Line upon Line

To sign up for Meridian’s Free Newsletter, please CLICK HERE.

The following is part 4 in a series of articles on difficult and controversial topics in LDS Church History and Doctrine taken from A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History. To see the previous installment, click here. 

One day in early-November last year, my Facebook feed “exploded.” The Mormon world was abuzz about a new Church policy regarding members in same-sex marriages and their children, which paralleled a longtime policy regarding polygamists and their children.

In the following week, I had long talks with my adult daughter who struggled to understand the reasoning behind the new Church policy. “I don’t know anyone with polygamous parents, but I do have friends with homosexual ones,” she shared.

Changing Times

Unlike my daughter, I didn’t grow up with gay friends. I didn’t know anyone whose parents were homosexual. I didn’t even know of any movie stars who were attracted to the same gender. And all of my family members identified as heterosexual.

But that isn’t the case now. Homosexuality among celebrities is no longer headline worthy. I have friends who are in gay relationships and family members who experience same-sex attraction.

What was once generally shunned in the broader culture is now generally accepted. And what was once a nearly universally accepted doctrine within our Church culture has become increasingly divisive and perceived as debatable.

During more than one Sunday School or Relief Society class in the past six months, I have squirmed and bit my tongue at a judgmental statement. But sometimes I have spoken up, realizing that if I was uncomfortable, then there was likely one or two other people in the room feeling the same.

Beyond Labels

It is within this social climate that Ty Mansfield presents his discussion of same-gender attraction in relation to gospel principles. He argues that sexual attraction is a phenomenon that cannot be easily identified, labeled, or codified, even if it is a natural impulse. His chapter is not exclusively directed at LGBT+ members; a great deal of what Ty has written applies equally to heterosexuals as to those with same-gender attraction. We all are tugged by nature in directions that may exceed the boundaries God has set.

Acknowledging the difficulty we personally have in denying natural impulses can help us understand, perhaps just a little better, what is expected of members who experience same-gender attraction. Discussing the necessity of overcoming natural, but unacceptable, impulses in our own lives has helped my entire family feel more empathy for those who are asked to walk a straight path when they are naturally pulled in other directions.

A Timely Discussion

A couple of weeks ago, I learned my niece’s fifteen-year-old daughter had started reading A Reason for Faith. I suggested she begin with the chapter on money digging or maybe the Kinderhook Plates—those would be entertaining. “No,” my niece replied. “She wants to read the chapter on homosexuality.” Of course, she would want to read about something that she encounters in her everyday life instead of interesting historical anecdotes. What was I thinking?

“Lydia,” I asked. “Why did you want to read that chapter first?”

“Because I was curious. I have gay friends, and we talk about it all the time at school. But nobody wants to talk about it at Church because it would be awkward.”

So it seems, at least in some of our congregations, we have a truce-like dynamic going on. Depending upon the class, the topic may be avoided altogether or someone might throw out a conversation stopper and awkward silence ensues.

I’m not sure if we will ever openly discuss the intersection of same-sex attraction and Church policies and doctrine during the three-hour Sunday block. And to be honest, I’m not sure it is the ideal place for those discussions. On the other hand, leaving our teenagers to feed their curiosity solely through peer discussion seems spiritually unhealthy and even risky. Honest, straightforward, and informed discussions with our youth may help them as they navigate the expanding gulf between culturally acceptable behavior and gospel principles.

Through broadening and adding depth to the discussion, Ty Mansfield, who himself experiences same-gender attraction, hopes to build bridges of understanding on a topic that continues to be a divisive element among members of the Church. And maybe, as a result, we can slide a little closer to each other on the pew.

A Selection from “Homosexuality and the Gospel” by Ty Mansfield from A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History

Similar to sexuality as a whole, the qualitative experiences we have of attrac­tion and desire are complex, multidimensional phenomena. We are attracted to, or desire, different things for different reasons—hobbies, life philoso­phies, professions, jobs, friendships, or romantic partners. Some desires may be rooted in personal gifts, such as having a remarkably mature capacity for empathy and sensitivity to others’ feelings and needs, while other desires may be rooted in wounds or weaknesses, such as an addiction to pornog­raphy that has conditioned an individual to objectify and lust after certain fragmented traits in others. In human relationships alone, romantic or platonic, there are multiple feelings, emotions, and impulses. It is import­ant to differentiate between these feelings, yet they are frequently lumped together—attraction, desire, love, euphoria, lust, emotional attachment, meaning, and so forth.

Humans are capable of a wide range of tastes, affinities, attractions, and impulses. Culture, emotional maturity, capacity for intimate relationships, and sense of self or identity have as much or more of an influence on how those attractions develop as do genes or biology. For example, some Afri­can cultures see heavy women as more sexually preferable to thin women because of a cultural attribution of meaning around wealth and social status attached to weight. Similarly, in some Chinese cultures, muscled, tanned bodies are seen as much less erotic or desirable than nonmuscled, pasty-skinned bodies because of social values and attributions around wealth and status—being a farmer as opposed to a white-collar worker. However, in American culture, the opposite tends to be true.

Beyond these more external aspects or objects of desire, there’s an entirely distinct quality of attraction and desire we can experience through emotional and spiritual vulnerability and bonding. Even where there may be no immediate attraction to external features or qualities, deep emo­tional intimacy can actually serve as a wellspring or fertile growing space for romantic and sexual desire. One therapist remarked on how we should not be afraid of experiencing deep feelings for others simply because there’s potential for development of sexual feelings, but rather we should find and walk the line of integrity:

We have such rich and deep connections with people, with one another, truly deep loving intimacy. So how to keep that door open, how to keep that heartfelt life there, but not be seduced by the power and attraction of that intimacy? Because it is in that deep intimacy, of course, that sexual attraction and energy can arise and emerge. So how to maintain an integrity in that intimacy, and be true to our feelings of love for one another, and not fall into that well of sexual misconduct? . . . I have many boundaries and ethics that I apply in those situations, particularly through my psychotherapy training.⁵

This can even become confusing or concerning when it occurs between individuals of the same sex who have no inclination to homoerotic attrac­tion or behavior. Writing about men in particular, Sam Keen, a former edi­tor of Psychology Today, noted in his book Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man: “‘Normal’ American men are homophobic, afraid of close friendships with other men. The moment we begin to feel warmly toward another man, the ‘homosexual’ panic button gets pressed. It makes us nervous to see French or Italian men strolling down the street arm in arm. . . . From a cross-cultural perspective, it is we who are odd; close male friendship is the norm in most societies and is usually considered a more important source of intimacy than romantic relationships.”⁶ Some men have questioned their sexuality simply because they developed a deep emotional love for another man. It seems our culture often has difficulty distinguishing deep love and intimacy from sexual or romantic desire.

We don’t fully understand the complexity of what shapes sexual desire and how the nature and objects of sexual desire change over a life span—or even over the course of single relationships. Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, noted that the stage of relationship development that researchers call “passionate love,” a state of intense longing, desire, and attraction, typically has a “short shelf life.” It’s a stage of love that research shows lasts an average of two years, after which it generally morphs into “companionate love,” a less impassioned blend of deep affection and connection.⁷

No single theory accounts for the complexity of how sexuality develops and is expressed across a wide range of human experiences. Where we often get into difficulty in our efforts to identify or understand the what, why, and how of sexual desire is when we try to attribute the root of that desire to a single factor. The popular cultural myths that either people are “born gay” or they chose to be homosexual are both oversimplifications and cannot explain much, if anything, about the development of sexuality and sexual desire.

It’s interesting that popular culture seems to be so sure about something that science and experienced researchers are not. The American Psycholog­ical Association’s official pamphlet addressing sexual orientation concedes this point, noting that ultimately, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisex­ual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”⁸

Lisa Diamond, a University of Utah researcher, noted that because sex­ual fluidity is a general feature of human sexuality, we have to acknowledge that sexual categories or identity constructs are mental shortcuts that may be helpful in making quick judgments, but which can be problematic in that they also reflect or lead to biases. She noted, “We’re not in fact cutting nature at its joints; we’re . . . imposing some joints on a very messy phenome­non. . . . We have to be careful about presuming that [these sexual categories] are natural phenomenon.”⁹ . . .

To read more of Ty Mansfield’s chapter, “Homosexuality and the Gospel,” check out A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History. Available at Deseret Book and online retailers like Amazon.com.

Be sure to subscribe to the free A Reason for Faith Newsletter for access to additional resources.

LAURA HARRIS HALES earned a master’s degree in professional writing from New England College. She works as a freelance copy editor. Along with her husband, Brian Hales, she maintains the website JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. Her five children—all avid truth seekers—never cease to amaze and inspire her.