The Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate

By Matt Thurston on Apr 17, 2007

A fascinating discussion is taking place over at Mormon Mentality with regard to recent changes made to the BYU honor code on the subject of homosexuality. Most interesting to me is the news that a group of gay BYU students took an active part in initiating and approving the changes to the honor code. One of these students, a bright, articulate, self-described “current, homosexual BYU student, [and] a committed Latter-day Saint,” named Tito took part in some of the meetings between the students and administration where this issue was discussed. He says, “Since I’m choosing to remain committed to the Church, I obviously don’t feel homosexual relationships are morally acceptable,” but goes on to explain that he supports his many gay friends who choose “homosexual relationships for their path.”

I must admit that when I hear Tito’s frank dual admission to be both a homosexual and committed Latter-day Saint, it makes my head spin in all sorts of dizzy, disparate directions, from feelings of admiration and wonder to feelings of sympathy and even pity. The dizziness comes from the difficulty I have in connecting the dots between the equally powerful need to both: 1.) Believe in something that gives one’s life meaning; and 2.) Fully love (and be loved by) a partner. In the case of gay-but-committed-Mormons, these two life-infusing needs seem hopelessly incongruous. As such, gay Mormons would seem to have one of four paths to choose from:

1.) Reject the religion, choose/create a new faith/meaning, and enjoy a “full” relationship with a same-sex partner. The examples of such people are endless.

2.) Enjoy a “full” relationship with a same-sex partner and maintain belief in (and ties to) Mormonism, albeit on a more restricted/limited basis (i.e. no callings, temple, or priesthood privileges). Past Sunstone contributors Buckley Jeppson and John Gustav-Wrathall have both walked this path.

3.) Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and marry an opposite-sex partner. Ben Christensen is a good example.

4.) Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and remain single and celibate. Ty Mansfield, co-author of In Quiet Desperation, is a good example. (See also this excellent review of IQD by Robert Rees.)

This “Fourth Path” is relatively new (or more openly acknowledged and accepted) and is made possible by growing awareness regarding sexual orientation in general, and by the Church’s fairly recent position on gays that: 1.) Delineates between same-sex feelings (not a sin) and same-sex behavior (a sin); and 2.) Discourages opposite-sex marriage as a means of dealing with same-sex attraction. This leaves gay Mormons without a viable alternative other than the default option of perpetual singlehood and celibacy. To be sure, both the Church and many gay Mormons hold out hope that therapy and/or faith may lead to heterosexual marriage and family in the future for some, but both camps also seem to be equally pragmatic and stoic in the realization that such an outcome may be unlikely for many, and that the rewards of marriage and family may need to be put off until the next life. Same-sex attraction is likened to a Job-like or Abraham-like test of faith and endurance.

So it is this Fourth Path that fascinates me the most, and not simply for the head-spinning, at-odds competition between the powerful needs of faith/belief and romantic love mentioned above. And not just because of the striking incongruity that the Fourth Path of celibacy and singlehood offers when juxtaposed against the traditional Mormon cultural and theological standard/ideal of partnership and family— by far the most recognizable and emphasized aspect of Mormonism. Besides these aspects (and others), what interests me most is the unspoken political ramifications inherent in the success or failure of these gay, single, and committed Mormons. In fact, if the four paths above were represented as a four-man political race, without question all eyes, both gay and straight, both Mormon and ex-Mormon, would be on the man running in lane #4.

Certainly, from the point of view of the Church, until a successful therapy or “cure” can be found for those who have same-sex attraction, its hopes are pinned on the happiness and successful integration of those who walk the Fourth Path. Otherwise, the gospel must either undergo a radical readjustment that accommodates same-sex marriage, or be content with being a gospel for only 90 to 95 percent of the earth’s inhabitants. Those who support the Church (and/or believe same-sex behavior to be immoral) will be rooting heavily for the success of these individuals.

But what about those Mormons and ex-Mormons who do not think that same-sex behavior is immoral? What about Gays who walk the First and Second Paths? Are they as unequivocal and enthusiastic in their support of those on the Fourth Path? I’d imagine that most no doubt desire that all individuals who have same-sex attraction find happiness where they may, be it in Mormonism or out, be it in the arms of a man or woman, or out; in short, they want each individual to fulfill their maximum being or essence. Conversely however, the success of those on the Fourth Path will likely mean the continued opposition and/or disapproval and alienation of those who either walk, or support those who walk, the First and Second Path.

Therefore, given that this path or option is relatively “new” (in that it bears the fairly recent mark of tacit official sanction), it would seem that the success of this new generation of young, gay Mormons, the Ty Mansfields and the Titos (assuming he chooses the Fourth Path), is possessed with a kind of latent political charge. Their success or failure will almost certainly play a part in the shaping of policy and even doctrine and revelation with regard to sexual orientation, gender, marriage, and family in the future.

(Note: The blog post at Mormon Mentality appears to have prompted a Salt Lake Tribune article.)

------------
Share this! These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

111 Comment(s)

I’m not so sure the LDS church is hanging its hopes on this “Fourth Path.” While the old advice of “get married and everything will be okay” has officially been discontinued, young gay men are still receiving this message, whether directly or by implication. In fact, the specific advice, per Dallin Oaks, is that one should not “deceive” a potential spouse regarding this matter in courtship.

Just a few weeks ago, an organization of LDS psychotherapists held their annual convention in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building at Salt Lake City. Given the ownership of the building, I think it’s fair to reason that the LDS church approved of this organization, and of the presentations planned. In one of these presentations, three young married men were trotted out in front of the audience, openly acknowledging that they were gay. Each of these young men was careful to point out that he revealed his orientation to his spouse prior to marriage. Each claimed that they were following the LDS plan to create eternal families, etc., etc. Each expressed confidence that their marriages would be successful, in spite of acknowledged challenges in regard to physical intimacy.

I think we will see more and more of this. Of course, the LDS church likely doesn’t have many (or any?) 60 year old gay married men, who can or will stand up and tell the world that they’ve been successfully married for 40 years. The LDS church has to rely on relative newlyweds, which in my opinion, is quite telling. My first response to these testimonies is always “let’s follow up ten years from now.” In the meantime, the LDS church is likely to point to these young men as examples of “the lord’s way,” and make those in your “Fourth Path” feel inadequate.

Comment # 1 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin. Look at it another way- Take another married man in the temple who comes out years later and states that he is attracted to small children or other married women- same thing, sin!

Sexuality is a passion that everyone has to learn to control and bridal. Everyone at some point goes through a stage of sexual fantasy immoral behavior wheather they play it out or not. It may just be a fleeting moment of exposure to pornography or seeing someone naked but everyone has to learn to control the impulse of the driven physical body as it is exposed and is arroused. People who are in control of that passion who are married are people who recognize weakness of the flesh and also know that certain thoughts and actions are to be used only within the confines of their spousal relationship. Any feelings of attraction outside of their spousal relationship should be avoided. I also think it is safe to say that we can all admire beauty and purity of both sexes without crossing the line of attraction. I would find it somewhat difficult to be married to a wife who was more attracted to other women, children, men or animals over myself!

Because same gender attraction is sexual in nature I believe that persuing that attraction in ones mind only leads to heartache and eternal misery. There will be no same sex marriages that will endure the eternities!

Comment # 2 by Rob Osborn | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Nick,
I’m not sure that it’s safe to assume that either the group of psychotherapists or the content of their meeting has official sanction of the LDS Church, not unless all meetings that take place in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building are vetted and approved by Church leadership. Do you know if this is the case?

Comment # 3 by Tom | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Matt, many faithful fully-participating heterosexual saints remain single and celibate throughout all or most of their mortal lives. Your fascination and “head spinning” that homsexual saints would or could remain faithful and celibate seems to ignore, and perhaps condescend or insult, the many faithful, single and celibate heterosexuals in the church, many of whom have little or no hope for a celestial marriage in this life. Many worthy sisters are kept from marriage by the mere statistic of not enough faithful LDS men to go around. Demographics may also keep faithful brethren from finding suitable wives in the church. Many singles, men and women, are physically, emotionally or spiritually “broken” to the point where marriage is no longer a viable option. Such brokenness may be result of sin, but often it is not or is through no fault of the individual. Therefore, regardless of how one views homosexual orientation, as either something that needs to be fixed, or as a natural state/condition, the lifelong celibacy and faithfullness expected of homosexual single saints is no more than what is asked of many heterosexual single saints.

Nick, wasn’t there an interview between one of the church’s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church’s previous admonition to “just get married anyway” ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.

Comment # 4 by anon-for-now-please | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Rob,
First, the LDS church has been rather firm lately, in teaching that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, sinful. Rather, the LDS church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. That said, I’m not sure your expressed views are representative of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You’re welcome to believe as you choose, of course.

I’m not entirely sure why you feel the need to bring pedophilia or beastiality into this discussion. Neither are related to the topic at hand, i.e. homosexuality.

I’m also not sure I understand your reasoning in the final paragraph of your post. You point out that homosexual attraction is “sexual in nature,” as if heterosexual attraction is not. Then, if I understand you correctly, you suggest that having homosexual thoughts “only” leads to “heartache and eternal misery.” Why do you believe this, Rob? Do you have experience in having homosexual thoughts? Have you conducted some sort of study, wherein you followed the life experiences of individuals who had homosexual thoughts, and observed that they had “heartache and eternal misery?” As a gay man who certainly has had “homosexual thoughts,” I can tell you that the only “heartache and eternal misery” I ever experienced was the inevitable result of trying to be something and someone that I wasn’t.

Comment # 5 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
A woman who speaks with great insight and feeling about her choice of what you describe as the “Fourth Path” blogs at http://how-i-deal.blogspot.com/

Comment # 6 by JrL | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
I do not have definite knowledge that all meetings held within LDS church headquarters buildings have the express approval of LDS church leadership. Considering, however, that even the use of stake centers must have the approval of the respective stake presidencies, I very much doubt that LDS headquarters facilities are granted without actual approval of the proposed use.

Can you imagine, for example, the LDS church allowing a Sunstone Symposium to be held in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building?

Comment # 7 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Regarding this 4th way,

I have anecdotal evidence from a Bishop acquaintance of mine that in his urban singles ward, he has called celibate gay men to leadership positions in his ward (ie, EQ presidencies, etc), with the understanding that their orientation does not make them unworthy. Rather, it is in acting on those impulses that worthiness is violated. He has stressed that for gay men, the chastity requirements are the same as for single heterosexual men in his ward.

This started a few years ago, but I don’t have a recent update on how it has worked. I suspect there are other examples of this out there.

Comment # 8 by Kevinf | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
“Nick, wasn’t there an interview between one of the church’s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church’s previous admonition to “just get married anyway” ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.”

Yes, hence my comment that such advice had been “officially” discontinued. The fact remains, however, that this message is still implicity (and sometimes even explicitly, in spite of leaders’ counsel) given to gay LDS men. Eternal marriage is taught as the only path to eternal happiness. Therefore, gay LSD men (many of whom are closeted, of course) end up marrying, in order to fulfill what they think deity demands of them.

Comment # 9 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Ahem….”gay LDS men….” Sorry!

Comment # 10 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Nick #1 and others, I’m not sure the Church is hanging its hopes on the Fourth Path either, but given the Oaks/Wickman interview a few months back, and the implication that heterosexual marriage is now discouraged, it would seem that that is where their hopes lie by default. Although I’m sure they hold out hope that some kind of therapy/cure can help homosexuals find love and fulfillment in traditional heterosexual marriages, as your example of the recent convention held at the JS Building at BYU suggests.

I wonder why the Church hasn’t been more vocal in their support of gays on the Fourth Path (or Third Path for that matter), given what is at stake, to say nothing of the love and support these gay Mormons will need to accomplish this daunting path/goal? Why no talks in conference about extending love and support to single, gay, and committed Mormons? Why no lessons in PH/RS outlining the current LDS position on homosexuality? Is the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign? Why isn’t Kevinf’s anecdotal evidence of a Bishop with a gay, celibate, Mormon EQ Pres. getting publicity?

Are they unsure of their position? Are they hedging their bets on the hopes that more will be learned about same-sex attraction before committing to a position? Do they recognize the inherent contradiction/hypocrisy in the idea that required celibacy flies in the face of all that is Mormon?

Comment # 11 by Matt Thurston | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Nick, implicit pressure to marry as a gay has not been my experience. Given an overt denial that the church encourages marriage for this purpose, what precisely makes you think there is implicit messages contradicting this?

Comment # 12 by -L- | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
anon-for-now-please (#4) and others,

You make some good points. Elder Wickman made a similar point when he said:

“There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction….I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage.”

I don’t think the comparison follows. Single, heterosexual men and women at least have the opportunity to marry and have a fulfilling relationship, the opportunity to love and be loved. Whether or not they accomplish that objective in their lives is beside the point. The opportunity is everything, just ask women before they had the right to vote, or blacks before they were free men. What women made of the their right to vote and what blacks made of their freedom was up to them, but they no doubt cherished that freedom/opportunity.

Elder Wickman’s example doesn’t work for me either. Gays are not handicapped. And Rob’s pedophilia and beastiality examples don’t work either. Pedophiles and Beastialophiles (?) object of affection/lust is not another consenting adult.

Here is the link to the entire interview with Elder’s Oaks and Wickman.

Comment # 13 by Matt Thurston | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Are gays sinning if they hold hands with or kiss someone of the same sex? The BYU honor code seems to so indicate. Straights and gays are therefore not treated alike in this respect.

Comment # 14 by dottie | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Personally, I hope Courtney Wickman’s unnamed disability is mental, and profound enough that she doesn’t know her father shamelessly exploited her in order to score a rhetorical point in a largely political interview. Shameful.

Comment # 15 by Nick Literski | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
-L- (#12),

Do you have any anecdotal evidence or feeling re the goals and hopes of the current generation of young, gay, committed Mormons? Are they looking, like you, to marry a heterosexual partner and raise a family (i.e. what I call the “Third Path”), or are they committed to a single, celibate life (i.e. the “Fourth Path”)? (Feel free not to use my clunky labels if you want.)

And I’m curious what you think of my Comment #11? Do you feel there is enough support and publicity/awareness from the Church for gay Mormons on either the Third or Fourth Path?

Thanks.

Comment # 16 by Matt Thurston | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Nick (#1),

You must not have attended the presentation you refer to in your comment. I did. I doubt the three men who participated in that presentation would appreciate your description of them being “trotted out in front of the audience.” They participated willingly with their wives, and their candor and honesty were impressive. Two of them said they had fully disclosed their situations to their wives prior to their weddings; one did not (his wife learned about it nine months later). The same two said they had difficulty with intimacy at the beginning of their marriages but that it continued to improve with time. These two seemed to have relationships that, while not free from challenges, were loving and fulfilling.

I believe one of the reasons there aren’t as many older people participating in events like this conference is that most older people in long-term marriages do not continue to self-identify as “gay.” The issue doesn’t loom so large in their lives anymore. They don’t maintain involvement with Evergreen and similar organizations (as the above-mentioned couples still do), so they have less reason or opportunity to participate in events like the above-mentioned conference.

Comment # 17 by Rivkah | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Rob (#2):

One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin.

I can’t help but be a bit skeptical of this claim. First of all, attraction is more or less a passive act. I don’t actively choose whether or not I’m going to be attracted to a particular person I pass on the street; it’s more of an instinctive reaction. And I don’t believe it’s sinful or unfaithful to recognize the attractiveness of a person (male or female) other than one’s spouse. Being attracted to someone (i.e., “other men”) is not the same as lusting after them or acting upon that attraction.

Additionally, sexual fantasy is widely recognized as a regular (and to an extent, unavoidable) behavior. Oftentimes, the content of fantasies has nothing to do with the type of behavior one would actually be willing to engage in.

Surely sexual passions must be handled responsibly, but they cannot be entirely turned off like a light switch. It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of not sexual morality or responsibility, but repression, which is far from healthy (particularly for singles and other celibates who have virtually no outlet for sexual expression).

Comment # 18 by Steve M. | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
No doubt this is a bit of a threadjack, but I am totally uncomfortable with Elder Wickman’s equation of disabled=unmarriageable (and don’t even get me started on how much I dislike the ‘h-word’). Nick I’m with you that this use of Courtney’s story is an exploitation of her dignity.

Comment # 19 by Jana | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
I was raised a Catholic. I attended Saturday catechism as a child and had daily religion classes later when I attended Catholic school. Committed faithful people who did not ever marry were part and parcel of my religious background. They were nuns and priests.

I can see the fourth way working for people if they decide that they are going to devote their lives to the service of God as they understand God. There is something beautiful about a level of faith that would allow one to sacrifice human partnership in order to live a godly life.

I certainly don’t think it’s a sacrifice that all gays and lesbians are called to make. I use the word “called” deliberately. I think some people feel deeply that this is what God would have them do. I think the young gay men who are married to women (and perhaps lesbian women married to men) feel the same way. I wish them happiness, fulfillment and success. I sure as hell couldn’t do it.

Comment # 20 by Ann | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Oh, and as for the main post…

I also can’t help but be skeptical of the “success stories” about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does “succeed,” there are dozens more that fail. Encouraging homosexuals to marry a member of the opposite sex is irresponsible, in my opinion.

I don’t know how I feel about the “Fourth Path.” A lifetime of celibacy is a tall order. I’m not sure that I could honestly encourage someone to follow this path either.

Comment # 21 by Steve M. | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Dottie raises a good point in comparing hetero/homosexual celibacy standards. Thousands of single LDS men and women attend church meetings together with many public displays of affection including, but not limited to, handholding, hugs, backrubs and kissing (sometimes encouraged by bishops trying to fertilize marital prospects). Even those not steadily dating have been known to go on occasional dates and even - gasp - dance together. So these otherwise celibate men and women do (generally) have opportunities to both experience and express physical affection which generally does not lead to marriage or even sexual intimacy. Some of these hetero men and women may continue their celibacy - whether forced upon them or chosen by them - until the day they die.

The bar is obviously higher for homosexuals, especially men, where simple public hugging, hand-holding, and walking arm-in-arm, is regarded as open sin and a sign that there is probably more going on “behind closed doors” (or at least that the couple is quickly headed on a slippery slope to sin). And as for opportunities to develop friendships through dating or dancing - well, that is clearly out of the question.

The church is not an easy place for many single adults, celibate or not, just because of its (sometimes over-)emphasis on marriage and family and the different way it treats non-married adults with respect to many things, including eligibility for callings and temple work. If the Church wants to encourage celibate homosexuals to remain actively involved, then it needs to publicly recognize and affirm that single adults are not pariahs, and that they can serve in callings and be inspired leaders and administrators just as capably as their married counterparts.

That might mean putting a little less emphasis on the need to marry and a little more emphasis on the need to know and follow Christ regardless of marital status or sexual attraction.

Comment # 22 by LRC | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Ann (#20), Good point, but for them to succeed there needs to be a culture of support in place for such a lifestyle, a theology that “elevates celibacy to a high order of spiriutal living” which we currently don’t have in Mormonism. As Robert Rees said in his review of In Quiet Desperation,

Obviously such a choice [Ty Mansfield's decision to live a life of celibacy] requires an ultimate commitment. It isn’t that it is impossible for one to make oneself a “eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. 19:12), but the demands of doing so require a heroic sacrifiice of so much that we tend to associate with being fully human that, realistically, few are able to achieve it. I don’t by any means disparage the wish to try to live such a life, but to do so in the absence of a religious philosophy that elevates celibacy to a high order of spiritual living (which the Mormon Church has never done) or a social and spiritual community that supports and rewards it (as Catholics and a few other religious orders do), is, to say the least, extremely challenging. If one could withdraw from the world with its “cauldron of unholy loves” to a cloistered world where, to use Gerard Manley Hopkins’s lines, “no storms come,” where “springs not fail,/ [and there] flies no sharp and sided hail,” and find deep fellowship with other celibates, celibacy would be a more realistic alternative. However, the serious problem the Catholic Church is currently facing over many priests’ inability to sustain celibacy reveals that, even with a strong support system, it does not seem to be a realistic life choice for the majority of homosexuals—or heterosexuals. It is one thing to live a life of pure holiness in a cloistered world (such as that exemplified by the fourteenth-century German monk Thomas B Kempis in his The Imitation of Christ), but it is far more difficult to do so in a culture in which one tries to maintain one’s erotic poise while confronted daily with a thousand images of desire.

This is why I keep asking why we’re not seeing more support from the Church for gay, committed, and celibate Mormons. You’d think they’d want to encourage and publicize the success stories. What is the alternative, other than encouraging heterosexual marriage or allowing same-sex marriage???

Comment # 23 by Matt Thurston | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be “sin”. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way. The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural. It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths. Therefor, I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!

If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.

Comment # 24 by Rob Osborn | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
“Same-sex attraction is likened to a Job-like or Abraham-like test of faith and endurance.”

I don’t know that identifying (or be identified by others) as gay and experiencing same-sex attraction are necessarily the same thing.

Comment # 25 by MAC | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
-L- #12:
As you note, the official stance has changed from the old “get married and you’ll be okay” advice that damaged many lives. If you don’t mind though, let’s look at what Dallin Oaks said (in what was clearly a very carefully-worded, correllated mock interview/article):

“We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
“On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
“President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.”

So, marriage is not seen as “therapy” or “cure.” Note, however, that Oaks interprets Hinckley’s words to mean that the “daughters of God” (no word on sons, apparently) must not be brought into such marriages “under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them.” Oaks then goes on to describe an implicit expectation—that a homosexual will “cleanse themselves of any transgression,” “deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background,” “feel a great attraction for a daughter of God,” and marry, thus enjoying “the blessings of eternity.” Yes, he couches all this as “IF.” Still, the language he uses (not to mention his position of authority) holds this out as the proper resolution, UNLESS that poor homo just can’t control himself. I would submit that any young, gay man who was attempting to be faithful to LDS-ism would read Oaks’ words above as a clear expectation. Any young gay LDS man who can’t “control themselves” enough to marry and have a family clearly does not measure up.

At the very least, we have a profoundly mixed message here.

Comment # 26 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Rivkah #17,
You are correct; I did not attend the conference. I read about it. I basically read exactly what you have said, and I don’t think I reported anything differently. It seems we only disagree in the sense that you don’t see any implicatinos behind the session being held in the first place. To me, the location speaks volumes. Combined with Dallin Oaks’ words, it seems clear to me that the church (notwithstanding its admission that marriage is not a “cure”) fully expects gay men to “control themselves” enough to successfully marry heterosexually and raise families.

Comment # 27 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Rob #24,
It seems to me that your statement betrays a number of misconceptions on your part. Allow me to explain:

You wrote:
“The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be “sin”. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way.”

Rob, the implication of your statement, of course, is that you do not believe that homosexual persons are “born that way.” You use “seem” and “as if” to convey this message rather clearly. Now, I will readily admit that sexual orientation is a complex matter. There is no single explanation for homosexuality that covers all homosexual persons. There is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role. In my own experience, I have made anecdotal observations which lead me to this conclusion. You see, Rob, I was married to a woman for 18 years, trying desperately to be the person that LDS teachings require. I don’t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating. On the other hand, I have a very different response to (for example) the scent of male perspiration–it’s nearly euphoric. These are not “choices,” Rob, but simple, biological responses. Science, of course, has found such things as structural brain differences between gay men and straight men. To say that no homosexuals are “born that way” simply ignores reality.

You wrote:
“The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural.”

Rob, can you conceive that homosexual feelings seem entirely NATURAL to homosexuals? Can you believe that heterosexual relations feel UNNATURAL to gay men? I have experienced both heterosexual and homosexual relations, Rob. Suffice it to say that the first time I was intimate with another man, I wondered what to even call what I had done for 18 years with a woman. For the first time, I felt the kind of transcendant feelings and sensations that most healthy people associate with sexual relations. There was such a dramatic, profound difference, that I hesitated to call what I had done with a woman “sex” at all.

You wrote:
“It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths.”

Rob, are you a Mormon or a Puritan? “Feelings of pleasure” are not inherently sinful. Pretending to be straight when you are gay, however, is certainly a “sinful path.”

You wrote:
“Therefor[e], I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!

Rob, I’m sorry that you seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, despite the many profound differences between the two. A 10 year old girl is not a consenting adult. As a gay man, I have never had a sexual partner who was not a consenting adult.

You wrote:
“If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.” [I assume you mean "culpability."]

Rob, such a statement flies in the face of Mormon doctrine, which considers sexual attraction a gift from deity. I don’t mean to be insulting, but your posts sound as if you have some serious issues of sexual repression. At the very least, you have a profound misunderstanding of the role of sexuality. What you are stating is quite at odds with the teachings of LDS general authorities on the subject.

Comment # 28 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Matt,

I just discovered this thread, so I’m jumping in.

You ask: (# 11) “Is the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign?”

Ben Christensen has left the Church and recently announced his divorce, so it wouldn’t do the Church much good to profile him in benefit of their cause.

Comment # 29 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Steve M.,

(#21) “And for every such marriage that does ‘succeed,’ there are dozens more that fail.”

I feel pretty confident in saying here, Steve, that you simly don’t know this. There’s no way to get an accurate sample or statistic of those who do have “successful” marriages—in any way we might hope to define success. I fully agree with Rivkah’s (#17) comments. I know a handful of people in that situation, and I’m really not all that connected. To say that they are “straight” is simplistic or that they never experience any degree of homosexual attraction, naïve. But they have—according to them—healthy, fulfilling marriages with their spouses. If they are happy, should they really want more than that. What would you be skeptical about–that they say they’ve “changed”, or of their chances of success, or that they are happy? If it’s a matter of “change,” the real question is about how we define “change.” If it’s about success, only time will tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “survival” rate of those marriages is as good or better than the survival rate of today’s heterosexual marriages in general. If it’s about being happy, it doesn’t really matter if you’re skeptical, because there’s a whole host of people to be skeptical of the happiness you might claim.

There’s been quite a discussion on this in the last few posts on: http://ardentmormon.blogspot.com/

Comment # 30 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Rob, (#2, #24)

You know, I think I’m generally pretty even-keel, but your posts are pretty provocative and angering. And, frankly, you’re making an ass of yourself.

It’s clear your confusing a lot of different issues, and this confusion—when translated into our teaching in the Church—only exacerbates the shame and misunderstanding that already floods the general understanding of Church membership of many issues relating to psychological, emotional, sexual, social, and spiritual health and wellness.

As has already been mentioned, there is a big difference between “attractions” or “feelings” and what the scriptures might refer to as “immoral thoughts.” Attraction is not the same thing as fantasy. You use the (annoying) example of “someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!” But what about the healthily and happily married heterosexual man who is “attracted” to the secretary at is office? Is his attraction a sin? What if he is even “tempted” to want to “know” her—in the biblical sense? Is that a sin? No, it’s not. For him to willfully entertain those thoughts or “dwell on them,” as you say, *would* be sinful—even if it might be “natural.” Don’t use what you see as “unnatural” or as gross perversions to make your point, because you are just as subject to the exact same issues—though, perhaps, manifest differently—than any one of us.

Comment # 31 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Nick,

(#28) “There is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role.”

It’s clear, Nick, that genetics and biology play a role—if not only because every aspect of our “humanness” is so interconnected that it would be difficult if not impossible to sort out any on factor, or group of related factors, as play any more “profound [of a] role” than any other factors. There is nothing in science to say that biological or genetic factors are determinative—rather than influential—in the development of homosexual attraction.

“I don’t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating.”

Let’s be honest here, Nick: These are *your* issues—not “homosexual” issues, per se. Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case. To use your own aversions as evidence that heterosexual relationships don’t work for homosexual men who *want* to be in those relationships and to make them work, is simply not germane to the discussion.

Comment # 32 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for stopping by Tito, I was hoping you’d find this thread.

Yikes! Ben Christensen has left the Church? Wow. I did not know that. Is this documented anywhere? Does Ben have a blog?

I was impressed with the articles Ben had written for Dialogue and was pulling for him on his journey. Is he now pursuing a gay path?

And, any thoughts on some of the questions I ask in Comment #11or #16?

For anyone interested, here is a link to a Dialogue article where Ben discusses his decision to remain married (to a woman) and his commitment to the Church, despite being a self-described “Gay Mormon.”

Comment # 33 by Matt Thurston | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Tito,
Apparently I was not clear enough. In citing my own example, I noted that it was *anecdotal*, and something which gave *me* evidence that there are biological factors involved. It was not my intention to suggest that the same experience holds true for every gay man, nor even that every gay man is “biologically” gay. I would like to think I’m well-read and experienced enough not to so drastically oversimplify a very complex subject.

Comment # 34 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Nick,

Every gay person I have run into always states- “I can’t help it, I was born this way”. I believe it to be a lie. That is like saying that one cannot control their feelings. Gay people, especially the supposed “gay mormons” feel like they are feeling picked on and that God will understand. The truth of it is that homosexuality in any form whatsoever is an abomination in God’s sight. Are murderers born murderers? Are rapists born with those feelings? It is like saying that we do not have control over our passions or desires and that we must instead be controled by genetics (the natural man).

Will your gay lifestyle get you into heaven? Absolutely not, just as anyone else who breaks the law of chastity. Gay People plain and simpley choose to be gay. It is not something forced upon them neither is it something like a disease that they are stuck with. We are told by prophets not to look at pornography. And why? Because “scientifically” it has been proven that pornography stimulates the brain and body with chemical changes and can become highly addictive and destructive to ones personal life and possibly those around them. So does this mean that I am doomed to be addicted to pornography just because there is receptors in my brain for that stimulas? No, but I must keep myself from going down that path of destruction that part of me wants so badly to go down. Applying that to homosexuality, there are laws that tell us not to go down those paths just because our bodies feel inclined to do so. These laws are those of the gospel of Christ. God did not create us to be chained down by our carnal and evil appetites. Everyone who has been exposed to pornography at some level will readily admit that it could become addictive to them. Homosexual lifestyles demand that there is a minimal level of intimacy involved in order for that lifestyle to be enjoyed. So what is really the bottom line is that in order for a gay person to be satisfied in their relationship they must give way to the bodies natural desire to be aroused.

Applying that to a married man who can’t help himself to his appetite for picking up hookers and having pleasures with them should we say that this man is just doing what he feels natural or is he doing a sin? And how does one differentiate between the unfaithful spouse and the gay person? Who is justifiable before Christ? Neither! Some men never find fulfillment in relationships with grown women but they do in little children. Does this mean they were born that way? Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also. I believe further then that being gay is just a cop out for saying that one cannot overcome his or her desire to overcome the bodies natural appetites. We could all give in to pornography addiction because that is how our brain and body were made but we also have commandments telling us what to avoid and the reasons why, this includes homosexual thoughts and feelings or any other carnal appetite that is pleasurable to the senses but lead us down dark pathways of sin!

Comment # 35 by Rob Osborn | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
A bit more for Tito:
I notice that you differentiate between “homosexual men who *want* to be in those [heterosexual]relationships and to make them work” and me. I was in a heterosexual marriage for 18 years, Tito, and wanted very much to make it work. For a time, I was able to do so. As I matured, however, and came to know myself better, I found the situation more and more unbearable. I am aware of quite a number of homosexual LDS men who are married to women, who have restorted to adulterous relationships in order to deal with this difficulty. I chose not to do that. Had I remained in the marriage, however, I think there is a very good likelihood that I would have ended my life within the next few years. I finally made the choice that I personally felt I had to make. I don’t think, however, that my 18 years of effort was an example of “not wanting” to do what the LDS church taught.

Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having “come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.” Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.

All I’m saying, Tito, is please don’t rush to judgment, concluding that gay men who find a heterosexual marriage untenable just don’t “want it enough” or haven’t dealt with their homosexuality in a “healthy” way. I would hope that you understand the issue is far more complex than that.

Comment # 36 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Nick,

You aren’t being fair to Tito and quoted only a portion of his sentence. Your paragraph read

Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having “come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.” Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.

The complete sentence read “Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case.”

Nor, does any thing that he wrote does he imply “that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice.”

You are putting words in his mouth.

Comment # 37 by MAC | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
That second to last line was a disaster, should be

Nor, does anything that he wrote imply “that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice.”

I am a dufus

Comment # 38 by MAC | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Thank you, Rob, for your testimony. I understand that you believe, in a very absolute way, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least so far as they condemn homosexual relations. Your suggestion that homosexual attraction is sinful is not, as you know, the current position of your church. Because you believe as you do, I would expect you to live your life accordingly.

That said, please understand that I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not believe the teachings of that organization on the subject of homosexuality to be the unquestionable truth, as you do. I do not think, as you suggest, that your deity will give me a free pass in violating his directives. To the contrary, I simply do not believe in the existence of the kind of deity you worship, nor do I believe that any actual deity has prohibited sexual relations between two consenting, adult gay men. It is quite irrelevant to me, whether you beileve I will reach your concept of “heaven” by means of my intimate relations.

Comment # 39 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
MAC, if I have misunderstood Tito’s intent, I’m sure he’ll clarify. I think you and I disagree at this point on what he conveyed.

Comment # 40 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
My understanding is that Ben said he no longer believed in the Church over a year ago, but that he continued to attend Church with his wife, to be a support to her. Someone please correct me if they know differently. I also don’t know if he’s now pursuing a gay path, but judging from what he’s written, it’s at least a consideration. It seems like he’s just trying to take all this a step at a time.

He recently blogged about his decision to divorce. You can read about it at The Fobcave.

To respond to comments #11or #16, I don’t think the Church—or anyone in the Church—is particularly excited about Path Four. But I don’t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity—as it’s understood and taught in the Church—regarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other. And my understanding is that heterosexual marriage isn’t discouraged as long as it’s entered in good faith, with realistic expectations, and not as some form of “tool” to resolve issues of same-sex attraction.

A lot of people poo-poo therapy, but therapy has been really helpful for me, and marriage in the not-so-distant future now feels like much more of potential reality to me than it did even a few years ago. So, perhaps the Church does hold out that therapy can help individuals find success in marriage, I don’t know. But I do personally feel like I’ve benefited greatly from it, and expect that I will continue to do so.

As for Kevinf’s anecdotes, I know several men in similar situations—including one who has served in a couple bishoprics (while openly acknowledging that he experiences same-sex attractions) and another who served as Stake Young Men’s president when it was well-known he had lived an openly gay life for some years and even been “married” to a guy for a few of those years. Neither of those men are currently married (heterosexually, I mean… or homosexually for that matter. :). I suspect we’ll hear more of those stories in the future.

Comment # 41 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Nick,

Okay, I grant that (#34). But even so, that experience could just as easily be evidence of significant psycho-emotional factors as biological ones.

Comment # 42 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Nick, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you simply didn’t want it or weren’t trying hard enough. So, I apologize if it came across that way. I think there are a lot of factors that would contribute to a “successful” mixed-orientation marriage, and I certainly don’t want to oversimplify it or dilute it down to a simplistic measure of desire.

Concerning your other statement, I think you’re reading into my words by implying my statement regarding men married heterosexually and dealing healthily with their issues as condemnation of your or of your choice as “unhealthy.” I don’t know you or your situation. What I was saying, however, is that if men do want to marry heterosexually, there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing so. For example, I don’t think the white-knuckle or “don’t talk about it and it will go away” approaches are realistic or healthy. I don’t think impure motives (ie, I just want to be ‘straight’, so I’m going get married in order to make these feelings go away) are helpful, either. Your own allusion to those who are married and have adulterous relationships on the side is another example.

And note, I’m not ascribing any of these examples or others to your situation. I’m not judging you or your choice. I am speaking *generally* that one cannot dismiss marriage for men with same-sex feelings out-of-hand simply because it didn’t work out in their own situation any more than heterosexuals can do the same simply because their marriages didn’t work. The simple fact is that every one of us—heterosexual or homosexual—has a package of challenges or issues that we are going to take into a marriage, and we need to approach that decision as honestly, as knowledgeably, and as prepared as we possibly can. And then we give it a go. No marriage is approached without its risks or challenges. We are no exception. We just have a unique issue that is going to play out differently, depending on our individual temperaments and circumstances.

You’re right, your decision—just as any of ours are—is a personal one, and each of us need to recognize that we are going to be held strictly accountable for decisions. If you feel that your decision is in harmony with the Lord’s will for you at this place in your life, who am I to judge that? I never intended to do so, and I apologize, again, if it came across that way.

Comment # 43 by Tito | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Steve M. is correct to be “skeptical of the ’success stories’ about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does ’succeed,’ there are dozens more that fail.”

I am the straight ex-spouse of one such failed marriage.

My gay ex-husband followed the new recommended procedure. He had five years of “reparative therapy” from a licensed LDS therapist before we ever met. His story was written up as an anonymous case study in the literature as someone whose homosexual feelings were significantly reduced by the therapy and who began to have heterosexual feelings as well.

I met him at an LDS church dance. We danced and talked the night away. The next time I saw him was at an Institute class. After class, he took me aside and told me he was gay. Then he asked me on our first date. So, I knew from day one. He never, ever deceived me.

He was not using our dates, engagement, or eventual marriage as a means toward a “cure.” He had already achieved a reduced level of homosexual feelings from the therapy, and didn’t feel a need to completely eradicate the feelings, just maintain what the therapy had done for him and continue to resist temptation. He didn’t expect marriage to further reduce his remaining homosexual feelings.

We met a lot of LDS people during the year and a half we were married. We talked of our marriage in glowingly positive yet realistic-sounding terms. They were so proud of us…we were like pioneers! We were proving by our very lives that the blessings of temple marriage are available to all God’s children who were willing to do the necessary work to overcome their trials! We wanted so much for it to work out, and worked hard in counseling. We really believed we were going to be a success story. We used every ounce of positive thinking we could muster. We received numerous priesthood blessings that promised us that this problem would be resolved if we were faithful…and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone more faithful than us at that time.

We were genuinely in love with each other, but we were completely unprepared for how hard it was to be in a mixed-orientation marriage. It was a lot more complicated than just living on a less-frequent sex schedule. It’s one thing when, for example, a straight man has a post-partum wife who can’t have sex at all for a while. It’s quite another thing when your spouse is struggling with a near-constant sexual attraction to a significant number of people, but is not sexually attracted to you to any significant degree, and never will be.

When our challenges started to become overwhelming, we turned to the two mixed-orientation couples who had encouraged us to get married and assured us that their marriages were successful though not without challenges. But suddenly they revealed that they had withheld a great deal of information from us. One couple revealed that their children were conceived by artificial insemination because they couldn’t ever have the kind of sex that would result in children. (They let others believe, as they had initially led us to believe, that the children were the results of natural heterosexual urges that had resulted from successful therapy.) Another couple revealed that the husband had had repeated incidents with homosexual sex outside of marriage that the wife had forgiven and forgiven until trust was gone and they were basically staying together for their (adopted) kids. This was held in confidence between them and their bishop, even while the husband became a sort of unofficial spokesman and success story exemplar for their 10-year-plus mixed-orientation marriage.

You have no idea what is going on in other people’s marriages. You have no idea what their motives are for wanting to be “success stories.” You have no idea how many people like my ex-husband and I have tried the mixed-orientation experiment and been unsuccessful. After all, his case study story is still out there encouraging others to believe in reparative therapy. All those LDS people we met while married are probably still spreading our then-successful-so-far story to their friends and friends-of-friends, blissfully unaware of the ending.

Comment # 44 by Beijing | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Rob,

Have you ever even tried to understand what it means to be gay? While I’m not gay, once I actually opened my mind and began learning from homosexuals and trying to understand what it’s like to be in their shoes, I realized that much of what I had been taught was totally erroneous. I suggest you do the same.

I would suggest doing a bit of research. Many of your claims are not only sweeping generalizations, but are downright wrong and innaccurate. All your comments have demonstrated is ignorance and an unopen mind.

I can’t ask you to change your mind, but I think it would be worth your while to make sure that you aren’t supporting your opinions with inaccurate and erroneous claims.

Comment # 45 by Steve M | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for your explanation, Tito. I’d say we are in almost complete agreement.

Comment # 46 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
i’ve been married now for a decade in a straight marriage. I only recently accepted that I am gay. It was something I fought against my whole life. Now I accept that it is a part of me but I continue on my way down the path that I chose. I love my wife, my children and I am faithful to my testimony. I’m not leaving any of them regardless of statistics or whatever.

I also know of others in gay/straight marriages of much much longer. Each with there own struggles but still going strong. We are out there watching and learning with everyone else.

Like Tito has stated before, though I hope that every gay lds person stays faithful, I will still love them regardless.

My hats off to the younger generation of faithful LDS gay men/women who will not be bound by false dogmas of “its best to be in the closet”. As one who still has one foot in the closet - it has been nothing but heart ache and pain. But I now finally get to see the full blessings and joy that comes with not only understanding myself but with living the gospel and not feeling split.

Comment # 47 by loyalist | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Thank you for sharing your stories, Beijing and loyalist.

It is becoming apparent that one of the reasons the Church might not be actively publicizing and promoting/supporting those on the Third and Fourth Path is that the success rate isn’t very reliable, to put it mildly. I’m not trying to be indelicate, but it may be too big of a PR risk. Each time a Ben Christensen fails it’s further proof that the program isn’t working.

Switching gears, it’s tough to generalize about those on the Third Path. Obviously, the hetero-homosexual spectrum allows for much nuance inbetween hetero and homosexuality. Those in the middle clearly have an advantage should they choose the Third Path. I read, for example, on “-L-’s” blog that he is a “Kinsey 6.” Is one’s “rating” generally known in the gay community? Just curious.

By the way, Tito, I like what you said in #41: “But I don’t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity—as it’s understood and taught in the Church—regarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other.” As I mentioned before, my Third and Fourth Path labels are clunky and I’m using them to facilitate discussion. You’ve better defined the heart of the issue. Well said.

Comment # 48 by Matt Thurston | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
I’m glad to see both Bejing and loyalist describe their own situations here. The simple truth is that there is a full spectrum of situations, with a full spectrum of success.

I tend to believe the Kinsey Scale really is a useful tool. Everybody falls along a continuum, and how far you are toward either end of that continuum has a great deal to do with how likely you are to find happiness in a given situation.

Comment # 49 by Nick Literski | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Rob said “Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also.”
Would that changing one’s sexual orientation were as simple as an unfaithful spouse changing his or her behavior.
There is only *one* scientific study which claims that *some* gay people can change their sexual orientation, the highly criticized 2001 Robert Spitzer study. As a result of his findings Robert Spitzer became convinced that some people can change their sexuality, but that it is “quite rare.”
There are several short videos related to the study, for those interested:
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s short edit
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s long edit
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse - PART 1
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse - PART 2
Spitzer complains about the misuse of his study

Comment # 50 by Steven B | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
There is a HUGE body of evidence that proves that changes in sexuality occurs all over nature. Fish, lizards are routinely observed switching genders.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/sexchange2004.html

http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/21/virgin-birth-of-the-reptile-kind-komodo-dragon-reproduce-without-mating/

Unfortunately this is frequently associated with pollution, which will open a whole new mess off commentary

Comment # 51 by MAC | Apr 20, 2007 | Reply
Gay former LDS here.
It amazes me that people still cling to the belief that homosexuality is chosen. As a gay man, I don’t recall ever making such a choice. In fact, had I ever been given the choice to be either gay or straight, I would have certainly chosen to be straight. Be heterosexual would have possibly saved me from self-esteem issues, given me the oppportunity to have my own family, and avoided ‘hiding out’ through much of my life; living a lie.

Nick’s responses to heterosexual intimacy are not shared by all gay men and may not even be typical but there are gay men who tell of similar reactions.

What many people do is forget the deep emotional components involved. That ’something special’ that is involved in all romantic relationships. If those componants are absent in a gay/straight marriage how can the marriage be fulfilling?

I miss the not be a father or husband but the decision not to ‘take the chance’ may have saved myself and any potential spouse and children from deep heartache.

Comment # 52 by Rilke | Apr 21, 2007 | Reply
Rilke,
I agree with you. In citing my experience with physical intimacy, I was not pretending to speak for all gay men, by any means. In context, I was pointing out that this was an indicator to me of the biological involvement at hand.

By all means, the more important element IS the emotional intimacy. I managed to stay married to a woman for 18 years, despite intense sexual frustration. It was only when the EMOTIONAL need became so obvious and intense, that I finally found the courage to come out of the closet.

Comment # 53 by Nick Literski | Apr 22, 2007 | Reply
Many apologies for being gone from the discussion until the discussion is essentially over. But…

Regarding Matt in #16: From the several blogs of young gay LDS people, I would say there is quite a bit of variability in which “path” people feel is in their future. And, their assessment of which path changes frequently. It’s a fickle bunch. As are the folks who choose path 3 and then get divorced. j/k

And regarding Nick in #26: Nick, I just don’t see how you can say without some sophist acrobatics that the church is still implicitly encouraging gay men to marry. I read the same Oaks interview you quote and I get the clear impression that chastity is the rule in the church, and marriage is an ultimate goal that may be achieved in this life and may not be.

Comment # 55 by -L- | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply
Oops… I wish I could go back and erase that last comment and try again. “Sophist” was a poor word choice, and seems to reflect disdain for Nick’s view. That wasn’t my intent, I just disagree.

Comment # 56 by -L- | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply
-L- #55:
Funny, but I just don’t see how *you* can say without some acrobatics that the church does *not* implicitly encourage gay men to marry women. In the same Oaks “interview,” he lays out criteria which should be met so that a gay man can marry a woman. He does so in a manner that conveys a strong subtext, that if a gay man doesn’t work his way “up” to these criteria, he is FAILING. He speaks of reptentance, and self-control—things that are very much a part of LDS teaching. Any latter-day saint who isn’t repenting and exercising self-control is falling short, right?

I’m not saying it’s entirely intentional, -L-. In fact, I very much doubt that it is, when as you note, the official word no longer supports marriage as a “cure” for homosexuality. Still, the underlying expectation is there for every LDS person to repent, exercise self-control, etc. I don’t see how a young gay LDS man could escape feelings of inadequacy, if he chose to be single and celibate.

Comment # 57 by Nick Literski | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
I think there is an assumption that eventually all faithful folks will have the opportunity to marry and enjoy all the blessings associated with that. But for some (including groups other than gays), this won’t be possible in this life. So, I can see how you’d sense that subtext, but I disagree with the implications of inadequacy. Such feelings would be based on a misunderstanding of the church’s doctrine, not the church’s mixed message.

Comment # 58 by -L- | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
Actually, -L-, I think you miss my point entirely. I also think it’s uncharitable to sccuse the person who feels such things, rather than acknowledge the realities that give rise to such feelings.

Comment # 59 by Nick Literski | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
It’s not an accusation, Nick, just an observation. And I think it’s uncharitable for you to call me uncharitable. So neener. The “realities” you perceive I think aren’t realities at all, merely your own perceptions. That’s my point, no blame intended.

Comment # 60 by -L- | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
The fact remains, -L-, there is only one path acknowledged as “success” in the LDS church. That path is heterosexual marriage and childrearing. Platitudes such as “oh, you’ll marry in the resurrection, when you’re not missing both legs and one arm” don’t change this fact.

Since you wish to speak of “understanding doctrine,” I would point out that such “after this life” promises are only extended to those who didn’t have the opportunity in mortality. In the case of homosexuality, Oaks has laid out his view that there IS an opportunity—-through repentance, self-control, and desire to marry and have children. The man who doesn’t “take this opportunity” will not, according to LDS doctrine, have it offered to him in the afterlife.

Remember that for Oaks, there is no such thing as homosexuality. For Oaks, there are only “homosexual feelings,” and feelings are to be “controlled.” I don’t see the slightest hint in Oaks’ mock interview that lifetime celibacy is seen as a “success story” for gay LDS men.

Comment # 61 by Nick Literski | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
It’s not a platitude, Nick, it’s a compassionate concession that is highly relevant and that you apparently feel you have to minimize so you can feel justified in being outraged that there are no concessions. As Tito has said elsewhere, the church focuses on the law of chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy. For some it’s the same thing and constitutes not having “the opportunity in mortality.” That’s the way I’ve always seen it anyway without trying really hard not to see it otherwise.

I realize I won’t convince you, I just wondered if you had anything interesting to support your assertion that there is this implicit expectation of marriage despite the explicit advice against it as therapy. You having said nothing persuasive, that’s all I wanted to know.

Comment # 62 by -L- | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
I agree with both of you. -L- is representing the idealistic position and Nick is representing the realistic postion. -L-’s position represents the official policy/doctrine; Nick’s position represents the inner hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons, be they lay members or leaders.

Comment # 63 by Matt Thurston | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
-L-
I’m not sure what “concessions” you think I have asked for, let alone am “outraged” about. Feel free, however, to classify me as an “outraged” rabble-rouser, if that makes it easier for you to remain within your wilfully-ignorant comfort zone.

For you to say the church focuses on “chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy,” fails to admit the established fact that “chastity” IS “lifetime celibacy” for gay LDS men who are wise enough not to marry. Of course, you can glibly blather on about how these men will be able to marry in the afterlife if they prove “faithful,” but such a claim flies in the face of LDS doctrine. Alma clearly taught that whatever feelings and attitudes a person holds at death will rise with him in the resurrection. Regardless of the false doctrine taught by Hickman, there is absolutely no revelatory foundation upon which to claim that homosexuals will suddenly find themselves heterosexual after death.

Matt gets it. There is an official, ideal stance. There is also a widespread cultural, attitudinal stance.

Comment # 64 by Nick Literski | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
Good point, Nick.

Mormon doctrine has from its infancy taught that our basic character and mind does not change at death.

Add to this another key Mormon doctrine: God did NOT create the mind/spirit of the individual. As Joseph Smith clearly taught in the Doctrine & Covenants, iintelligence (meaning the individual mind) was not created–”nor indeed can it be.”

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph taught regarding the mind of the individual “there was no creation about…the very idea lessens man in my estimation….God never had the power to create it [the mind of the individual] because God could not create himself….”

So if the mind of the individual was not created by God, if it is “co-equal with God” (Joseph’s own words) and without beginning or end, whence comes the doctrine that God can change the mind of the homosexual in the next life if that homosexual is celibate and faithful to the Church until death?

God can not change that which He never had the power to create and which is, by its nature, an eternal free agent with the power within itself to learn to become a God itself.

Neo-Mormonism (the evangelical, Christian fundamentalist doctrines that the LDS Church and her apologists have adopted over the past 30 years) is at odds with traditional Mormon doctrine.

I can think of no other area of currernt debate in which the short comings of Neo-Mormonism are more evident (and more out of touch with reality, reason and the findings of science and medicine) than that regarding the nature of human homosexuality.

Comment # 65 by Rob Lauer | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
I don’t actually accept that “intelligence” in mormon doctrine is strictly synonymous with “the individual mind.” And your overreliance on that idea seems to completely overlook the strong neurological and psychosocial influences on what it means to be an individual.

If I have an extra Y chromosome, I’m incredibly more likely to end up incarcerated. If I’m sexually abused as a child, I’m incredibly more likely to have sexual issues in my adulthood (that might include abuse). To say that my sexual problems or my penchant for commiting serious crime are just a part of my “eternal individual mind” and co-equal with God seems ridiculous and ignores overwhelmingly strong evidence to the contrary.

I don’t know exaclty how this applies to the debate about homosexuality. I don’t think anyone has grounds to claim either that it is eternal or not. Nor do I think it should matter. It is very clear that–for whatever biological or psychosocial reasons–many people are homosexual. to marginalize them and exclude them from spirituality is a travesty.

Comment # 66 by Rick Jepson | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
MAC

Are you actually suggesting that because some animals naturally change gender through their lifespan that homosexuals should likewise be able to “decide” to change their orientation.

Lordy I hope I’m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.

Sexuality, even gender, is a great deal more “grey” than we commonly like to admit. It doesn’t actually mean much to say that I’m “male” or “female” or that I’m either hetero- or homosexual. These are more like points on a blurry continuum than actual categories. And you sure as hell aren’t going to clear anything up by looking at the rest of God’s creation—–where sex is so crazily varied and bizarre that it makes you realize we humans have taken it far to seriously. And it should go without saying that there is enough homosexual activity among other advanced species (dolphins, apes, etc.) to question any sense of “natural” law against it.

If anything, nature shows that different sexual behaviors (e.g. fidelity and promiscuity) suit different species evolutionarily based on several important survival factors–and that our overemphasis on complete heterosexual fidelity is more a product of how we got here evolutionarily than any divine credo given to Adam.

Comment # 67 by Rick Jepson | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
Nick, are you always so insulting to people who disagree with you, or have I done something particularly egregious? I don’t consider being outraged to be a bad thing, and you seemed put out by the mixed message you believe comes from the church. If I’ve pegged you wrong, you can certainly clarify without being snarky and rude.

I don’t think Oaks said that marriage IS possible for everyone in this life, but that it may be possible for some gays. I find that reassurance to be very nice, I take his many qualifiers to be a deliberate effort to avoid your exact conclusion–that this applies in any way to all gays. I’m telling you what I’ve noticed and how I interpret the message–is this being “willfully ignorant”?

Further, I don’t read Alma’s reference to feelings and attitudes persisting in the afterlife as applicable to all sexual feelings or therefore to be as cut and dry as you feel your right to authoritatively claim (and a right to label Hickman as preaching “false doctrine!”). The exact spiritual, mental, and physical divisions of sexuality are explained nowhere in science or religion and it’s unreasonable to make strong claims about them. I read Alma as referring to some subset of the spiritual and mental feelings of sexuality persisting after this life. I believe many of the mental and physical aspects will be changed with the resurrection, and I’m not aware of why this is inconsistent with church doctrine.

Matt, while I recognize that Nick is talking about, “hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons,” but I’m not persuaded we’re talking about most Mormons. That’s what I asked for examples for. The notion sounds more plausible to me as we talk about it, but I still wonder whether most Mormons see things as I have (without acrobatics, mind you), or how Nick does.

Comment # 68 by -L- | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
#67 “Lordy I hope I’m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.”

The idea that sexual orientation is completely immutable throughout life is indeed called into question by counter examples from across the biological spectrum. I think this is highly relevant and deserves respectful consideration, not scorn.

Comment # 69 by -L- | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.

Did you have other “counter examples from across the biological spectrum” that outweigh his ridiculous examples, or were you just bluffing? If you do have some, I’d be interested to hear them and how you construe them to support an idea of reversing orientation.

As I already stated, gender and sexuality are not cut-and-dry. Nature shows over and over that sex is as varied and bizarre in nature as anyone could possibly imagine (for a great read, check out “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation). Case in point: several species change from one gender to another through natural development…but to somehow draw a social conclusion about that and use it as ammunition to marginalize homosexuals………….IGNORANT. And, again, deserving of all the scorn I have time to dish out.

Comment # 70 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
If there is any social conclusion we can draw from the variations of sex in nature—and I seriously doubt that there is—it’s that we take sex way to seriously and have built up a strict moral code based on our evolutionary heritage and have tried to act like it is eternally binding.

But masturbation, incest, sex changing, cross-dressing, etc., etc., etc. are all norms in nature.

And that’s based on “examples from across the biological spectrum.” : )

Comment # 71 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
I’m not going to create a bibliography for this discussion, so you can call it a “bluff” if you like. But I am aware that there are examples from nature above and beyond those mentioned by MAC that show that sexual orientation, phenotype, and behaviors change over time. Whether this fact suggests that humans may find circumstances that can accomplish the same thing would be an interesting discussion, and is indeed currently discussed scientifically. Whether a person can “choose” orientation by deliberately fostering said circumstances does not directly extend from these observations of nature (especially when it is oversimplified as you have done), but the possibility is a relevant and interesting one that I think about on occasion.

If you want to heap scorn on this, well, I guess that’s consistent with the overall unnecessarily unfriendly tone I’ve noticed here. But I haven’t seen anyone marginalizing homosexuals here. And, being a homosexual, hopefully you’ll agree that that’s not my intent. And I’ll apologize in advance for being caught up in the contentiousness with the tone of my previous comments. I think I’ll try to tread more carefully in the future.

Comment # 72 by -L- | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
L,

I don’t mean to be as punchy as I come off. I’m a nice guy deep down, just stuck in the body of an A-hole. And I have a special weakness for bad arguments. Just disregard my tone and understand that I’m smiling when I dish it out (and happily take it back when I get caught with my own bad arguments).

This is something I’m working on.

Now back to the discussion:

You’ve accused me of oversimplifying, which really surprises me. I believe I was responding to an oversimplification rather than starting one.

You’ve declined to “create a bibliography” which usually means that you’re not aware of one. If there is a meaningful discussion on how a komodo dragon’s asexual egg-laying relates to human’s choosing to stop being homosexuals, I’d certainly be interested in reading it.

I do think that homosexuals are marginalized societaly and in the church….do you disagree with that? It’s an enormously complex issue that i don’t pretend to fully understand. Same could be said for sexual orientation itself. But what I do know is that it’s not good enough to say “Hey, clown fish can change from a boy to a girl, so I don’t want to hear any whining from you about how hard it is to be gay.” That’s repulsive to me and demonstrates a real ignorance of the same biology that it refers to.

Comment # 73 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
“HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.”

Dude, I was being snarky.

Comment # 74 by MAC | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
Or at least at least saying so is easier than just admitting that your argument sucked.

Comment # 75 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
I hope I can navigate the waters here, although they seem a little murky at times. The discussion at least in part is dealing with the question of mutability and sexual orientation. I think it is important to remember that there are probably 3 or 4 times as many bisexuals as homosexuals, if we use the HH Scale and call 6s homosexuals and 1,2,3,4,5s bisexuals. (That at least has some validity, but we can revisit this assumption if anyone wants to) The evidence for this is strong and from several sources.

It seems very obvious, then, that the largest group of those dealing with homosexual attraction–the bisexuals—actually have some choice. They can choose to focus on their heterosexual or their homosexual attractions. The ones, of course, who can do that most easily are the 3s. They are exactly in the middle.

I believe this explains a great deal of what some call “change” or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth. Unfortunately, those who are 6s do NOT have that luxery. Even the 5s are probably challenged to function heterosexually because they have so little heterosexual interest compared to the homosexual. So this explains why the 6s or 5.5s like Nick who try marriage have such a rough go of it.

Would this provide some kind middle ground …where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?

Comment # 76 by Ron Schow | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
“I believe this explains a great deal of what some call “change” or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth.”

Ron, are you saying that significant changes in “attractions” occur or are you referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction?

Comment # 77 by Steven B | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
“Would this provide some kind middle ground …where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?”

Yes, I think so. But I had the same question that Steven B. offered.

Comment # 78 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
Steven B and Rick

I am referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction.

On the surface it may look like “change” but actually the fundamental orientation has not changed. A 3 has the ability to focus in either direction. 4s and 2s do also, but not quite as equally.

I like Elder Wickman’s term for it in the statement last August. He said…

“There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…”

“Core characteristic” sums it up pretty well. It is at the core, at the center of who we are. I don’t think it changes much. Therapists I have talked to at LDS Family Services stress that the brain is pretty fixed once we are in our late teens…20s.

Comment # 79 by Ron Schow | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
And this is sort of what I worry about. That “success” stories of bisexuals who can function sexually and emotionally in either homosexual or heterosexual relationships give an impression to general mormondom that homosexuality really is a “choice” and that people need to get over it.

Comment # 80 by Rick Jepson | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply
As noted in my earlier post, a homosexual 6 is very different from a bisexual 3. You can’t lump them together. Period. But worry you should, because “general mormondom” has been doing exactly what you predicted they would. And in my opinion they have been doing it for a long time.

Comment # 81 by Ron Schow | Apr 29, 2007 | Reply
Rick,

What the LDS Church now teaches is not necessarily what Joseph Smith taught. (which is why I am a Reform Mormon and not an LDS Mormon.)(

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith did specifically say that he was talking about the mind of man; he equated it with intelligence and with the spiriit of man…say ingthat the intelligence of man “is a spirit from everlasting to everlasting,” and that “there was no creation about it.” Also, that “God never had the power to create [the mind of man.]”

My point was the same as Joseph’s: the mind/intelligence/spirit is an uncreated entity within the natural universe; it is what it is and cannot change its nature.

Comment # 82 by Rob Lauer | Apr 29, 2007 | Reply
Rob,

What I actually meant (and didn’t articulate well) is that I either disagree with your understanding of Joseph Smith meant or…if you’re right about J.S.’s intending meaning….I disagree with Joseph Smith. : )

I don’t think there’s much current LDS doctrine on “intelligence” to agree or disagree with since basically no one ever talks about it. But I also don’t think that there’s any reason to feel married to the idea that it’s a complete “self” that’s largely immutable. As I said, I think that strongly contradicts obvious data.

I’d actually be interested in talking with you quite a bit more about this in a month or two. I’ve started a major study about the doctrine of intelligence with a good friend….but won’t be able to really look at it until at least June.

==Rick

Comment # 83 by Rick Jepson | Apr 29, 2007 | Reply
I just read through all of these interesting and thought-provoking posts (and boy are my eyes tired), and wanted to add my two cents. Full disclosure – I am an active member of the Church and consider myself Mormon. My political and social beliefs are fairly conservative, though I respect the fact that others believe differently, and I think that people can disagree in good faith. I try to take people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups. In my adult life, I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, including two of my closest friends in college who came out after I first met them, but other than a brief period of wondering if my large number of gay friends meant that I was gay too (and quickly rejecting that idea), I have not experienced same-sex attraction or a gay lifestyle directly. I am a married, heterosexual woman in a happy and fulfilling relationship with my husband. We have three children together. This is my only marriage and we were both virgins on our wedding night. My views come from my interpretation of the scriptures and LDS doctrine as it seems to be currently expressed. I have read a few of my own thoughts here and elsewhere, but a few other issues seem not to have been addressed. I would appreciate knowing what others think and if I am off base.
It seems to me that “homosexuality” is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial. I was taught, and I think Church doctrine is that our purpose in this life (in which I include the spirit world before our resurrection) is to prove ourselves worthy and capable of becoming like our Father and Mother in Heaven, accepting the Atonement of Christ to make up for what we cannot do. If we do this, we will receive “all that the Father hath” and become Gods, as He and She are. By becoming Gods, we will have eternal increase (indeed, I think this is the definition of “God”), or spirit children. Eternal increase can only come to a union of opposites, male and female. A man or woman alone cannot have children, nor can two men or two women. I don’t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are, but it seems clear that somehow, there must be both a man and a woman together to receive exaltation by this definition. Our marriage relationships on Earth (and, I believe, in the spirit world, where we still have contact with each other until our resurrections) are crude and immature approximations of what this celestial relationship will be like, but they are a sort of practice for the real thing. Relationships that do not meet even this approximation are therefore sin. By the way, this also includes heterosexual marriages in which there is abuse, adultery, mistreatment, dishonesty, etc. If this is an accurate representation of Church doctrine, it is clear why the Church, whose mission is to “perfect the saints” in preparation for exaltation, cannot legitimize or countenance same-sex relationships.
Now, for the tricky and more controversial part. It is also clear that some people, for some reason, experience feelings of same-sex attraction that make it difficult or impossible to make a pre-celestial marriage. What does this mean for their eternal salvation and for their lives on Earth? It seems to me, and I think that someone mentioned this above (I didn’t note the number of the post), that we are subject to various difficulties because we live in a telestial world, including but not limited to mental and physical handicaps, illness, living in abusive or dysfunctional situations, poverty, etc. I believe that same-sex attraction is a result of this telestial condition. I do not believe that God “created” it, any more than I believe He created cystic fibrosis or schizophrenia. Our bodies are made to function in certain ways. For most people, these functions occur without a hitch. For others, there are glitches. I know some people are going to be upset that I am “equating” same-sex attraction with horrible diseases, but I can see no other explanation for why it exists. It’s simply a side-effect of our telestial existence. I do not think that Amulek’s statement about the same spirit possessing one’s body after resurrection as before (Alma 34:34) applies here, since in my conception, same-sex attraction is not “spiritual” any more than mental or physical disease. Indeed,