Response to “When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction”

Tyler Perry

In September 1999, the Church published an article in the Ensign entitled “When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction” by A. Dean Byrd, a prominent advocate of “conversion therapy”. This article remains published on the Church’s website, as of 19 July 2020 [1]. The article advocates for conversion therapy and other harmful practices that have been denounced by the American Psychiatric Association [2]. This essay is a response and a petition to the LDS church to take down, denounce, and apologize for the article.

The article is broken into three major sections, and I will structure this essay to address each of the sections in turn.

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS

First, allow me to reiterate that Byrd was an advocate for conversion therapy. As such, the section of the article entitled “What Research Shows” is dedicated to this idea that conversion therapy works and is recommended for at least some individuals. He begins by listing some potential causes for homosexuality. The fact is that there is no consensus on a cause, though ideas like the “fraternal birth order effect” have been put forward [3]. Others have suggested that epigenetics, or the way that certain genes are “turned on and off”, may explain the causes of homosexuality in humans [4]. Regardless the scientific literature, the Church does not have an official position on the cause of homosexuality [5].

Byrd falls into a bit of a logical problem when he asserts that “homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable” and “individuals [can] diminish homosexual attraction and make changes in their lives”. Many people in and out of the Church assert that sexual orientation is fluid, implying a changing nature to sexual orientation. The Kinsey scale is born of famous studies by Alfred Kinsey that showed the spectrum nature of human sexuality [6]. The studies do not imply, however, that sexual orientation can be deliberately changed. To so conclude would imply that heterosexuals could change their orientation to a homosexual identity.

Byrd then claims a certain rate of success for psychotherapy treatments of homosexuality. We need only look at the character and opinions of the man to know that he was speaking of the supposed “success” of the now repudiated practice of conversion therapy. As already cited, the American Psychiatry Association denounces the practice. Furthermore, The Trevor Project recently released a survey of LGBTQ youth that showed that those who had faced attempts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity attempted suicide at a much higher rate (19%) than those who had not faced attempts to change (8%). Furthermore, those who had undergone conversion therapy were more likely (28%) to attempt suicide than those who had not undergone conversion therapy (12%) [7]. I wonder if Byrd would claim that treatments for depression were successful if they more than doubled the rate of suicide attempts in those who underwent treatment?

What does the research show? The causes of homosexuality are not well understood. Sexual orientation is complex and exists on a spectrum. It cannot be deliberately changed. Conversion therapy is a dangerous and harmful practice. The research shows that Byrd was wrong.

HOW TO REACH OUT

In this section of the article, Byrd correctly notes that one does not choose their sexual orientation. I have previously discussed the effects of acting on one’s romantic desires, the deficiencies of the plan of salvation as presently taught by the Church, and how current church teachings do not make most LGBTQ members of the Church feel welcome and accepted.

From the perspective of members, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is a powerful resource that can strengthen those who are weakened by the travails of the world. I agree with Byrd’s messaging here of leaning into that confidence and compassion. I disagree with his insinuations that the Atonement can somehow be used to change someone’s sexual orientation. There is no compelling evidence, whether in doctrine or in science, that such a feat is achievable.

If you are someone who loves an LGBTQ person, I would advise you to consider how the Atonement can bless you with more compassion, tolerance, and love, rather than how it might be used to change that loved one. If you are an LGBTQ member of the Church, instead of wondering how the Atonement might change your sexuality, I would advise you to use the power of the Atonement to have compassion in how you communicate with your loved ones who may be struggling to understand the challenges you are facing. And if you no longer believe in the doctrine of the Atonement, then show compassion for those who still do.

HELPFUL IDEAS

Here, Byrd lists out ten “helpful” ideas:

1. When your kid comes out to you, show them love and compassion. In this section, Byrd recounts the story of a father whose son came out to him as gay. After a prompting from the Holy Spirit, the father decided to hug his son, which was just what his son needed. I agree with Byrd that, if your child comes out to you as LGBTQ, you should show them love. However, you should not need a prompting from God to show your child that love. That should be natural. I wonder what would cause someone to hesitate in showing their LGBTQ child love. Is that factor a good thing?

2. Bear your testimony of change. Or don’t. Byrd is wrong here. We have already discussed that in this essay, so I won’t belabor the point.

3. Love the sinner, hate the sin. If there was one paragraph that caused me to decide to write this response, it was this. In this paragraph, Byrd recounts the story of a young man who decided to pursue homosexual relationships because his parents expressed their support of him, and (most likely as a consequence of poor sex education), he wound up contracting HIV. Byrd engages in the same sort of rhetoric that allowed HIV to take root in the US during the Reagan years. He rhetorically equates homosexual behavior to the spread of HIV. However, safe sex practices immensely reduce the risk of HIV, there are treatments available that can ensure an HIV-positive person never develop AIDS or be capable of transmitting the virus. HIV-negative homosexuals in monogamous relationships are just as likely as HIV-negative heterosexuals in monogamous relationships to spread the virus. If you are a lesbian, good news, you are at lower risk of HIV, regardless the HIV status of your partner, than heterosexuals with one HIV-positive partner.
The sort of rhetoric that Byrd engages in here is damaging and detrimental to positive and healthy discourse on the subject of the intersection of LGBTQ identities and the doctrines of the Church. If for no other reason than this paragraph and Byrd’s support of conversion therapy, this article ought to be removed from the Church’s website.

4. Encourage help from the untrained bishop. Bishops are lay ministers. They are not professional therapists, counselors, or advisors. In a church that does not have answers for its LGBTQ members, this advice is not helpful. In fact, it can be harmful. If a family that would benefit from professional counseling chooses to seek help from the bishop instead, the family may suffer interpersonal or personal harm that may not be reparable.

5. Avoid the temptation to control or “fix” them. I agree with Byrd on this. Really, this is sound advice. In fact, this could be his whole article.

6. Seek out professional help. Byrd almost hits another win here. However, he implicitly advocates for finding a counselor that will promote ideas consistent with his pro-conversion therapy stance. That part of this “helpful idea” is sickening. Seek out professional help, where needed. Honestly, it is generally a good idea to seek out good therapy anyway. Having regular mental health checkups in the same way you have regular physical or dental health checkups is not a bad idea. Conversion therapy, on the other hand, is a horrible idea.

7. Keep communication open. I agree with this idea. Part of that whole showing love and not trying to “fix” your LGBTQ loved ones. Really sound advice. Where Byrd takes this in a less-than-stellar direction is when he tells the story of “Jon”, who eventually made his “journey out of homosexuality”. Without a means of interrogating this story (we do not know who Jon is or if he even exists), I will choose to focus on the one good part of this story. Jon apparently felt alone and isolated, cut off from his family. However, his family showed that he was still loved and welcome home any time. Eventually, Jon decided he wanted to come home and be a part of his family again because they had continued to reach out to him.
I am blessed with a family that has decided to keep this counsel. I am grateful for that. Parents should love their children, and children should feel that they can turn to their parents for guidance and advice. Byrd is correct about this, even if he chooses to poison the well with the rest of the account.

8. Pray to God. I take no issue with this section, apart from some minor word choice issues.

9. Don’t suggest marriage as a “cure”. I have already spoken on this in another essay. I agree with Byrd here, until he goes and ruins it with his conversion therapy ideas. Remember, conversion therapy does not work and is harmful. There is no such thing as a cure for homosexuality, because it is natural and normal for a small subset of the population of a highly social species to be homosexual (see penguins, bonobos, dolphins, dogs, and humans for examples)[8].

10. Never give up on a loved one. I agree with the sentiment Byrd expresses here, but I have doubts about the intentions. This is a man who believes that homosexuality can be “cured”, but it is not something that can or ought to be cured. Never give up on a loved one because you love them, not because you expect them to fall in line with some religious dogma that you have chosen for yourself. Never give up on a loved one because you want them to be happy, not because you want to benefit your own eternal happiness. Never give up on a loved one, even when your understanding of God’s plan is insufficient to include them in the Kingdom.

CONCLUSIONS

A. Dean Byrd was wrong. His beliefs in conversion therapy were wrong. His confidence in the idea that homosexuality could be cured was wrong. His association of homosexuality with the HIV pandemic was wrong. He was wrong. His ideas do not deserve to have a platform.

While he does have some ideas that are, in fact, helpful, such as showing love, keeping lines of communication open, and avoiding the temptation to “fix” your LGBTQ loved ones, Byrd promotes and elevates dangerous and harmful ideas such as conversion therapy and the changeability of sexual orientation.

The fact that the Church published this in the September 1999 Ensign is bad enough. What is worse is that it is still featured on the website, there has been no retraction of the article, and there is no apology made for the contents therein. One could defend this by saying that this article may be difficult to find or the Church no longer believes these things. This is an old article after all.

I was able to find this article on the first page of results using the search “same-sex attraction” on the website’s search bar. The phrase “same-sex attraction” is one that the Church has promoted and used with a great degree of regularity. I could imagine that a teen struggling to square up their sexual orientation or gender identity with the doctrines of the Church could reasonably be expected to use the phrase in searching the Church’s website for guidance and instruction. This horrible article is on the first page of the results. My only prayer in that case is that that teen knows to call 988 or has the number for The Trevor Project’s hotline (1-866-488-7386).

After all this time, surely the Church no longer believes in or supports the denounced and horrific practice of conversion therapy, right? Well, at least the Church no longer opposes banning conversion therapy, even after they opposed HB399 in 2019, a bill that would have banned conversion therapy in Utah [9].

If the Church truly opposes the practice, a good demonstration of that would be to publicly denounce and apologize for this article and any support they may have provide Byrd and his ilk in the past.