The Anchor of the Soul: Ultimate Hope vs. Proximate Hope

Author's Response to "A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement" by A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeff Robinson

by Ty R. Mansfield

"So often people of different religious persuasions simply talk past one another when they converse on matters religious. They may even use the same words, but they bring a different mindset and an entirely different perspective to the encounter. In other situations we employ a different vocabulary but intend to convey the same message. Misperception and misrepresentation inevitably follow. If there is anything needed in this confused world, it is understanding."

Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 172

Robert Millet, Professor of Ancient Scripture and former Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, made the statement quoted above regarding conversation between those of differing religious traditions. But I also believe it applies to the differences, real and imagined, between the views Fred and Marilyn Matis and I expressed in In Quiet Desperation: Understanding the Challenge of Same-Gender Attraction and what Dean Byrd et al write in their review of it, which they titled "A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement." Its nature and tone underscores the need for the type of understanding Brother Millet spoke of, because their review seriously misunderstands the purpose of the book and misstates its message. I wrote this response to clarify our intent in writing the book, as well as to correct some of these highly unfortunate misunderstandings and misrepresentations, though I will respond primarily to the critique of my portion of the book.

First, however, I would like to share a couple private responses I received from reasonably accomplished individuals who have read the book, and who came to very different conclusions than Byrd et al. First, from an LDS psychologist who has been in practice for more than 25 years and who has served as president of a professional therapeutic organization:

I've read your book and I can't begin to say how much I enjoyed reading it. It is beautiful, honest, hopeful, and a delight to read. I am just thrilled with what you have done with the scriptures and stories you share—they are so full of the Spirit and of life... The lessons you teach are so similar to what the Lord has been teaching me in recent years that I just wanted to say ‘Amen and amen.' Your honesty and spirit will help many, many people I have no doubt. To the extent that God's creative power is epitomized in his capacity to engender spiritual life in others, this book will definitely lay claim to having participated in that power.

For starters, I bought a copy for my son-in-law who is not (as far as I know) struggling with same-sex attraction, but whose heterosexual attractions present many of the same challenges and call for the same message of hope and peace through absolute reliance on the atonement of Christ. In fact, my only regret about your book is that it is one of the best things I've seen on the atonement and repentance and coping with temptation and challenge—applicable to all of us—and yet so many people will not benefit from it because they will not think to look for help in a book for those with same-gender attraction if that is not their challenge.

Another response comes from a professor in the College of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, stating:

I read your book last weekend—once I started it, I couldn't put it down. Ty, it is remarkable! You have some incredible insights that profoundly focus on the Savior's unparalleled power to love and save. What a difference your explanations and connections would make to the overall ignorance and fear associated with same-gender attraction. Thank you for teaching me. I will read it again, I am certain, and I believe it will inform my teaching. My husband is reading it now. I think he started with a less open mind than I had—but he is finding the same clarity and conviction that I have tried (but largely failed) to communicate to him. Your book is communicating to him—and it is good. Anyway, I couldn't wait to thank you!

Other reviews and responses from Latter-day Saints who have found more benefit and hope from In Quiet Desperation than these reviewers have found can be read on the Deseret Book website.

Now, in response to Byrd, Cox, and Robinson, a reader's response to a book can have as much or more to do with the reader's own preoccupations and paradigms as it does with the actual content of the book. And where an author is silent—as I tried to be regarding clinical themes—individuals will fill in the empty space with their own biases. People can stubbornly remain stuck with a given point of view and only see evidence that confirms that view, and any contradictory evidence is ignored. This phenomenon is so common that psychologists have even given it a name: confirmation bias. In Quiet Desperation has been subject to that distortion from two sides. Those who believe that homosexual relationships should be accepted by the Church have co-opted the book for their own purposes. And these reviewers have done the same, but in an opposite direction.

So there will be no further confusion, let me set the record straight. First, I do not believe in a biologically determined cause of homosexuality, and our book does not once make that claim. Second, I wholeheartedly support the Church's teaching on the family, heterosexual monogamy, and the sanctity of the eternal union of man and woman as the only means of attaining the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, and that this ideal is one that everyone should hope and strive for, no matter what their temporal challenges might be. My beliefs, I feel, are in complete harmony with what the Lord's Prophets and Apostles teach. In addition to supporting the Church's teachings, most of the reviewers' scientific assertions about homosexuality I have no quarrel with. Further, I respect the dedication and hard work of these individuals and so many others in assisting those who have sought them out for treatment for their unwanted homosexual feelings. They have brought great encouragement and tireless energy to helping their many patients.

Where I differ strongly with the reviewers, however, are their claims about In Quiet Desperation and its effects.

First, some common ground. I think the three reviewers and I can agree on two points that the traditional nature/nurture debate about homosexuality only obscures: (1) whatever its ultimate influencing factors, homosexual attractions are not chosen by the person experiencing them in any meaningful sense of the word. And despite that, (2) in many cases the harmful effects of those attractions, and even the feelings themselves, can be diminished or even largely eliminated from causing any significant distress in the life of the individual who experiences them. I never said that homosexual attractions cannot be changed; in fact, I know many individuals who have found a great deal of success in dealing with their same-sex attractions and who live faithful, productive lives in their marriages and families.

What is particularly frustrating is when the reviewers engage in what often appears more to be as a thinly veiled personal attack on me, disguised as pedantic and poorly informed psychoanalysis, than a book review. Whatever their intent, the reviewers falsely paint me as someone who rejects all scientific conclusions out of hand, concedes victory to my homosexuality, proudly adopts the "gay" identification badge, and rejects the possibility of change. And then they chide me for labeling myself? The only "label" I choose to adopt is "Ty Mansfield, son of God." As I wrote in my closing remarks:

"Though I am not ashamed of my attraction, the attraction itself is not me… I know who I am—a literal child of my literal and eternal Father in Heaven—and although I have no problem with the terms gay or same-gender attracted or other terms people use to refer to those who have these feelings, there are a hundred other ways I would describe myself before I would use any of them. I am a son and a brother. I am an uncle and a nephew. I am a student and a friend. Even more important, I hope to be called a Christian and a Latter-day Saint, a member of the house of Israel and of the seed of Abraham. I am a god ‘in embryo' with ‘unlimited potential for progress and attainment' of a divine destiny in the celestial realms of my Father in Heaven" (p. 246).

So far as the possibility of change goes, in the book I clearly stated my belief that "we who have the challenge of same-gender attraction have a responsibility to do all we can to understand our feelings or attractions and work to alter anything that may have influenced the attraction," after quoting President Brigham Young concerning the inconsistency of asking the Lord to "heal" us without doing our part to apply already available information or "remedies" (p.193-194)—this from the very page where the reviewers erroneously claim that I "advise" others: "Don't take change too seriously."

It may be that the reviewers were expecting a "how to" book or a lengthy disquisition on the causes and treatment of homosexuality. If that is what they were looking for, and if that is the only facet of the conversation they believe merits address, then I do not doubt they found it wanting. Or, perhaps, they felt that my story would only be interesting and worthwhile if my journey was complete and my dilemmas already neatly resolved. This book was never intended to be a comprehensive or definitive work on the issue—there are many other excellent books on this subject, many of which are clinical in nature. As for the science that the reviewers cite in their review, I find nothing I take issue with. As I stated in the book, "science—biological, psychological, and sociological—can help us to understand more about the nature of this challenge and may be means through which God brings us greater light and knowledge" (p. 70).

Without minimizing the importance of continued research and knowledge that the science can provide on this issue, what we wanted to do with the book was to take a step outside of the polarized scientific and political debate to discuss the spiritual side of the issue, to give a human face to the often sterile and clinical rhetoric by giving readers a sense of the real feelings of real people, so that members of the Church might learn more about what it feels like to experience these challenges firsthand, and thereby exhibit a greater sense of compassion and understanding. As I wrote: "In truth, these chapters are much more about the gospel through the eyes of one individual who experiences same-gender attraction than they are about same-gender attraction itself" (p. 73). I do not see how greater understanding of this issue—or any other—is a "slippery slope." At any rate, it is not any more slippery than following Alma's commandment to his newly baptized flock to "bear one another's burdens" (Alma 18:8).

The majority of the discussion on this issue in the past, from a faithful Latter-day Saint perspective, has been how to overcome this challenge, and any success stories cited were either ambiguous or safely concealed behind pseudonyms, which I feel perpetuates the shame that has shrouded this topic for too long. Too often the message that comes across is that unless and until an individual can be heralded as an example of complete reorientation, he or she cannot exist in a faithful Church context. "Those who have completed their change," this attitude implies, "are now welcome into the fold of true Latter-day Saint respectability." The many heroic stories of faith and commitment of those who are still striving, who believe in the ideal but haven't achieved it yet, seem to have no place in LDS discourse on this topic. And too often, when men and women have given so much of their emotional and temporal resources to achieving complete reorientation, and then do not succeed as soon or as easily as they have hoped, they tragically conclude either that God has rejected them or that they have no other choice but to surrender to their temptations and forsake their covenants.

I wrote my portion of the book for those people, to encourage them to stay on the path—to say, "God's love is infinite, and you have value and worth in the Church and in the eyes of our Heavenly Father during your journey, not just at the end of it." I did not solicit this opportunity; it was presented to me, and I accepted it. My intent was simply to say, "This is my story. This is my challenge. Although this is still a challenge for me, I believe in God's power and promises and expect full transformation, whether that happens in this life or the next. I recognize that I must exercise my own best efforts to understand and work through the issue, as I seek divine help, but I no longer feel shame for an attraction and challenge I did not choose. In the meantime, these are some of the spiritual lessons I've learned about the depth of the Savior's love and the power of His redeeming and sustaining grace."

We should not be afraid, I believe, of sincerely opening up our minds and hearts to hear what others have to say—to understand the length and breadth of what it means to be human from the perspectives of others whose mortal experiences, challenges, or beliefs have been different than our own. We need not compromise our revealed doctrines or our inspired convictions in doing so. In fact, it might be in these explorations where we more fully discover the godly heart and divine nature—where we come to know more fully of the Savior's infinite love for each of our Father's children.

Many of my feelings resonate with the frustrations of another Christian writer—a husband and father of grown children—who experiences homosexual attraction, as expressed in an article in Christianity Today. He wrote:

"Christian literature on homosexuality is full of polarizing rhetoric. One side says that we should welcome our gay brothers and sisters into Christian fellowship; that we should recognize this is how God made them and therefore it must be how God intends for them to live. The other side recites the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, uses words like abomination, and gives us anecdotal evidence of people being changed. From the perspective of my experience, I cannot help but conclude that both positions are naïve.

"My position on homosexuality—while it may be realistic and grounded in true experience—seems to offend many and please almost no one. My fervent belief that God intends us to live in heterosexual and monogamous fidelity offends the liberals who think I should accept and live out my supposedly God-given sexual nature. At the same time, my experience that grace may abound but that it doesn't necessarily ‘fix' me or make it easy for me to live the ‘straight' life offends the conservatives who preach and demand a clearer ‘victory' over my sinful nature. Rhetoric seldom provides us with an accurate representation of reality. My story is a reality. I believe it is a reality shared by many more than just me, but disclosed by few…

"Sin is sin, and grace is grace. We are all sinners and we all—whether heterosexual or homosexual—are offered the same grace. Ours is no easy victory. It would be a whole lot easier if our churches would try to understand, and accept, those like me who claim victory nonetheless."

Now I'll address some of the specific claims the review makes about our book. Throughout their review, they repeatedly claim that the book promotes false notions about homosexuality, but those arguments are frequently straw men and red herrings which counter what the pro-gay forces in the world are arguing, not what our book says or even intends to imply. This attempt to tar the book with rhetoric that implies it is a pro-gay wolf in sheep's clothing is poorly supported. They never give the correct context for the rare phrases they quote from the book, and their citations suffer from the same flaw.

The first—and perhaps most disturbing—claim the reviewers make is that I believe homosexuality to be genetically or biologically determined—that I foster the innate immutability argument and believe that any degree of change is impossible. Yet if you read the review carefully, you will see that there is not a single passage quoted from the book where I actually say either of those things—for the simple reason that it isn't there. I never once stated or intended to imply a belief that homosexuality is genetically or biologically determined or that it is innate and immutable, because I don't believe it. The very few statements I make regarding biological factors are either quotation from Elder Oaks' Ensign article, or as being part of a mix of factors; in the same way where Byrd et al stated in the review: "homosexuality… results from an interaction of biological, psychological and social factors." To say that genetics or biology can play a predisposing role in some circumstances does not mean that it is determinative, as I'm sure the reviewers would agree.

The book focuses on the spiritual growth that can come while working through this challenge, rather than a focus on reorientation, which leads the reviewers to repeatedly characterize the book as "hopeless." I quote with permission a response I received from an individual who came to a much different conclusion, one that is representative of the scores I have received:

"Thank you for having the courage to write this book and use your real name. As I read your section of the book I want you to know I was deeply touched. It brought a great peace to me and helped me feel less ashamed of experiencing this struggle. More importantly it helped me to gain a better appreciation for the Atonement. One reason I appreciated the book so much is that it helped me to step back and say, ‘Change is not the issue I need to focus on, the relationship I have with my Savior is.' I had become so consumed with changing that my relationship with my Savior kind of got pushed to the back. Things weren't in balance. I continue to do all that I can to experience a shift in my sexual orientation, but after reading this book I felt able to turn the timetable over to the Lord. Reading your book was one of the things that helped me to realize I needed to focus instead on living my life such that I felt His presence, just like everyone else is trying to do. I better understand that my ultimate purpose is to be completely submissive to the Lord's will and His timing. I have a better understanding of the mission of my Savior and the application of His grace to me as one who struggles with SGA [same-gender attraction]. After reading this book I was left with great peace and a reassurance that I do have a place in the Kingdom and the church in spite of my struggle. I was really struggling to stay active in the gospel and it helped open my eyes to the Savior's great mercy towards me. I began to let down a lot of the barriers I had put up."

In the writing of my portion of this book, I felt no other desire than that individuals who experience this attraction would come to know more fully of their worth in the eyes of their Heavenly Father, and of their worth in the Church and kingdom of the Savior, Jesus Christ. This reader's response is everything that I could have hoped for.

Next, the reviewers recite research conclusions on the causes and treatment of homosexuality. As they argue—and I agree—all of the commonly cited research purporting to show a biological basis to homosexuality is either flawed or has been seriously misrepresented in the popular imagination. They cite several studies showing that many people seeking treatment for homosexual feelings are successful in diminishing, or sometimes even largely eliminating, them. I have no quarrel with any of this, and have seen this happen firsthand. But the reviewers seriously misrepresent the state of the field when they imply that all of the science around homosexuality is settled, or imply that everyone who experiences homosexual attractions can now be easily treated and rapidly attain a well-adjusted heterosexual functioning. The fact of the matter is science is very far from a full understanding of the causes of homosexuality, let alone the most effective therapeutic treatments for all of those desiring it.

Like the reviewers, I welcome studies like the Spitzer study, which document a number of people who have achieved a significant shift in the nature of their attractions. We need more studies like this. Sixty-six percent is a impressive number; one that reorientation therapists rightly celebrate, since the conventional worldly wisdom claims that such change is never possible and even attempting to do so is harmful. But that percentage does beg the question: what about the remaining 34%? And what about the 11% of men and 5% of women in the study who were still bothered more than "slightly" by unwanted homosexual feelings? These are larger percentages than reorientation therapists should be comfortable with, considering that all these individuals were described by Spitzer as "highly motivated" and "extraordinarily religious," have participated in various reorientation therapies, and were carefully selected as an example of what it is possible to achieve. We would like to think that everyone who wants to change can change. But at least within the time scale of this study, that doesn't appear to be the case. Are those people unworthy of their religious convictions, merely because they have not yet reached their "heterosexual potential"? And what about someone who isn't able to benefit from the ministrations of knowledgeable therapists, because of the limitations of finances, geography, or language? Some psychologists have stated their belief that those who are highly motivated and who have a strong, loving support system have an advantage, but what about those who do not have that support system?

What I was trying to say is more subtle, but even more important, I believe, than anything that might be said about the causes and treatment of homosexuality. Of course it is wise to seek benefit from the best that modern psychotherapy can offer. But if an individual's treatment doesn't provide the anticipated results, that individual still has full access to the sustaining and redeeming power offered us through the Savior's atoning sacrifice. Chances are that each of these practitioners, as finite mortals, have had patients beyond their reach. My testimony is that such people are never beyond the Savior's reach. Therapists, family members, friends, and others may fail them, but the Savior never will. And if they have missed this subtlety in what I was trying to say in my portion of the book, others might miss the subtlety in what Byrd et al are saying. One might assume, given their strong focus on the scientific research on the changeability of sexual orientation, that they believe that people who experience these unchosen and unwanted feelings are not worthy Latter-day Saints, even if they are obedient to the laws of the gospel—that they are not worthy of love and acceptance from the Saints below and God above, unless and until they can completely eliminate their homosexual attractions.

I don't believe that is what these good brothers and sister believe, but that is what some of those who experience same-sex attraction often hear, if the focus is exclusively on clinical aspects of "change." They can feel that they have failed unless they are able to rapidly and definitively eliminate their attractions and are quickly able to marry. The only "change" I desired to focus on in the book is the choices we have full control over regarding keeping our behavior in line with our covenants, as well as the change of desires in the spiritually reborn heart that comes through gift and power and grace of Christ. My testimony is that, if you keep your covenants, follow the Lord's servants, and endure to the end, then you are a worthy Latter-day Saint, that you are destined to inherit the Celestial Kingdom, even if you experience homosexual attractions to your dying day. Some, like Paul with his "thorn in the flesh," whatever that challenge was, may be forced to struggle with it their entire lives, and trust that God's grace is sufficient for them.

I suspect all of these points are obvious to Drs. Byrd, Cox and Robinson, but I don't think they're so obvious to everyone, which is why I wrote the book and reiterate them here. That these points were interpreted by some, such as these three reviewers, to mean that I believed change impossible, or supported biologically deterministic notions of homosexuality, is highly unfortunate. There is always hope, but we must anchor that hope, not in the philosophies or science of man, but in the power and promise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The hopeful message I aimed to share was that individuals who experience homosexual attractions can find happiness and fulfillment in the Church, that they can find joy and meaning in their journeys through mortality, even before they have completely resolved their feelings of attraction. And that members of the Church, all of whom cannot realistically be expected to master all the science behind the causes and treatment of homosexuality, can nevertheless transform the shame and burden of this challenge through the everyday practice of unfeigned love and compassion.

Concerning the allegations that this book is hopeless, Elder Maxwell was clear to distinguish the difference between "ultimate hope" and "proximate hope." Every one of us may hold tightly to the truth that we all have ultimate hope in Jesus Christ—a hope where growth and transformation and transcendence of all effects of the Fall extends beyond the grave. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable," Paul declared (1 Cor. 15:19). This is a hope that only those with true faith in Jesus Christ can have. Proximate hopes are more temporal in nature. Elder Maxwell wrote:

"Though 'anchored' in grand and ultimate hope, some of our tactical hopes are another matter. We may hope for a pay raise, a special date, an electoral victory, or for a bigger house—things which may or may not be realized. Faith in Father's plan gives us endurance even amid the wreckage of such proximate hopes. Hope keeps us 'anxiously engaged' in good causes even when these appear to be losing causes (see D&C 58:27)…

"Having ultimate hope does not mean we will always be rescued from proximate problems, but we will be rescued from everlasting death! Meanwhile, ultimate hope makes it possible to say the same three words used centuries ago by three valiant men. They knew God could rescue them from the fiery furnace, if He chose. ‘But if not,' they said, nevertheless, they would still serve Him!"

Another factual error and unfounded assumption occurs when the review states,

"Mansfield…has labeled his same-sex attraction and gender confusion as intractable… He does not seem vulnerable to the Lord's message that ‘those who desire to be free of same-gender attraction can overcome that attraction and find hope by turning to the Lord and committing themselves to a program of change' (Peggy Fletcher Stack, "A New Chapter on LDS Gays," The Salt Lake Tribune, December 18, 2004). … It seems that Mansfield has simply conceded victory to his homosexuality and the remainder of the book is spent trying to reconcile his homosexuality with the gospel, trying to make the two compatible, a goal which he is never able to achieve… Mansfield is unable to sort out the science of homosexuality and simply rejects treatment options. He dismisses what science has to offer as ‘the philosophies of men.'"

First, I'm not sure that a Church spokesman's remarks to a reporter, as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, will always fully characterize "the Lord's message." They certainly don't bear the same weight as statements coming directly from the Lord's Prophets and Apostles, some of whom add insight that clarifies the Church's doctrinal position on the matter. The reviewers chide me for being "noticeably" selective in my quotations, but the following statement from President Packer was "noticeably" absent in their own review, and which reflects, in my opinion, a fuller doctrinal understanding of our situation than the spokesman's. President Packer, speaking of homosexual attraction, stated: "That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield…"

Second, their assertions about my own beliefs concerning the potential for diminishment of attractions are false. I have participated in therapy for many years, and I desire to continue to do so because of the immense benefit it has been to me, so I think I can justifiably deny that I have "reject[ed] treatment options." What I don't want to do is hold the Lord hostage to an arbitrary timetable, or qualify my faith in Christ and devotion to His Church upon a full reversal of my attractions.

Third: In my portion of the book, I describe frustration when studying the clinical literature about the "causes" and "cure" of homosexuality. I found some of it contradictory and confusing, and it can be discouraging to those new to the field—or to those who have put into practice much of what they have read only to experience little or none of the expected results. The layperson doesn't immediately know whom to believe. My point, one with which I think the reviewers would agree, is that such differences aren't as important as the larger issue, that obedience to the gospel, and genuine happiness and peace through the Comforter, is possible when we have anchored our perspective and our lives in the revealed plan of our Heavenly Father. And the variety of treatment options, even though they may seem contradictory, means that if one approach doesn't work, the individual is free to try another. We can be flexible in the treatment we seek, so long as we are firm in our covenants.

The reviewers suggest that my understanding of the Atonement is weak and inaccurate because, again, the book does not focus on reorientation. I'll grant that I have much still to learn about the Savior's Atonement, but according to my experiences thus far in life, the promise of the Atonement is as much a promise of peace and sustaining grace during our mortal challenges as it is a promise of deliverance through and from them (see Mosiah 24:10-16). While I believe the mortal challenges of all people will be transformed through the power of the Atonement, I do not believe that the Atonement is a platitudinous "program" that will, when followed, provide the results we want when we want them. The promise of the Atonement is that all of the effects of the fall—whether manifested intellectually, emotionally, physically, spiritually, or sexually—will be transformed through the power and grace of Christ either in time or eternity. Yet, we too often seem to want to make it happen in our own time, and we condition our faith in and allegiance to Christ and the Church upon it. As Elder Maxwell has said: "Indeed, when we are unduly impatient with an omniscient God's timing, we really are suggesting that we know what is best. Strange, isn't it—we who wear wristwatches seek to counsel Him who oversees cosmic clocks and calendars."

The Priesthood blessings given to Stuart Matis and recounted in this book are another example of this same theme that perhaps some will not be free from a struggle with same-sex attraction in this life—though, again, this notion is upsetting to the reviewers. They state, "A selected letter from Stuart recounted blessings where he was told that he was gay and would remain so. This theme is contradictory to the inspired statement from the Proclamation on the Family: ‘Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose.'" Later, in their critique of my portion of the book, Byrd et al say: "The emergence of spiritual directives through blessings informing those who struggle that their ‘burden' will not be lifted during this lifetime was particularly disconcerting. These communications send a message that these challenges are designed by God."

First, I note again that they mischaracterize Stuart's blessing by saying "he was told he was gay and would remain so," so that it will falsely appear to contradict the Proclamation on the Family. The Priesthood blessing, as told to Stuart, was that the Lord was tenderly aware of his feelings of homosexual attraction, that He loved and accepted him, and that the attraction would not be fully removed from him in "this life" (p. 16). Fred Matis said privately that such a statement was the last thing he wanted to tell Stuart in that blessing, but the direction of the Spirit was clear. It was clear in two blessings—the other by Stuart's bishop—given unbeknownst to one another. Those two words—"this life"—are the key to understanding the true message in the blessing. Without discounting that competent therapy could have been of great benefit to Stuart, had he found it, in relieving so much of his inner turmoil, it is not contrary to the doctrine of the eternity of gender to state that a challenge an individual experiences in a fallen world will remain to some degree throughout his or her life.

Elsewhere in the review, Byrd et al state:

"As [Ty] struggles, he wonders if the Lord might have designed this challenge for him so that he might be able to help others (an oft-heard story from those who resist change in their lives, or those who justify their resistance to change). He wonders if a part of the divine plan is to have him ‘taste the pain to succor others' (p. 231). According to Mansfield, the Lord's purpose in having him experience homosexual attraction was to better understand and help others (p. 233). He fails to recognize the counsel of the prophets that the Lord does not try men in this way."

This yet again misrepresents what I was trying to say, and then supplies no references to support their doctrinal claims that my feelings contradict the gospel or prophetic statements. Nowhere that I'm aware of have the prophets taught that the Lord does not allow us to experience challenges with the hope that we can then succor and help others with like challenges. Is it so contrary to doctrine that an all-knowing Eternal Father knew before we came here that those who experience challenges related to sexual attractions would be tested and blessed on account of those attractions, as they chose to submit to the will of the Father and allowed the sustaining and regenerating power of Christ's Atonement to work in their lives? And, then, that this transformation can have no value to anyone else? Byrd et al claim that I try to put the gospel and homosexuality together in order to try to make the two compatible, but fail. It seems as though these reviewers cannot understand how such a challenge could offer any value to a person's life as they strive to respond in faith, let alone anyone else's. And in those beliefs, they distort both the gospel message and the reality of many faithful Latter-day Saint experiences with any number of trials they might encounter.

The reviewers criticize me for stating that some members of society and of the Church are unduly prejudiced when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Here we have one case where they have correctly represented what I said in the book. But I do not believe that is an "activist" statement; it's simply the truth. I should also add that I wholly agree, as they complain, that too many people—as a way to silence discussion or disagreement—connect disapproval of homosexual behaviors or the gay cultural movement with "homophobia." My own conviction that homosexual acts are not approved of by the Lord is not because I fear them or those who participate in them. As I stated in the book: "It is important to note that even though we can genuinely have a spiritual conviction that homosexual behavior is completely contrary to the Father's eternal purposes for His children—and have those feelings without any trace of bigotry or hatred toward those who participate in it—we must also remember that we cannot feel personal prejudice or hatred toward those who experience homosexual attraction (even those who participate in homosexual behavior) and use our religion to justify that prejudice" (p. 170).

Now, the vast majority of my own experiences with family, friends, and other members of the Church have been exceptional. The love, compassion, fellowship and desire for understanding and growth that have been expressed toward me has been nothing short of remarkable and humbling, and I have often knelt before the Lord in sincere gratitude for the kindness of dedicated, yet open-minded and compassionate, Latter-day Saints who emulate the tender spirit of divine love personified by the Master. But I have also been sorely disappointed in the dogmatic and self-righteous attitudes of a few. In their criticisms, do these reviewers really believe that there is no need at all for a change in attitude among some members of the Church? I don't see how they can so strongly object to the idea that there is, among some, a very real, very disturbing, and very un-Christian prejudice against homosexuals. I do not believe members of Christ's Church should condone gay marriage or embrace the idea of active homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, but the prejudicial and condescending attitudes of some members of society and of the Church could improve, and I do not apologize for making that statement. Many people reading this may not know what it feels like to sit in a BYU classroom, Seminary, or Elder's Quorum, to occasionally hear teachers or participants make snide remarks and jokes about "gays." I do.

Another case in point: a man on my mission, a convert, who was less active in the Church—whose deep love for the Savior and His Church and kingdom was most evident from the first time we met—finally shared with me privately, years later, of his pre-baptism involvement in homosexual relationships and the reason he has difficulty in attending services. Having a freshly gained testimony and feeling the fire and excitement of his newly born faith in Christ's restored gospel, he began to attend the Gospel Principles class in his ward. While sitting there, he heard behind him the condescending and hushed remark directed toward him that pierced his heart and still rings in his ears today: "fag." The comment was aired by one of the family members of the ward mission leader—who was there helping to "fellowship" the newly baptized members.

The Matises recount in the book Stuart's experiences with the same thing. Now, he most likely did suffer from other problems that should be distinguished from same-sex attraction, but when you have members of the Church proclaiming from the Sacrament Meeting pulpit during Proposition 22 that "it's ‘us' against ‘them,'" and that "all homosexuals need to be taken on a ship into the middle of the ocean and dumped overboard," it certainly didn't help to alleviate the depression and anxiety of an individual who already hated himself and his attraction. Stuart may have had issues with hypersensitivity and perfectionism, but we cannot claim that the Church members who uttered those statements were fulfilling the instruction to "succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees" (D&C 81:5). Marilyn mentioned that after the Priesthood blessing from his father, Stuart was back to his old self—happy and joking—knowing that He was loved and accepted of God—only to attend Church again during a heated political debate to perceive a reminder of how "evil" he and his attractions were.

Next, they criticize me for "diminishing" the sin of homosexuality under the influence of the non-LDS Christian theologian Richard Hayes—whom I "resort" to when I "find the gospel inadequate." First, the sin of homosexual behavior is not diminished by stating the historical and doctrinal context of Paul's message, as it is often misread and misused by some Latter-day Saints. Second, I asked two BYU scholars of the Greek New Testament text, history, and culture to review that chapter contextually for doctrinal and historical accuracy. So while it may differ from the reviewers' understanding of the scripture, it is well-supported by scholars outside and within the Church.

The grave doctrinal errors these reviewers ferret out in our book, including my apparent "theological supermarket" approach to the gospel, do not seem to have been as apparent to the board of Deseret Book, who approved its publication. This board includes many individuals who are spiritually and doctrinally sound and ecclesiastically seasoned, including BYU religion faculty and former Church officers, some of whom also have a clinical professional background. Besides these seasoned Latter-day Saints, I asked other scriptural and doctrinal scholars from BYU to review all or portions of the pre-submission manuscript for doctrinal, contextual, and historical criticism. (Ironically enough, I even asked one of the signers of this review to review the pre-publication manuscript and never heard back from him/her. If s/he had such grave concerns about it, perhaps that would have been the better time to voice them.)

In mentioning this, I do not claim that the book is free from mistakes or errors, or that all of these people endorse everything in the book. I do it to point out that the doctrinal and scientific errors that are so egregious to Byrd, Cox, and Robinson somehow escaped the notice of all these other people, many of whom provided penetrating and insightful feedback on many other points of the book. Whatever the flaws in our book, they are not of the scope or character that Dean Byrd et al impose on it. I didn't try to write a book that would be the final, complete, and comprehensive elucidation of this matter. It is no more than the story of a few Latter-day Saints—one that we hoped would inspire compassion and edify all members of the Church who experience difficult challenges during their mortal sojourn.

In conclusion, it seems to me that these reviewers' problems with the book are more about what the book isn't rather than what it actually is. What they claim it is, is false; and what they claim it isn't—a clinical or sociological text—is correct. The irresponsible nature in which this review mis-cites, mis-interprets, mis-represents our book is disturbing. The FAIR web site is an exceptionally valuable Latter-day Saint apologetics resource, and its audience is keenly aware of how others can misperceive or disingenuously distort LDS beliefs. In the case of this review, however, I fear that FAIR has been the unwitting vehicle of the sort of unfair and uncomprehending polemic that the organization was, ironically, originally founded to defend against. Yet, in Byrd et al's efforts to "correct" the message of In Quiet Desperation, they make a statement in their review with which I fervently agree:

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of change, and we (including those who struggle with homosexual attraction) cannot sink lower than the arms of the Atonement can reach. This does not mean that those who struggle with challenges will be made perfect in this life, but the blessings of the Atonement are far reaching and infinite. When the storms of adversity rage in our lives, the Master will either reach out His divine hand and calm the troubled waters or He will reach out His hand and calm us. Either way, we can come to know and feel His sustaining love for us that flows from the Atonement."

This is true; I have indeed sunk very low at times, and know well the mercy of the Savior's forgiveness, and the power of His healing balm. What I believe is crucial to remember is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, each of us incomplete and unfinished, flawed and dependent upon our Lord and Savior. He, as "the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2), is the only one qualified to write out the story of our lives. How that review ends up will depend solely on our reliance—my reliance—on the merit, mercy, and judgment of the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Ty Mansfield welcomes comments and feedback on this response; please email ty.mansfield@northstarlds.org.