I posted yesterday that Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey Robinson misrepresented the views of Northwestern University researcher Michael Bailey. The misrepresentation happened in a review of the book, In Quiet Desperation. The book was written by Fred and Marilyn Matis and Ty Mansfield and in the first part explores the suicide of Stuart Matis from his parents’ perspective and in the second part, Ty Mansfield explains his views of homosexuality from the vantage point of an observant Latter Day Saint.
Beyond the problem with how Byrd et al handled research in their review, Ty Mansfield claims the trio of NARTH members mishandled his book. I have not read the book so this post simply reports an excerpt from his rebuttal and an observation. I invite readers to read the book and this exchange and decide for yourself.
Now, in response to Byrd, Cox, and Robinson, a reader’s response to a book can have as much or more to do with the reader’s own preoccupations and paradigms as it does with the actual content of the book. And where an author is silent—as I tried to be regarding clinical themes—individuals will fill in the empty space with their own biases. People can stubbornly remain stuck with a given point of view and only see evidence that confirms that view, and any contradictory evidence is ignored. This phenomenon is so common that psychologists have even given it a name: confirmation bias. In Quiet Desperation has been subject to that distortion from two sides. Those who believe that homosexual relationships should be accepted by the Church have co-opted the book for their own purposes. And these reviewers have done the same, but in an opposite direction.
So there will be no further confusion, let me set the record straight. First, I do not believe in a biologically determined cause of homosexuality, and our book does not once make that claim. Second, I wholeheartedly support the Church’s teaching on the family, heterosexual monogamy, and the sanctity of the eternal union of man and woman as the only means of attaining the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and that this ideal is one that everyone should hope and strive for, no matter what their temporal challenges might be. My beliefs, I feel, are in complete harmony with what the Lord’s Prophets and Apostles teach. In addition to supporting the Church’s teachings, most of the reviewers’ scientific assertions about homosexuality I have no quarrel with. Further, I respect the dedication and hard work of these individuals and so many others in assisting those who have sought them out for treatment for their unwanted homosexual feelings. They have brought great encouragement and tireless energy to helping their many patients.
Despite the authors’ affirmation of LDS teaching, Byrd et al criticize the In Quiet Desperation authors with being too pro-gay. Clearly, Mansfield rejects that accusation.
As I read the rebuttal, it occurred to me that this debate was the LDS parallel to the differences between the change and congruence paradigms we discuss here. In fact, Mansfield links to and quotes a Christianity Today article from an anonymous writer which laments both the evangelical focus on change of orientation and those who believe living a gay life is the only alternative for same-sex attracted people.
This author sounds very much like the person I wrote about in the essay, A Valued Life. It seems as though Mansfield is describing a realistic approach to same-sex attraction within the framework of adherence to LDS theology. However, that is not good enough for Byrd, Cox, and Robinson. They write:
However, with appropriate help, many individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction are able to diminish or eliminate that attraction and make substantial changes in their lives. Those who read In Quiet Desperation, therefore, should do so with the knowledge that the Stuart Matis story may have had a much different outcome had Stuart found the needed help.
Similarly, Ty Mansfield and the reader should understand there is much hope and substantial evidence that those who want to overcome same-sex attraction can make changes and achieve happiness and peace in their lives. Therefore, this review is written to contradict for Ty, and the many others who continue to struggle with same-sex attraction, the vision of hopelessness perpetrated through In Quiet Desperation.
I have heard the same criticism. To some, realism and an honest appraisal of the evidence is somehow hope squelching. If the study of Jones and Yarhouse is to be believed, more people in Exodus are living within the congruence model than have reported change. Given the modest change, it seems that what is happening via Exodus mediation is congruence for the lion’s share of the 53% who reported a positive response.
However, for Byrd et al, within their understanding of LDS theology, Mansfield’s approach is “A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement” as they title their review. They write:
The book inadvertently limits the power of the Atonement in the lives of people who struggle with homosexual attraction. As professionals with many combined years of practice in treating those with unwanted homosexual attraction, we have witnessed changes in the lives of many of these individuals, and the epiphanies have been many.
Like all emotional challenges, the outcome data has ranges of success. What is clear is that when the same standard applied to treatment outcomes of similarly situated difficulties is applied to the treatment outcomes of those with unwanted homosexuality, the results are remarkably similar. There is much in the professional treatment protocols that are compatible with the restored gospel. Appropriate professional help along with the healing powers of the gospel have repeatedly convinced us that there is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient.
I know very little about the LDS doctrine of the Atonement, but if Mansfield limits it, I would argue that they also limit it in a different manner, given their reliance on “professional help.” It seems to me that what they are saying is that counseling plus the gospel is needed. Well, actually, that is what they say when they write: “Appropriate professional help along with the healing powers of the gospel have repeatedly convinced us that there is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient.” So a little reparative therapy is needed to make the Atonement sufficient.
In any case, the authors offer no “outcome data,” or no research to support their claims of epiphanies. As we discuss within the evangelical context, this debate seems to be in part theological for some involved, rather than based in science. For Byrd et al, it appears their need for the change paradigm is based, at least in part, on their belief that their religious beliefs require that paradigm. Somehow, living in accord with LDS beliefs is insufficient, one must change one’s attractions to demonstrate progression in the faith. In general, I think psychologists have trouble seeing the role of their worldview loyalties in how they interpret data. Too often, loyalty to one’s worldview can lead to confirmation bias when approaching science, picking the studies that seem to fit and ignoring or failing to consider adequately those which do not.
I think you’re right, Warren. In fact, that’s how I used to perceive it, and it was especially depressing when i felt like I was doing all I knew how to do with no results. I had a constant feeling that I was somehow failing God. It wasn’t until I had some pretty strong spiritual experiences that changed my perspective that my understanding began to shift. I’m sure there are many Latter-day Saints who still fall into that camp, and I know how hard that can be.
I just looked at the LDS website – it seems that when all is said and done, that each religion has a certain set of beliefs that can either be accepted as true or not. Fortunately or unfortunately, each set of beliefs seem to be taught as the only way one can achieve holiness, etc. My personal belief is that we were all made by and for God’s purposes – we ultimately, as adults, living in America, choose what religion and beliefs we want to believe and practice.
Ty – You don’t feel like more is at stake but I wonder if folks who believe as Dean Byrd does would see it that way. I get the impression that there are different slants on what being a faithful LDS adherent means in the present.
I appreciate those contributing who know more about it. Thanks…
Warren, thanks for what seems like a very fair treatment of the issues here. I would agree that the tensions here likely parallel to the differences between the change and congruence paradigms you discuss, though the term ‘congruence’ is something that is new to me in my reading of your work.
To address questions around the role LDS theology of family and eternal relationships plays in all this, certainly, marriage is central to a Latter-day Saint cosmology of eternal progression, but also central is the idea that the growth and progression we experience in Jesus Christ will continue long after our time in this world. Joseph Smith taught, “Those who have died in Jesus Christ may expect to enter into all that fruition of joy when they come forth, which they possessed or anticipated here… All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it.”
So, if someone doesn’t ever get to a place where they feel like heterosexual marriage is a healthy and positive option in their mortal life, there is the assurance in Christ that as long as they stay true to their covenants (among which is the requirement of no sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage) and seek to continue growing in His grace, there is the assurance that they will eventually get to a place, even if beyond this life, where the promises and blessings regarding eternal marriage will happen beyond this life.
Theologically, even if someone identified as gay but were committed to the behavioral standards of the Church, and desired to continue growing spiritually and otherwise, they can have the expectation that there will a full transformation in this life or the next that would enable them to have a rich and fulfilling heterosexual marriage.
I personally don’t feel like I have any more at stake than anyone else, though the theology and culture of Mormonism are so family-focused that it can be either motivating or discouraging, depending on where someone is at in their circumstances and growth.
The LDS essentially believe in a universal salvation. All but a handful will ultimately acknowledge Jesus as Lord and be saved in a kingdom of glory through his grace. But those who are judged the most faithful and worthy may receive a reward of “exaltation” in the highest of the kingdoms of glory. The only catch is that these valiant souls are only exalted as families, not as individuals. There is a concept of eternal fecundity, not very fleshed out in the LDS scriptures, but due to the Mormon’s very anthropomorphic concept of deity necessarily assumes that such requires a male and female.
Given that this concept of “ultimate” salvation is all wrapped up in marriage and family it follows that those who are not attracted to the opposite sex find themselves especially out of place among the Latter-day Saints. It is one thing to be considered a sinner for being gay, but if you are Mormon and gay, you are a misfit socially in such a family oriented church and are effectively precluded from the ultimate eternal happiness, through no fault of your own.
It was in this religious context and in the context of the LDS participation in California’s Prop 22 campaign that Stuart Matis took his own life.
Well… from my work in family history [I’ve even volunteered at a Mormon stake library] I know that having a family, descendants is all important in LDS religious life. I believe a man cannot be a priest unless married.
Timothy – That may indeed be correct. I hope any LDS readers will confirm or correct. My father was raised reorganized Mormon and said something similar. So more is at stake for them perhaps. This could be similar to those of holiness persuasion in Christianity who perhaps believe being gay eliminates eternal life. I am not sure how to study this but I am beginning to wonder if those who favor the change paradigm believe change is necessary for religious reasons. NARTH may be a group of people who by and large believe this for various religious reasons (LDS, Protestant, Catholic and psychoanalytic).
We can disagree and love each other as Christ would, but we cannot recreate God in our own image, or attempt to without suffering the consequences.
Amen.
This reminds me of another of my favorite quotes from one of Anne Lamott’s inspirational books:
Far too often we all try and recreate God to agree with us. We know what the scripture says and exactly what it means because God Said It and I Believe It.
But most of the time we really have that backwards. We believe it and then we run to find scripture which proves that God agrees with us. And everyone else who is doing exactly the same thing are just “twisting scripture” and justifying their own sin and bias.
Warren
I’m not particularly strong in LDS theology, but I think that perhaps Mormons may have a stronger basis for insisting on reorientation.
If I understand correctly, a Mormon can only reach the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom and become a god of another planet if the are in heterosexual marriage. Celibate persons of any orientation will always be a lesser being because after death they cannot have spirit children to populate the new world.
(Sorry LDS folk if I got that less than fully accurate)
If there is an ongoing concern or conflict about anything, then the current information we have is insufficient to draw any enduring conclusion that will satiate or eliminate the concern. I understand world views and think they are essential for civilitation, however, those world views should never stifle or impede the progress of new information as it becomes available. I still hold to “real hope can only be realized when we are working with the truth” – or something close to those words – courtesy of Dr. Throckmorton.
Debbie,
Thanks for your response – I agree. It has been my observation and experience that an individual’s knowledge of what is true and right for them is at times in conflict with what is politically correct. I have had to close out all the noise and listen to the small, still voice that speaks to me and then I know the truth, which many times is not the beliefs that are rationalized by others.
What you offer — “grace or perhaps a combination of life circumstances coupled with grace” is, I believe, what brings people to the threshold. Where they go from there is dependent on their choosing to allow God to work His transforming grace into their hearts, which they, in turn, work out in their daily living. That is one way of sanctification.
It’s one thing to recognize the need for change. It’s another to do what is then required. God extends forgiveness to us. Repentance (turning from sin or the old life) is our proper response. It works because of the once-for-all atonement of Christ. Some people think contrition (feeling godly sorrow) is repentance. It is not.
What is “true and right for us” is rather like the AA concept of the “God of my understanding.” It can become moral relativism. What is true and right can transcend what we want or accept for ourselves, just as God transcends our full understanding.
This is growing too philosophical for this blog, however. I know from past experience these discussions can get hair-splitting and out of hand. So I am leaving it off here.
Debbie,
Isn’t this kind of life transformation really a deep change in our hearts – how we think, what we believe, and how we live accordingly in congruence with those beliefs that we have come to value as true and right for us? What brings people to this way of being – is it grace or perhaps a combination of life circumstances coupled with grace?
When I say faith, I am referring to faith in the triune God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit— the God of Abraham, made incarnate in Jesus Christ. Faith is a 10-cent generic word to many people. The God I speak of was/is revealed in Scripture, and His truth I take to be knowable. Interpretations may be at odds, but there is only One Truth. Which means those in opposition to God’s will and truth can’t have their cake and eat it, too. We can disagree and love each other as Christ would, but we cannot recreate God in our own image, or attempt to without suffering the consequences.
.
Interesting question.
A gender reassigned individual is no more reoriented than those continually maligned for claiming to have become more heterosexual after suffering the confusion and pain of unwanted homosexuality. One group has conformed their appearance to their desired identity while the other has conformed their thought and behavior patterns to something more congruent with their faith or the identity they believe God meant for them to have in His image.
If change is only cosmetic or behavioral — what some would only call surface change — then what do we do with such individuals? They cannot be cast aside.
I disagree, of course, that a person conforming his/her sexual identity to their faith is only changed on the surface. We have also discussed sanctification/holiness in relation to life transformation. Psychology can boast no such inner transformation on its own. The psyche and the spirit are interdependent.
If someone can undergo gender reassignment surgery for gender dysphoria and be supported by a larger community that accepts the inevitable compromises and difficulties of such a decision…
Why can’t we support people coming to terms with unwanted SSA being fully supported in the church…not to change, but to be loved, supported and so on? Furthermore, why can’t a secular community eagerly support their decision (which is full of compromises and difficulties).
They are different populations, surely.
Warren, I am not that familiar with the Matis story or the book, but I do believe what you have written here is a fair and reasonable assessment of the NARTH-Baily disagreement. Don’t you think, though, that a good many folks who read your statement above may be confused by what the word “congruence” is meant to describe? “Conformity, harmony or congruity with just what?” they may ask themselves. Maybe a little parenthetical explanation would help flesh out the “positive response” range.
If you are writing to influence a broader audience, realize that very few will take the time to research your past blog posts to find out precisely what you mean by congruence. To some, it will sound like capitulation of sorts. They will gloss right over the “positive response” phrase and see it as something opposite “change” (a problematic concept all its own) on a scale of some kind. I’m just thinking of the way people tend to read things. And that old devil, confirmation bias.
When Byrd, et al, say, “we have witnessed changes in the lives of many of these individuals, and the epiphanies have been many,” they could be referring to someone like me. You could be agreeing with them in that congruence is a kind of change (transformation) or positive response based on those “epiphanies.” It might happen with both professional counseling/therapy and the real spiritual power of their faith, or it might happen with faith-based small group work that utilizes some time-tested counseling principles.
We are not going to get past the need to combine the ideas of faith and psychology when referring to whatever process a person goes through to address unwanted same-sex attraction. Glad the APA realizes that.
You appropriately point out here, however, that NARTH (or certain individuals within the organization) has no trouble wielding the faith/doctrine hammer when it suits their purposes.
Faith is a form of congruence, too.
However, with appropriate help, many individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction are able to diminish or eliminate that attraction and make substantial changes in their lives. Those who read In Quiet Desperation, therefore, should do so with the knowledge that the Stuart Matis story may have had a much different outcome had Stuart found the needed help.
Ugh, that quote is disgusting on so many levels.
So wait, the young man killed himself not because he was mistreated by others for being gay or because he suffered from depression that was augmented by his mistreatment. No, he killed himself because he was still same-sex attracted, and if he had had some wonderful reparative therapists to come in, wave their happy wands, and make him heterosexual, then he would have been straight and happy and still be around to play with his wife and kids.
Similarly, Ty Mansfield and the reader should understand there is much hope and substantial evidence that those who want to overcome same-sex attraction can make changes and achieve happiness and peace in their lives.
And this is just insulting, because I (and it seems people like Mansfield) have achieved quite a bit of happiness and peace in our lives, and we also don’t seem to be stepping on the toes of others to do so. If “hope” is only found in orientation change, and not the promises of Scripture and the Gospel, then I suggest Byrd become more familiar with his Bible.