urges (this sounds awfully freudian to me: ego vs. id). You suggest that we ignore the question of where those passions come from, and simply help people to master them. However, what if we discover that we can not only master our passions, but also author them? What if we realize that we can remake our wants and wishes, and lose even the desire to sin? Suddenly, whole new worlds open up — whole new worlds of responsibility as well as whole new worlds of possibility.
I didn’t mean to seem to associate guilt and inclination, if I came across that way. You’ve been very clear on the distinction and nothing in yours or Robinson’s theory implies any sin (in fact, attempts to guard against it by insisting that change is possible). Yet:
“You seem to imply that delving at all into the issue of where same-sex attraction (mind you, attraction, not behavior) comes from is unproductive. . . we [can still] explore the implications of competing claims.”
When I say that these competing claims are unprovable, I’m not bringing back that whole empiricism debate. All I’m saying is that saying that somebody can change their inclinations is not necessarily more helpful or merciful than any other opinion, if that person cannot actually change or remove that inclination. Ideas follow reality and not vice-versa.
Jeff,
I believe the way you are discussing this issue inherently trivializes homosexuality. Without first examining one of the questions I brought on my post under part one. If you first do not determine if homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality than you trivialize homosexuality, because you only examine way we use language about homosexuality not heterosexuality as well. Why not ask the question was I heterosexual before I had any heterosexual thoughts or feelings. No to treat these orientations equivalent without first evaluating if they are equivalent of this, assumes they are not equivalent and trivializes the one you think you need to evaluate, while saying one has no need of evaluation. Even using the term same sex or gender attraction trivializes homosexuality if we do not use the term opposite sex or gender attraction.
It sounds like you do not wish to trivializes the experience of homosexuals when you compare your attraction to the opposite-sex to a homosexual’s attraction to the same sex, but if you are not going to trivialize it why not examine if your sexual orientation can be changed. And if you did change it what price would your psyche need to pay to do this.
Also, we can see many examples of people changing their sexual behavior. It is much harder to come up with an example of someone actually changing their orientation. It is also very easy to come up with many many examples of people that have tried and are still trying after years to change their orientation, and have only succeeded in changing their behavior. Many have only had moderate success in changing behavior.
I think this comes back to the second question I refer to in my post on part one. I would like to modify it here. Is it a healthy experience in individuals lives to try to change their sexual orientation? If we are talking about the possibility of changing orientation I think this is an extremely important question.
Gail,
I agree that the way we account for homosexuality applies equally to heterosexuality. That is, if homosexuality is genetic, so is heterosexuality. If homosexuality is habit of thought, then so is heterosexuality. That is one of the points I made in the first post of this series. Thus, the way we eventually explain heterosexuality will inevitably affect the way we talk about heterosexuality.
Also, I believe there is a moral difference between heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior. God has defined ways in which heterosexual behavior is not only allowed, but sacred. However, God has forbidden homosexual behavior in any form.
I personally believe that I could train myself to be sexually attracted to men. It is a theoretical possibility. I believe, however, that this would have severe moral consequences in my life. It is also a habit of thought very difficult to unlearn, and nearly impossible to completely forget. For that reason, I prefer not to try.
Jeff,
I understand that this is a theoretical possibility that you are talking about, but I theoretically disagree. I for one do believe that I could, if I lived in a world where I believed it the right thing to do, learn to live in a relationship with another man. This union may even produce hormonal feelings, but it would always feel not natural and even degrading. I also do not believe that by doing this I would ever stop being attracted to women.
You also have not addressed my point that it is very difficult to find examples of homosexuals actually changing their orientation. While it is easy to find examples of homosexuals trying for years with everything they have for years and only exceeding in suppressing any homosexual behavior.
You also failed to address the psychological implications of trying to change your sexual orientation. This is a significant problem in the LDS culture. As I mentioned before Three times the gay men in the church commit suicide than strait men.
It is also interesting that the brethren no longer support the idea that homosexuals can change their orientation. This is a significant change in the last forty years. Only one example is Spencer W. Kimble’s statement In “To those who say that this practice or any other evil is incurable, I respond: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore?” They also funded shock treatments at BYU to attempt to cure homosexuality during the 1970’s. Now the brethren not only do not talk about the possibility of change they seem to imply that homosexual members will deal with these feelings for the rest of their lives.
I would like to register that I don’t believe I could train myself to change my sexual orientation either. Perhaps I’m past my formative years where this sort of “training” could more easily take place, or perhaps it’s impossible.
Gail,
In contrast, I have freely admitted that it may be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to completely forget how to be attracted to members of the same-sex. (It would be like claiming that someone who was no longer a habitual bike rider has forgotten to how to ride a bike. The skill is never forgotten, and the temptation will likely arise at random times no matter how far distant the habits are.)
Also, you may not be accurate in your claim that Church leaders have abandoned the idea that those struggling with SSA will ever be able to change. In 1995, James E. Faust said
In 1996, Dallin H. Oaks warns us to be careful about any claim that the science is conclusive either way:
This doesn’t mean that we can’t converse about the issue, and explore alternative possibilities. In fact, as I’ve explained elsewhere on this site, I believe any claim that our thoughts and desires are genetically inherited is replete with dangerous implications. Because of those implications, I reject the philosophy. I also reject the idea that science can ever provide a conclusive answer on this subject, because science is a philosophy paradigm, not indubitable truth.
In 1999, A. Dean Byrd wrote in an Ensign article:
I do not include these quotes as “evidence” that homosexuality can be changed. I would only ask that you be extremely cautious about your assumptions about the Church’s position on the issue. There does seem to be some support among the brethren in recent years for the idea that homosexuality may not be a genetic inevitability. Although that doesn’t define an official church position on the issue, it does preclude us from saying “the brethren no longer support the idea that homosexuals can change their orientation.” There simply is no definitive, official support either way on the issue. They unanimously support the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong, but there is no consensus on where the temptation comes from.
Gail,
It’s been a while since we saw you on North Star. In order to prevent faithful members from being swayed by your rhetoric going unanswered, I felt I needed to respond.
You greatly misunderstand the term “Orientation” if you believe that this is an immutable, eternal characteristic. It isn’t. If you make the case for sexual orientation being either toward a men or women, you also have to account for the vast differences in attractions between even two “heterosexual” persons. If this orientation you speak of is so permanent, is it just really a lucky coincidence that God chose to send all the men who are attracted to heavy women to the Pacific Islands, or the men who are attracted to tiny feet to China, or the men who are attracted to elongated necks, stretched lips, or ear lobes to their respective tribes in Africa? That seems more than a little silly. The only logical explanation is that attraction to specific characteristics is a learned process. How can an attraction to Gender suddenly be so different?
As far as what the Prophets have spoken on homosexuality, you can’t pick and choose what little sentences you use against them and then deny that they said anything else. They have said very recently in the pamphlet God Loveth His Children:
“While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life.”
That sure sounds like they are saying that some people can change their orientation. I have greatly changed my sexual attractions. Little good comes from all or nothing thinking. I may have never been 100% homosexual and am not not 100% heterosexual. I don’t think those types actually exist as defined by society’s use of the terms. I know many men who have changed their attractions. Both the Spitzer study and the People Can Change studies present substantial evidence that many individuals can change their sexual attractions. The numbers who have been damaged by attempting to do so are rather scarce as is any reliable data to that end.
Also, it is very easy to use statistics, whether real or imagined, without citing their source or fully explaining their significance. It sounds absolutely horrible that 3 times as many men in the church who experience same-sex attractions commit suicide as their “heterosexual” peers. However, what study does that statistic come from? Also, it greatly change the meaning of that statistic when the full story comes out. According to a 1989 Study on suicide performed by the US Government, “gay” teens are 3 times more likely to attempt (there is a difference) suicide than their “straight” peers. That is among ALL teens. That says nothing about the impact of attempting to change on suicide. So, using partial truths to convey one’s point may seem compelling, but it’s rather unethical.
“If this orientation you speak of is so permanent, is it just really a lucky coincidence that God chose to send all the men who are attracted to heavy women to the Pacific Islands, or the men who are attracted to tiny feet to China, or the men who are attracted to elongated necks, stretched lips, or ear lobes to their respective tribes in Africa? That seems more than a little silly.”
Because of this and the quotes Jeff listed from Church leaders, I try to keep an open mind and avoid trying to say anything conclusively. I think we should avoid making too firm a stand to one side or the other for political or personal reasons.
Attraction is subjective, but it’s worth noting that attraction within a gender may be different than orientation itself. Honestly, about half of the women my age I hold NO attraction whatsoever to, so it isn’t merely a switch. There’s just no chemistry at all – meaning that “attraction” isn’t necessarily only a biological thing but something I develop for someone when I get to know them.
I guess you could find an analog in friendships I have for the same sex. Often somebody will not register on my radar the first few times I meet them, but after talking to them I find they’re pleasant and nice and I consider them a friend. You might argue that I have no choice but to accept them as friends because of some sort of “compatibility,” but I like to feel I have a choice in the matter.
See, this is why I hang out here. So I can talk myself into appearing to agree with the original premise :).
Jeff,
Thank you for using these quotes. What the brethren where saying in the 1990’s is far different than what they said in the 1970’s. All these quotes talking about being unsure of the causes of homosexuality. Please note none of them said anything about the ability of homosexuals may or may not have to change their orientation, though the President Kimble quote definitely stated that, and there are more from that time period. I think as you continue your study you will notice that if you look to the most recent decade information will illustrate even more movement away form homosexuality being changeable. I recommend you re-look at the Oaks/Wickman interview published on lds.org. Elder Wickman say “There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…” And Elder Oaks states “That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” In bring the focus completely to the control we have of our behavior and away from the control we have on sexual orientation Elder Oaks also states “That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities.” He brings in the possibility of being born with homosexuality. In other words in the 1970’s the brethren actively preached change. In the 1990’s they say their are many theories and we really do not know. Now we do not yet see them directly saying that it can’t be changed, but none of the brethren are saying anything about changing orientations they are saying that the cause is a scientific matter and the important thing is that behavior can be controlled. This is a dramatic shift.
I do agree that none of what the brethren are saying in conference talks can really be pointed to as an official church position. I do think it is interesting to note that the brethren seem to be moving away from what you are advocating here.
You still have not addressed the psychological or emotional effects of your position. Or why it is so hard to find examples of people who have changed their orientation and yet so easy to find those that have tried and are trying.
Kevin,
I do have many beliefs about what is beautiful that is also held by my culture. These beliefs include what makes a man attractive as well as a woman. But being attracted to the female gender seems to be much different. In fact that attraction is far beyond a sexual thing. When I was a teen I spent a lot to time, money, and energy to spend time with girls. I had no thought that I would have sexual relations with these girls. Most I did not thing I would ever likely kiss them or hold their hands, but for the chance to spend an evening with them whatever cultural standard of beauty they meet or did not meet did not matter it was great to be around girls. This I believe to be a much different issue than cultural beauty.
The study I am referring to I would need to look up, but I have read this statistic in more than one place. Most resonantly it was in the book “No More Goodbyes” by Carol Lynne Pearson. And yes the numbers for LDS men are higher than the rest of the population. Why that would be I believe is an important question.
Gail,
You still have not addressed … why it is so hard to find examples of people who have changed their orientation and yet so easy to find those that have tried and are trying.
Actually, I have. Perhaps you missed it. Keep looking! 🙂
Well, I’ll point it out to you. In case you still can’t find it. I have freely admitted that it may be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to completely forget how to be attracted to members of the same-sex. Why? It would be like claiming that someone who was no longer a habitual bike rider has forgotten to how to ride a bike. Robinson’s theory (that same-sex attraction is a learned response) accounts for this just as well as any genetic theory (in fact, I would claim, better — genetic theories are replete with logical problems).
Elder Wickman say “There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…â€
So is my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So is my identity as a citizen of the United States of America.
I do think it is interesting to note that the brethren seem to be moving away from what you are advocating here.
I don’t see how this is the case. Sorry, I feel as though what I am saying is directly in line with more recent church positions on the issue. They have consistently said that homosexual behavior is a sin, but have recently silent about any conclusions as to the source of the attractions themselves. With that silence, however, they have frequently added the caveat that a genetic paradigm has certain implications that we ought to be wary of.
Gail,
You say that the statistic of 3 times more has been used in a number of places, but then say that that number is higher than the rest of the population. In fact it isn’t. I’ve cited a specific scientific study used by many gay activists and it says that the statistics related to gay suicide in the entire population are the same 3 times as you claim the Mormon statistic to be. I don’t see how the Mormon statistic would then be higher. How frequently a statistic is cited doesn’t reveal anything about the reliability of that statistic.
And where are these numerous studies you allude to that reveal vast numbers of people who have been damaged by attempting to change. The fact that you referred to Carolyn Lynn Pearson’s book implies that you mean that there are a number of vocal anecdotal accounts of such individuals. Perhaps those who have found peace and changed their orientation no longer see it as a critical part of who they are and have simply moved on. Relying on a vocal minority of anecdotal claims does not prove anything.
Trying to make a claim that there is an inherent difference in what I find beautiful and a gender specific attraction is based on as assumption that both same-sex attraction and opposite attraction are qualitatively and morally equal. This assumption is clearly and indisputably denied by the restored Gospel. In order to make that claim, an individual first must deny that the Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are inspired and insist that they are simply speaking from their own opinions and biases. If that is the case you want to make, then I can’t argue with you there. You have the right to believe that. However, I also have the right to believe that those men are inspired. I have the right to believe in the teachings that God intended for all of his spirit sons to marry spirit daughters and thus progress to become like him. Just because that may not happen for all individuals in this mortal life doesn’t mean that my belief in that doctrine is wrong. I believe that all of God’s children are by divine nature heterosexual. Just because a number of those children experience same-sex attractions in mortality and may not experience feelings of same-sex attraction in mortality does not make my belief invalid. If you choose to believe that some of God’s children are inherently homosexual that is your choice, but that belief requires that the Prophet and Apostles are not inspired. I cannot believe that. This entire discussion rests on the assumption that the revealed plan of salvation and the restored Gospel are true. My understanding is that this discussion is not about the truthfulness of that doctrine, but rather about an application of that doctrine that is meant to lead to a stronger testimony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to modern day prophets and apostles.
Kevin,
You make some really good points. I apologize if I have implied that the comments I have quoted are the only ones out there by the brethren. There are many. I have spent countless hours reading their words from lds.org on this subject. I also must admit that what you quote from God loves his children does leave the possibility for change. I do think that this is still a big change from what you can see in the 1970’s. Even God Loves His Children is seems to lean to the possibility for change in the next life.
Kevin, I think you bring great knowledge to this discussion. I commend you for your life choice. I know this not to be an easy choice, but one that is not without joy. I get the impression from you that you have much joy in your marriage relationship. I am sorry if any of my writing have give any impression that I do not honor you for your choice.
I think that you have brought up a good point when you say:
“I may have never been 100% homosexual and am not not 100% heterosexual.”
It may be that you are bisexual. I do not know and am not in a place to judge. I do know that I am not sure what 100% heterosexual means, but I have never been sexually attracted to men. Even when trying to sexually fantasize about men, I am unable to get myself to experience anything I would call attraction to any man. I have known personally people married to opposite sex partners for years and sexuality or even romantic interactions always feel degrading to them, even when trying hard to be heterosexual. I am not sure there is a definitive way to prove it, but there just might be something to the Kinsey Scale. If so maybe it is possible for those somewhere in the middle of the scale to move a few points, but for those on the 0 or the 10 side it may be much more difficult.
Jeff,
Thanks for pointing this out. I am slow.
“Well, I’ll point it out to you. In case you still can’t find it. I have freely admitted that it may be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to completely forget how to be attracted to members of the same-sex. Why? It would be like claiming that someone who was no longer a habitual bike rider has forgotten to how to ride a bike. Robinson’s theory (that same-sex attraction is a learned response) accounts for this just as well as any genetic theory (in fact, I would claim, better — genetic theories are replete with logical problems).â€
So if homosexuality is a learned response. Why do so many people feel homosexual feelings long before they even had a conscious thought or an action in this direction?
Also, to clearly to make sure I really understand since I am slow, are you saying that if the habitual bike rider stopped riding bikes they would still remember how to ride a bike and have a desire to ride a bike; and that would be like a gay person not engaging in gay behavior would still remember gay behavior and still desire it? Maybe I am not getting your analogy because that just sounds like they are still gay just controlling their sexual behavior. Am I just not getting it?
“I don’t see how this is the case. Sorry, I feel as though what I am saying is directly in line with more recent church positions on the issue. They have consistently said that homosexual behavior is a sin, but have recently silent about any conclusions as to the source of the attractions themselves. With that silence, however, they have frequently added the caveat that a genetic paradigm has certain implications that we ought to be wary of.â€
I think they dropped the wary of ten years ago. So as I see the progression. Forty years ago they were actively teaching that gay people can and should change and were funding shock treatment at BYU to get gay people to change. I realize we for simplification have skipped a few steps. But in 1990 Elder Packer stated that people may need to resist the feelings of homosexuality their whole lives. This is where I see the first even acknowledgement that some may not be able to change. Then come all your quotes where we both note silence on the issue of change with caveat about being wary of genetic paradigm. I think this is a good way to describe the things you quoted. I also think this is a far illustration of statements during that decade. Then in this decade I think we see the dropping of the wary of thing. They seem to me to want to completely focus the discussion on controlling behavior and have no interest in discussing causation or whether it will change. I am not trying to predict where this line is leading, but I still think you are at the 1970’s end of this line not the current end.
Kevin,
I apologize on the language I used when talking about statistics. I mistakenly was comparing mine to what you had quoted about gay teens, and implied that I guess that means that it is higher in the church than the rest of the population. I do remember reading this somewhere, but I have no source on this and it could be my memory playing tricks on me.
I do not remember claiming vast numbers of people being harmed by this. I do get passionate about this subject. I have no studies. I just know people close to me and not so close to me that have confided in me the pain and self-hatred that they have struggling with reconciling their sexual orientation with their faith. These people have even shared struggles with suicide. These are not big statistics, or published studies, just people I care about.
Many people are aware of or have read about Stewart Mathis’s experience. He is written about in more than one book. Stewart was a young gay LDS man living the gospel that shot himself on the steps of his stake center, because of his struggle to reconcile his faith and his sexual orientation. I never knew Stuart personally; I did work with his brother one summer in Alabama. I know Stewart is just one person, but Kevin as an LDS gay man please tell me do you really think his struggle is unique? Do you really think that our LDS Culture has nothing to do with this? Do you really think that misunderstanding among the members of the church about homosexuality, the churches statements on homosexuality, and the nature of how it has changed does not affect gay member’s experiences in a negative way? We may not be talking about a huge number. We may not be talking about millions, or even thousands. I don’t know but maybe not even hundreds. Maybe only Stewart and the handful of people I know. I don’t think so, but may be. Is not the misery in these people’s lives significant enough?
Gail,
Please do not make any more comments that criticize the leaders of this church, past or present. If you do it again, your comments will no longer be published on the site (regardless of the content).
You (erroneously) attribute shock therapy to church leaders. You then pigeonhole my position as the same as those who endorse shock therapy. You know this isn’t true. Particularly since I have said, several times now, that I suspect that many people may struggle with the temptations their whole life. And this is, in your own words, precisely the rhetoric used by present church leaders.
It is deceptive to associate Robinson’s philosophical paradigm with shock therapy. You do this in order to depict it as not only archaic, but also cruel. However, Robinson is one of the most compassionate people I have read who has discussed this issue, and the last to support such treatment that you condemn. If you disagree, that is fine. But do not make false associations anymore. It is not cruel, nor is it condemning to suggest that some people may be able to change their sexual orientation. This does not at all mean that I condone shock therapy or any other cruel form of treatment. It simply means that there are more than one philosophical frameworks from which we can understand our sexual attractions, and the genetic paradigm is only one. And nothing compels us morally or scientifically to reject outright the possibility that change may be possible for some.
If you have a problem with the church’s doctrine that homosexual behavior is a sin, please do not use our forum to discuss it. If you disagree with the church’s policies regarding the issue, that is fine. Again, please voice those concerns elsewhere.
Gail,
Regarding those members of the church who struggle with same-sex attraction, here is article written by Jeffrey R. Holland. I’m sure you’ve read it.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2784ba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
I believe he articulately pleads for compassion and charity, but without accepting the notion that homosexual behavior is in any way approved by God. The article doesn’t address the central issue in this post/series, which is a philosophical explanation of why we sometimes experience same-sex attraction in the first place. This question is open to any number of different answers, all of which have different implications. We are currently exploring Robinson’s theory, and nothing in his theory condemns those who struggle with SSA, or would lead young men in the church to follow the path of Stewart Mathis. Please do not assert that the charitable thing to do is to assure people that they are helpless in changing their desires. That strikes me, actually, as quite uncharitable since it is entirely unfounded. We only assert a potential possibility. You seem to assert a definitive impossibility. It is clear who has the burden of proof.
Those members who emphatically assert that it is impossible to change your sexual orientation are, in my experience, often the same ones who vocally disagree with church doctrine on the issue, and would like to see those who struggle with SSA free from moral condemnation for openly engaging in homosexual behavior. If this is the way you feel, we are not interested in discussing the issue further on this site.
Do you really think that misunderstanding among the members of the church about homosexuality, the churches statements on homosexuality, and the nature of how it has changed does not affect gay member’s experiences in a negative way? We may not be talking about a huge number. We may not be talking about millions, or even thousands. I don’t know but maybe not even hundreds. Maybe only Stewart and the handful of people I know. I don’t think so, but may be. Is not the misery in these people’s lives significant enough?
There are some who feel condemned and are filled with self-loathing because of the church’s stance on pornography abuse. The same for an alcohol addiction or compulsive gambling. Should we discard these doctrines/policies for that reason too? I’m sorry, but the church’s doctrine is not the source of misery or sorrow. Some members may experience sorrow/confusion while they try to reconcile their unique temptations with church doctrine. But the church doctrine itself is not to blame, nor is the solution to revise church doctrine.
Of course, members of the church should be more compassionate. We should be less quick to judge. We should never ostracize a member or make them feel unwelcome because of their unique temptations. In fact, this series is an attempt to raise the level of awareness of the real struggle that some of these people face. It is an attempt to help people to understand the nature of the challenge, and how it is not something that they deliberately got themselves into, not something that they should be morally condemned for experiencing, and not something they can easily reverse. Based on what you’ve said, I can’t really understand why you have a problem with that…
Jeff,
I am so sorry. I can see how what I said sounds like I am trying to associate you with cruelty. This was not my intent, but that does not change what I did.
I only brought up the BYU shock therapy program to say that the church was funding metheds to try to change homosexuality in the 1970’s. I was not even trying to imply that the brethern at the time were torchering these people. I am so sorry I brought this up at all.
I said that you were on the 1970’s end of the line because that is when we have quoted the church advocating change it was not to say your were in any way advocating or being cruel. I can see how what I said sound like that and I am so sorry.
I also apologize for coming across as critisizing the brethern of any time period. I have a testimony of the church and I believe the leaders of the church are and were inspired all through time. I also believe they are loving caring men. When talking about their falibility was not to critize them it I believe it makes the doctrine of reveilation that much more beautiful.
I am not trying to advocate that the church polocy of homosexual behavior is wrong. I do not believe I have ever said it is wrong. I do think you have chosen a topic that is not an easy one. It is a topic that has a lot of neunce and even pain in peoples lives. I believe philosiphy is exploring truth. This is what I am trying to do with our discussion.
I do wish to follow the rules you have set up on your web site. Help me understand what in my comments that critizised the brethern past or presant. Was it bringing up BYU’s shock theripy program? Was it quoting Bringham Young? Was it talking about what Presidant Kimble wrote in Merical of Forgiveness? Was it talking about the brethern being falible? Like I said I am slow. Please help me understand how I can obay your rules.
Once again I apologize. Please forgive me.
Thank you,
Gail
Jeff,
“Those members who emphatically assert that it is impossible to change your sexual orientation are, in my experience, often the same ones who vocally disagree with church doctrine on the issue, and would like to see those who struggle with SSA free from moral condemnation for openly engaging in homosexual behavior. If this is the way you feel, we are not interested in discussing the issue further on this site.”
I think you have seen an example to the contrary with Micheal on this site. He is not trying to relieve himself from the requirement of living church policy, but he sees his sexuality as eternal.
I have known people very close to me that struggled with self-hatred daily until they came to an understanding that homosexuality was a God given part of who they are. This I believe is the realization that Micheal has come to. I am not talking about the churches behavioral expectations here. I also do not think such a realization is contradictory to the churches current stand on the issue of homosexuality. I must admit that it has been in contradiction in the past, or at least in contradiction with statements by the brethren in years past.
There is a big difference between struggling to change something, and living behavioral standards.
I do think it is a hopeful to believe that if you are striving to live a behavioral standard that some day you will desire hormonally to live that standard if it is a true hope. I also believe it is a faults hope than it will only will bring shame, guilt, and frustration. Therefore I think it is fare to ask you to examine the real world practical value of your philosophy.
“There are some who feel condemned and are filled with self-loathing because of the church’s stance on pornography abuse. The same for an alcohol addiction or compulsive gambling. Should we discard these doctrines/policies for that reason too? I’m sorry, but the church’s doctrine is not the source of misery or sorrow. Some members may experience sorrow/confusion while they try to reconcile their unique temptations with church doctrine. But the church doctrine itself is not to blame, nor is the solution to revise church doctrine.”
There is one huge difference when it comes to homosexuality. Many of the people experiencing the shame, sorrow, or confusion do not sin and have not sinned in this area. Yes, it is also sad when people who have gotten involved with addictive behavior experience these feelings, but we are not talking about feeling shame for bad choices, we are talking about feeling shame for who someone is. Again I think it is fare to ask the implications of your philosophy in this area as well as the implications of the culture.
Yes your example of Elder Holland is one of the most compassionate example of talks form the brethren on this topic. Also, there are many other examples of compassion shared from the brethren. I think the brethren personally are likely all very compassionate. Even President Kimble though many of his comments may have lacked understanding I believe he likely was had compassion for homosexual people. That does not change the implications of our LDS culture or the implications of the philosophy you are advocating.
Gail,
I’m not sure how far the “aversion therapy” (read: shock) treatments can be brought down on the church’s head. They were performed by BYU’s psych department, and some lower-level Church authorities would refer people to Evergreen International, a group which firmly believes in “curing” homosexuality through various methods and tried shock treatments for a brief period.
The practice is pretty backward – it seems like something somebody would come up with who has heard of Pavlovian psychology and nothing else – and I’m sure the political climate at the time allowed church leaders to go further in allowing the practice than they might have normally, but there’s really no consistent pattern of barbarism there. Even culturally I’d like to think our members are more likely to accept gays (particularly those who are “struggling”, to use the vernacular) than many stripes of Christianity.
Should I or should I not risk entering the waters infested with the ‘gators posting comments on this blog? Being a Florida resident, I have no qualms about doing so. I have endured the hurricanes of 2004 and more than one encounter with a ‘gator. I have no fear!
Without sounding too condescending, I will invoke my age and experience to bring us back out to see the big picture. I am much older than either of you and have been dealing with the issue since 1975 so I know of what I speak:
Point 1 – There is really no “official” doctrine associated with homosexuality. The Church does not have a clue what causes it. There were opinions floated during the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s but none of them have held water with what is now common knowledge.
Point 2 – The Church (through BYU) was involved in using electric shock therapy to help cure young Latter-day Saints of homosexuality. This practice was discontinued in the early ’80s. The Brethren were aware of these treatments.
Point 3 – The current “policy” of the Church regarding homosexuals is that their orientation is not sinful and does not preclude them from fully participating in the Church. However, they must live by the Law of Chastity (which is really a form of celibacy for gays and lesbians as they have no or very limited hope of ever changing their orientation).
Point 4 – There are very few people that have succeeded in changing their orientation (based upon their own assertions and not upon scientific facts). Those who are more bisexual have created a married life for themselves by leaning more towards their straight side. Those who are not bisexual have had to choose between a life alone within the Church or a life with a partner outside the Church. Change therapy is a pipe drream and does not work. However, behavioural control and diminished sex drive are possible with effort.
Point 5 – The general membership of the Church continues to think of homosexuality in antiquated and outdated ways. They have no interest in changing their viewpoint or re-thinking the subject because it does not impact them directly. If they have children or family members that are gay or lesbian, it will cause more reflection on their part but not necessarily change their opinions.
Point 6 – The Brethren have been very open to more understanding on this subject and this can be seen in the openness of discussion and the changing of church policy and attitudes. Church policy has definitely softened on the subject over the past two decades.
Point 7 – The Brethren never think the same way on any one particular subject. But they do present a united front when giving the official position on a subject. One of the Twelve has a gay son so his sentiments would be very different than another Apostle who does not have any immediate family members dealing with the issue.
Point 8 – The Church is being very careful in making sure it does not trap itself into a corner by propagating false myths and unscriptural interpretations of homosexuality. It does not want to create another blacks and the priesthood issue. For this reason, they have distanced themselves dramatically from Evergreen as well as A. Dean Byrd’s preposterous theories.
The Brethren are not stupid men. They know the issues surrounding homosexuality. They also know that paradigms and emotions can get set later in life which distort or stifle true discussion. For this reason, I believe that the issue will not be resolved until the Prophet inquires of the Lord and receives further light and knowledge as to where gays and lesbians fit into the Plan of Salvation. I am not the only one to believe this.
I do not wish to rain on the parade of young men and women who are just beginning to deal with this issue in their lives and who hope to get married and have children. I wish them all the best. But my advice would be to tread very carefully and be mindful of the feelings of your spouse and children. Honesty is always the best policy.
“Also, I believe there is a moral difference between heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior. God has defined ways in which heterosexual behavior is not only allowed, but sacred. However, God has forbidden homosexual behavior in any form…”
I continue to hear these words as if they were indeed spoken from the mouth of God himself. I have seen no evidence for this. And I think the scriptures oft quoted have been so without historical context. And I have seen nothing in the BOM regarding such. The above statement is a culturally created quagmire which has infected a great many otherwise intelligent souls.
Gail,
In answer to your questions: when you make the claim that Spencer W. Kimball was mistaken/cruel/indoctrinal when he wrote the Miracle of Forgiveness, and that the book enjoys too much popularity, I do think that engenders the kind of critical atmosphere that we wish to avoid on this site. Thanks for your cooperation.
Also, I too believe in prophetic fallibility in the sense that they are human, but I don’t believe that you and I have the moral authority to criticize their teachings or decide where their errors are (if they exist). The Lord has said that we ought to trust in their authority as prophets and apostles. They have frequently encouraged us to find out for ourselves through prayer and personal revelation. However, this does not give us the moral authority to vocally criticize their teachings. It is simply an invitation to learn for ourselves the doctrines they teach from the same source they received it: God. This is not intended as a license to ignore prophetic teachings when we dislike them, but to strengthen our faith and trust in their teachings. As for this site, we will not countenance reference to prophetic fallibility as a reason to doubt any of the claims made by a prophet of God.
Also, I simply do not believe that President Kimball lacked understanding. I think, if anything, we lack understanding… it is outside of our moral authority as Latter-day Saints to publicly claim that we have moral understanding than God’s prophet. Again, this qualifies as the type of comment we respectfully ask you to make elsewhere.
we are not talking about feeling shame for bad choices, we are talking about feeling shame for who someone is
I agree that we shouldn’t feel shame for being tempted. I’m not going to argue with you on that point. However, do you think that our identity is really determined by what tempts us? When people make their same-sex attractions part of their social/spiritual identity, I wonder if they are defining themselves by their temptations. I sometimes wonder if there is another way to talk about same-sex attraction without making the claim that it is “just who they are.”
Honestly, I am not afraid of giving people “false hope.” I am afraid of cultural assumptions that make any alternative assumptions seem cruel, or that insist that people should not have hope, because hope is dangerous to their well-being. I really don’t buy that philosophy.
Also, please stop painting me as someone who believes every homosexual person should just go and try to be heterosexual, and that with enough effort, they’ll succeed. You know that I’m not making that claim. I am only saying that, under Robinson’s paradigm, habits may potentially be reformed (even if never forgotten). This doesn’t mean everybody will succeed… I’ve said that already. If you believe this gives people false hope, then I’m sorry. Again, potential possibility, or definitive impossibility? The burden of proof is on you, because I’m not making definitive claims, only tentative possibilities. It is the definitive claims that have the burden of proof.
Robert,
Dallin H. Oaks recently wrote, “Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings†(which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior†(which is a serious sin).”
Ezra Taft Benson said, “Do not commit adultery “nor do anything like unto it.†(D&C 59:6.) That means petting, fornication, homosexuality, and any other form of immorality.”
There are many other quotes like this. Because these men are official representatives and spokesmen of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are perfectly justified in claiming that God himself has forbidden homosexual behavior. Remember, the scriptures are nothing more than a written record of the sermons of past prophets — they are not more authoritative than God’s present spokesmen. The Lord said, “whether by my voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” You mention that you see nothing in the Book of Mormon to indicate that homosexual behavior is a sin. Remember, though, that we cannot accept the authority of the Book of Mormon without also accepting the prophetic authority of the man who translated it, and those who have succeeded him.
Jeff,
Thank you for the clarification on your rules. So, my understanding is that I should only treat any statement made by the brethren past or current as authoritative. I should never question any of them to the least even if it is in contradiction with statements form the current leaders while discussing on this site. I really want to make sure I have a complete understanding.
“I agree that we shouldn’t feel shame for being tempted. I’m not going to argue with you on that point. However, do you think that our identity is really determined by what tempts us? When people make their same-sex attractions part of their social/spiritual identity, I wonder if they are defining themselves by their temptations. I sometimes wonder if there is another way to talk about same-sex attraction without making the claim that it is “just who they are.—
I am actually referring to Elder Wickman’s statement here that gender orientation is a chore characteristic, and you are right you could consider being an American as a core characteristic. I would say their would be something wrong with our LDS culture if Amercans shame for being American.
If the Brethern are discribing homosexuality as a core characteristic, than I beleive these people are feeling shame for something much more than temptations they feel. Homosexuality is being described by the brethren something far more central to once personality than mere temptation.
I am not trying to paint you in any way. I am truly asking for clarification. I truly do not understand you habitual bike rider example. Please help me.
Jeff, I hope you would not mind me asking one more question of clarification about your comment to Robert. Do you really believe everything the brethren say or have said is just like God saying it himself?
Thank you.
Jeff,
“Also, I simply do not believe that President Kimball lacked understanding. I think, if anything, we lack understanding…â€
I should not have implied that I have more understanding than President Kimball.
I do think it seems that the brethren have gained understanding over the past forty years. When we compare President Kimball’s wards in Miracle of Forgiveness on this subject some most recently spoken by President Hinckley.
From Miracle of Forgiveness:
“Masturbation often leads to grievous sin, even to the sin against nature, homosexuality…and ugly sin…repugnant…embarrassing…detestable…perversion…â€
“The abominable practice can be overcome…to those who say that this practice or any other is incurable, I respond: “How can you say the door cannot be Opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.â€
“…Some totally conquer homosexuality in a few months, others linger on with less power and require more time to make the total comeback. The cure is as permanent as the individual makes it…Satan will not readily let go…â€
President Hinckley when asked by Larry King in 2004 “a problem they caused, or they were born with?†Hinckley replied “I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things.” The same year the First Presidency of the Church published this statement:
“We…reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives.â€
I do not know but I infer that part of the understanding they have gained is that an enfaces on homosexuality being changeable may cause some of this loneliness they refer to. I may be assuming too much, but this seems true given the complete lack of any reference to changing homosexuality in the last 20 years.
I am sorry for saying that I have more understanding than President Kimball. I also apologize for implying that his book is too popular.
I admit that the philosophy you are describing is written in a more understanding way that then others promoting change, but I would much rather have a son or daughter struggling to reconcile their faith with homosexuality read President Hinkley’s words rather than anything I have read erroneously advocating change.
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know forr themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” Brigham Young
I don’t think it’s a matter or reducing our “confidence” in our leaders (as LDS Church members, of course), but in understanding their role as they themselves have explained it. We do not take prophetic counsel or statements lightly, however we recognize that our leaders may make mistakes or say something perhaps more in tune with the culture of the time or personal understanding than absolute divine law.
I use Bruce R. McConkie’s categorical statement that blacks would never receive the priesthood as an example. To say that he later “backpedaled” after the quorum’s decision would be unfair – he had merely made a statement based on his understanding at the time. This is nearly exactly how he explained it. Likewise “Miracle of Forgiveness” may seem cruel and harsh (certainly it caused me my share of guilt trips on my mission and gave me a significant amount of doubt I had to shake off before I could be effective), but I prefer to see it (as the title implies) as a hopeful treatise on sin and redemption, coming from a man with no desire to understate his case. We can understand that without, perhaps, taking everything literally.
We don’t become infallible just because of trust placed in us – fallibility is a reality and to become disenchanted with revelation because of an apostle, stake president or bishop is to misunderstand the role of stewardship and revelation.
Clumpy,
Thank you I could not agree more.
According to Elder Oaks (in a personal conversation I had with him): I asked “How does one know if they are receiving a revelation from God?” Answer: “There is no certainty, only faith.” I asked “How is it different than thoughtful contemplation?” Answer: “It isn’t…it is an agreed understanding based upon collective reflection. It is up to each of us through our own agency and in a state of deep contemplation whether to accept our (the Prophets) understandings as revelation”. He then went on to discuss the early Church and its need to lead more forcibly because the Brethren lacked education in the matters of the world and required more guidance from the learned. Elder Oaks is a good man, no doubt. He is not God. And would be the first to admit it.
Jeff,
I am a little curious. We have waited several weeks since finals. There are many questions you have left answered, you have promised another part to your commentary on homosexuality. Many of my comments are still awaiting moderation. Have you given up on our discussion or can we still anticipate your thoughts of this discussion line?