CAN A PERSON’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION BE CHANGED?

from Can A Person's Sexual Orientation Be Changed?

Bill Bradshaw is Professor Emeritus from the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology at Brigham Young University where he taught and conducted research for 38 years. At BYU he served as Associate Dean of Honors and General Education. He has an A.B. degree in Biology from Harvard, and a Ph.D in Biochemistry from the University of Illinois. Bill’s interest in LGBTQ issues stems from three experiences. The first is academic. The question of the origin of homosexuality was occasionally posed by one of his students in an introductory biology, molecular biology, or cell biology course. The second arose during his ecclesiastical service in the LDS Church. With his wife, Marge, he presided over the mission of the church in Hong Kong and South Vietnam from 1971 to 1974. He subsequently served as a Bishop and then a Counselor in a Stake Presidency for married students at BYU. The third, and most important, is because Marge and Bill are parents of a wonderful gay son. Brett and his husband Jeff and their daughter Madeline live in Oakland, CA. Marge and Bill have served as CoChairs of LDS Family Fellowship, a support group for parents of LGBTQ children.

The subject of this pamphlet is Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). This is the name given to all of the attempts that have been used to try to alter homosexuality – to make a gay person straight. Formal programs of this kind are known as reparative therapy or conversion therapy or reorientation therapy. We will address one question here: Is such a change possible?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.

The longer answer, which documents the evidence for this conclusion, follows. How shall we go about investigating this question? Shall we follow our own intuitive sense about the ability of people in general to change? Shall we appeal to religious principles? Is there relevant scholarship? Each of these approaches will be explored. It is also possible that this issue is best satisfactorily resolved by listening attentively and spiritually to the experience of our gay family members and friends, and making a decision about whether or not they are telling us the truth.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR CHANGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION (PARTNER PREFERENCE)?

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE?

The motivation, of course, is that for many LGB people, their non-heterosexuality is unwanted. Being gay has a long history of being seen as sinful and socially unacceptable; homophobia persists. Moreover, homosexuality has been viewed as an illness that must be cured. We will treat the issue of the undesirability of being gay elsewhere, but accept as undeniable that large numbers of homosexual persons and their loved ones have at one time wished that same-sex feelings could be reversed.

There are two assumptions behind the belief that change is possible. The first is that homosexuality is learned; people choose to be gay, therefore they can choose not to be gay. The second is that even if homosexuality is not a choice, humans equipped with free will can make of themselves what they choose. For Christians, the religious concept in which this second notion is rooted is the doctrine of repentance, facilitated by the Atonement of Christ.

WE WILL EXAMINE THESE ASSUMPTIONS, AND THEN ARGUE THAT THE QUESTION OF ORIENTATION CHANGE SHOULD BE ANSWERED EMPIRICALLY, BY THE ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE, NOT ON THE BASIS OF THEORY.

THE EXPLANATION FOR HOMOSEXUALITY Because it is so difficult for those who are heterosexual to imagine that a person could be otherwise, it is generally assumed that homosexuality is an aberration that can be reversed. It is instructive to make a careful examination of the language that has been used by Latter-day Saints (and others) to describe homosexual orientation, as the use of certain words reflects a bias on the part of the speaker with regard to the question of change. Consider the following examples: “tendency,” “susceptibility,” “vulnerability” [1]; “inclinations or susceptibilities,” “a challenge to struggle with” [2]; “. . . those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians” [3].

LANGUAGE OFTEN REFLECTS MISUNDERSTANDING

The underlying perspective in these usages is of a person simply leaning slightly in the wrong direction (homosexuality is a flaw or imperfection), and the implication is that this situation could be fixed with a modest course correction. Another concept is that one is prone to a temporary or transient weakness: “It’s just a phase you’re going through.” Therefore “so-called” homosexuals really aren’t, they’ve only been incorrectly labeled as such or have made an incorrect selfdiagnosis. The assumption is that such individuals need only take the proper steps to redefine, or remove the inaccurate or inappropriate label and restore their true identity. Tendencies or inclinations or susceptibilities are not permanent. Thus “I’m inclined to be lazy, but I can turn that around easily by just exerting a little will power.” Or “I have a tendency to be unappreciative of the nice things others do in my behalf, but with a little sensitivity training, concentration, and practice I can overcome that flaw.” Or “I’m susceptible to getting a cold when the temperature drops, and it take me several days to get over it.”

SAME-SEX ATTRACTION IS NOT A FLEETING, TEMPORARY STATE.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE CAN BE CORRECTED

The most widespread example of this selective use of terminology in LDS circles is the purposeful designation “same-sex (SSA) or same-gender attraction” instead of “homosexuality” [1,2]. The clear implication of an “attraction” is that it is a fleeting impulse, a transient, alterable, not permanent state.

The implication of this kind of language is that homosexual orientation is counterfeit and can and ought to be corrected. This view is explicit in statements such as the following.

“Homosexual (or lesbian) thoughts and feelings should be resisted and redirected” [1]. “We should refrain from using homosexual, lesbian, and gay as nouns. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition . . .” [4]. (This formulation -- homosexual as an adjective, not a noun -- was first articulated thirty years ago [5], and continues in more recent statements [1,2]. Those unsympathetic to gay people are apt to describe homosexuality as a “life-style choice” something akin to a decision about what kind of a car to drive or the selection of a particular decor when furnishing the house.

Being LGBTQ is not a ‘lifestyle” choice.

In contrast to these speculations, the truth is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that one’s sexual orientation, either gay or straight, is the result of biological mechanism that program the brain during embryological development and immediately after birth. We have presented the evidence for this conclusion elsewhere [6]. A person’s sexual preference is an unchosen, innate characteristic. Consider the recent modest acknowledgment that this is true: “There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one” [2].

THE ORIGIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGICAL, NOT SOCIAL.

IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE To suggest that a person cannot change a particular aspect of his or her personality probably flies in the face of one or our most cherished concepts, the notion that we possess free will and are able to make of ourselves whatever we choose. Account- ability for one’s actions lies at the heart of the doctrine of repentance. Nevertheless, the existing evidence makes it hard to es- cape the conclusion that the object of one’s sexual attraction is an intrinsic human trait that is unalterable for most people. The need for us to be informed on the question of orientation preference is especially strong since, in contrast to fear, or anger, or greed, or any one of a number of negative charac- teristics to be resisted and overcome, love for another human being is a fundamentally positive and noble attribute.

THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST

Some in LDS circles who are committed to the belief that sexual orientation can be changed have appealed to the doctrine of the atonement of Christ to fortify their argument [7]. It is proposed that since belief in the Savior can bring changes into the lives of men and women in both spiritual and material ways, thus modifying human nature in general, following His precepts and exerting sufficient righteous effort can change the nature of sexual orientation in specific.

The pamphlet issued by the Church called “God Loveth His Children” contains the following sentence. “While many Latterday Saints through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life [8].” Two things remain unclear, however. First, the use of the word “many” suggests that the change, whatever it is, is common, experienced by a large number of homosexual people. As we will demonstrate, this appears not to be the case. Second, what is meant by “overcoming” is not specified, perhaps intentionally. Most readers will assume this to mean a change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. It may, however, be attempting to convey the less hopeful idea that in spite of being homosexual, a person may respond to that state (“overcome”) by behaving heterosexually or by being celibate.

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

“It is with that sentiment [that the Atonement can facilitate a change in sexual orientation] that I disagree. I believe that we all are engaged in an effort to acquire more of godliness, but mortality serves up for many people conditions that do not (or in God’s wisdom, cannot) change. The magnificent doctrine of the Atonement helps us to find ways to cope, to deal with our challenges, but is not an assurance that a condition will change. This goes far beyond being a theoretical doctrinal issue. We need to be aware of how frequently, when finally realizing that heroic efforts will not change their homosexuality, many of our brothers and sisters, finding themselves excluded and marginalized and without acceptable options, despair of life and faith and spirituality and hope – believing tragically that the Atonement may not apply to them. I don’t want that to happen” [9].

Robert A. Rees has expressed a similar view about the misuse of this doctrinal principle [10]. “The atonement of Christ was undertaken to pay the price for our sins and to lift our burdens, not to change our physiology. There are any number of human conditions that are not affected by the atonement. While it may be true that the atonement may lighten emotional burdens and ameliorate “struggles,” including struggles with homosexual attraction, it does not, as (some have argued) “diminish homosexual attraction” or change one’s sexual orientation. To argue such is also to argue that the atonement can change color blindness, left-handedness, schizophrenia, Down’s syndrome, or other conditions that fall outside what might be considered the norm. When they argue that “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,” the authors are really arguing for something that goes significantly beyond what the scriptures describe as the scope and power, let alone the purpose, of the atonement.”

Elder Neal A. Maxwell has commented about both the grandeur and constraints of the Savior’s mission in the following way [11]. “After all, Jesus’ atonement with its resultant blessings of a universal resurrection (and eternal life for the most worthy) is the most fundamental act in human history. . . . Jesus, who bore the greatest and heaviest burdens, knows how to help His followers absorb afflictions in a unique way: ‘And the Lord provided for them that they should hunger not, neither should they thirst; yea, and he also gave them strength, that they should suffer no manner of afflictions, save it were swallowed up in the joy of Christ [Alma 31:38].’ Even so, we will not be free of affliction. But we will be given help in bearing affliction, especially if our wills are swallowed up in the will of the Father and Christ. Being swallowed up in the will of God can help us cope not only with afflictions but even with death.” We can deal effectively even with those contingencies not subject to change.

THE EVIDENCE FROM EMPIRICAL SCHOLARSHIP

RESULTS FROM STUDIES WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION

What follow are summaries of several published research on the efficacy of sexual orientation conversion therapy.

Shidlo and Schroeder [12] reported on the results of 202 individuals with whom they conducted anonymous 90-minute telephone interviews. These people were recruited from gay and ex-gay organizations. They self-identified as being more homosexual than heterosexual, and having engaged in at least 6 sessions of psychotherapy. The mean age of the participants was 40 years. Ninety percent were men, and 86% were Caucasian. Sixty-six percent considered themselves religious; 11 (5.4%) were LDS.

Twenty-six (13%) of the participants who perceived their therapeutic experience as successful could be subdivided into three groups: 12 who were successful and struggling (repeated slips into homosexual behavior), 6 who were successful, not struggling (able to manage same-sex desire; 3 were celibate), and 8 who had moved in the direction of being more heterosexual. Of the 176 (87%) who were disillusioned by their conversion therapy experience, and viewed it as a failure, 21 (10.4%) identified themselves as resilient, having recovered a gay identity without negative psychological after-effects. The remaining 155 individuals (77%) identified as having recovered a gay identity, but had experienced significant long-term damage from the therapy.

The authors recommend among other things that potential clients for conversion therapy be informed of the possibility of harmful side-effects and “not be told that high motivation and hard work in the treatment assures a change in sexual orientation.”

Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts [13] collected information through an anonymous 70-item questionnaire with 882 dissatisfied homosexual persons recruited from ex-gay ministries (Courage, Exodus International, Evergreen International, and Homosexuals Anonymous). The average time spent in therapy was 41 months (pastoral counselors were the most helpful), and the average interval between the time a reported change in sexual orientation occurred and when the survey was taken was 6.7 years. The mean age of the respondents was 37.6 years. Seventy-eight percent were men, and 86% were Caucasian. Ninety-six percent considered themselves religious; 8 (1%) were LDS.

The results of this study were based on a comparison of the self-reports of homosexual orientation before and after therapeutic intervention. A seven-point scale was used that ranged from 1 (exclusively homosexual) to 7 (exclusively heterosexual). A change in the distribution was observed, such that 89.7% of respondents placed themselves in categories 1-3 before therapy and 35.1% did so after counseling. It should be noted, however, that 84% of the participants reported that they maintained some degree of same-sex attraction or behavior after the intervention.

STUDY 3

The study that has drawn the most national attention was conducted by Robert L. Spitzer [14]. From January 2000 to April 2001 he recruited 200 individuals who satisfied the criteria of: 1) being predominantly homosexual before therapy (at least 60 on a scale in which 0 was exclusively heterosexual and 100 was exclusively homosexual), and 2) having a post-therapy change toward heterosexuality of at least 10 points lasting at least 5 years. The mean age of the male participants (72%) was 42 years; the mean age of the females was 44 years. Ninety-five percent were Caucasian. Seventy-six percent of the men and 47% of the women were married. Ninety-three percent reported that religion was “very” or “extremely” important in their lives; 14 (7%) were LDS. Information from each participant was obtained through a 45-minute telephone interview in answer to 114 closed-ended questions and several open-ended ones. The average time between the last therapeutic intervention and the survey was 12 years. Seventy-nine percent said it required an average of 5 years of therapy before experiencing an orientation change.

The respondents in the Spitzer study reported that in various measures of sexual orientation they were initially strongly positioned toward the homosexual end of the orientation distribution, but as a result of counseling experienced a directional shift toward heterosexuality. The magnitude of the shift was greatest for behavior, and was less so for identity, attraction, and fantasy, in that order. It was also greater for women than for men. Overall, only 11% of the males and 37% of the females self-reported a complete or near complete change in all measures of sexual orientation that were employed.

Spitzer acknowledged the potential for distortion in self-reports, but argued for their credibility in his data set. However, he also conceded that finding persons who could report these kinds of results was difficult, and that “this suggests that the marked change in sexual orientation reported by almost all of the study subjects may be a rare or uncommon outcome of reparative therapy.”

In his reply to the criticisms of his peers (which appeared alongside his published results), Spitzer offered a new, more appropriate title for his study: “Contrary to conventional wisdom, do some ex-gays describe changes in attraction, fantasy, and desire that are consistent with true changes in sexual orientation?” This reflects a fundamentally different change in focus, from some gays and lesbians being able to change orientation to some gays and lesbians reporting that they have changed orientation. He also acknowledged the validity of some of the criticisms leveled at this work, but overall defended its legitimacy.

SPITZER CHANGES HIS MIND

In a 2012 interview with a former client of reparative therapy [15], Spitzer acknowledged a change of heart, repudiated his original conclusions, and took the position that the self-reports of his participants were not sufficient indications of actual alterations in sexual orientation. Moreover, he issued the following apology: “I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated individuals.” [16]

Haldeman summarizes the view of the vast majority of mental health professionals on the question of reorientation therapy in this way. “From a practical perspective, even the staunchest advocates of conversion therapy will admit that sexual orientation is extremely difficult to change. For every satisfied client who comes forward claiming that conversion therapy changed her or his sexual orientation there are many more who disavow its efficacy. Sexual orientation is a deeply rooted, psychologically complex aspect of the human experience. Though one’s feelings about his or her sexual orientation may be changeable and susceptible to social influence, no evidence suggests that sexual orientation itself is so malleable [17].”

THE MEANING OF CHANGE

What might “change’ mean in the self-reports of some of these therapy participants as revealed in studies like those summarized above? It may mean redefinition. The therapy may provide a theory that allows some people to psychologically identify themselves as heterosexual by dissociating from their actual gay or lesbian selves. In this attempt, they may articulate something like the following, “I’m really heterosexual; the same-sex feelings I have are not erotic, only admiration.” But applying an alternative name is not an alteration in reality. It may mean sublimation. The individual learns to focus on career or hobby or service or non-romantic relationships in an attempt to minimize the need for sexual fulfillment. But dampening a need is not a reversal – becoming less homosexual through suppression is not accompanied by a reciprocal increase in heterosexuality. It may mean accommodation. A homosexual man or woman in a heterosexual marriage may engage in sexual relations with a spouse, but in the absence of, or without the intensity of, romantic love that is natural (and thus genuine) to his or her homosexuality.

One of the studies cited above [12] (and many others) also documented deleterious and destructive outcomes from participation in reorientation therapy programs. Among the harms and negative consequences that have been reported are depression, loss of self-esteem and increased self-loathing, increased loneliness (alienation and social isolation), an increased impulse to suicide, and a loss of religious faith.

FLUIDITY

There is evidence that some LGB individuals experience unexpected shifts in their erotic and romantic feelings during the course of their lifetimes. This phenomenon is known as sexual fluidity [18]. It is important to know that those who have researched this circumstance are careful to distinguish it from a willful alteration in orientation. They have described fluidity using an analogy with with the weather: “This is something that happens to you, but you do not have control over it”.

POLICIES OF THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

The position of the mainstream mental health professionals has been summarized as follows. “In 1997 [19], the American Psychological Association adopted a policy admonishing all practitioners who deal with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to refrain from discriminatory practices and from making unscientific claims about their treatments. . . . Further, the policy affirms the Association’s commitment to the ‘dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and ‘opposed portrayals of lesbian/gay/bisexual adults and youth as mentally ill.” In 1998 [20], the American Psychiatric Association took a stronger stand, officially opposing “all forms of therapy based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental illness.” Similar policies opposing conversion therapy have been adopted by the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry [21], the American Academy of Pediatrics [22], the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy [23], the American College of Physicians [24], the American Counseling Association [25], the American Medical Association [26], the American Psychoanalytic Association [27], the American School Counselor Association [28], the National Association of Social Workers [29], and the Pan American Health Organization [30]. A summary publication issued by a coalition of a large number of these professional organizations articulates this same position [31].

A PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The most detailed position statement by a professional organization on the subject of therapeutic efforts to change sexual orientation was issued by the American Psychological Association (membership 150,000) in August 2009. It came after a conference of the organization heard the report of a task force whose six members had conducted a comprehensive analysis of 83 peer-reviewed studies on the subject published between 1960 and 2007 [32]. The reviewers distinguished among the research work based on the methodological designs employed by the investigators (whether experimental, quasiexperimental, or qualitative - based on retrospective self-reporting), and examined variables such as sample size, attrition among study subjects, measures of orientation (attraction, identity or behavior), the nature of treatments (aversive - as by using electric shock or induced vomiting, psychotherapeutic counseling, etc.), and the validity and generalizability of the conclusions drawn from the resulting data. They determined that the earlier studies, prior to 1981, were the more scientifically rigorous, in part because physiological measures of arousal, such as penile volume, were employed, and comparisons were made with control groups of subjects.

After conducting this review, members of the task force concluded that the assertions that sexual orientation could be changed were not validated by the evidence, whether the measure was decreased attraction for or sexual activity with same-sex persons, increased attraction for or sexual activity with other-sex persons, increased healthy relationship and marriages with other-sex partners, or improved quality of life and mental health. Judith M. Glassgold, chair of the task force, summarized their investigation as follows. “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions. At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attraction. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted, or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex” [33].

By a vote of 124-4 the governing Council of Representatives of the APA accepted the recommendations of the task force and adopted a resolution reaffirming its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. In spite of this overwhelming opinion by medical, psychological, and educational experts, there are still those who advocate and practice conversion therapy [34].

THE RESULTS OF STUDIES WITH LDS SUBJECTS

STUDY 1

Beckstead and Morrow [35] studies 50 LDS individuals who had undergone reparative treatment. Twenty (2 woman and 18 men) or 40% constituted a “proponents” set (reporting only positive outcomes from therapy). The second group, “opponents,” consisted of 2 women and 20 men (44%) who reported primarily negative effects. These 42 provided the original data. A third group (1 woman and 7 men), 16%, also with a range of views about their experience in conversion therapy, participated in focus group discussions about their own perspectives and those emerging from an analysis of the data provided by the larger two groups. The mean age of all 50 was 38.5 years. Eighteen were married, 13 were divorced, and 23 were parents. The average time spent in therapy was 4 years, the same average time since the end of therapy. These individuals were recruited through contacts with conversion therapists in the Salt Lake City area, from Evergreen International, and electronic mailing lists frequented by lesbian, gay, and bisexual Mormons. Over the period from 1997 to 2001 the participants provided information through individual open-ended interviews, from their journals and writings via e-mail, and from their review and verification of the cumulative assessments of these communications made by the investigators.

A Conclusion The authors summarize their findings on the question of whether or not sexual orientation can be altered as follows. “It is important to distinguish between what advocates of reparative therapy call the benefits of this type of intervention and what the participants’ phenomenological experiences depicted. The findings of this investigation did not confirm claims that conversion therapy ‘will set you free’ from being homosexual. Participants, even those who identified as heterosexual, reported no generalized or substantial increase in heterosexual arousal and did not deny their tendency to be aroused by the same sex. Participants’ descriptions revealed a more complex explanation for their relief and success besides changing their core sexual orientation, and success was defined individually as to how well they were able to develop self-acceptance and consolidate an identity that matched their evolving needs, circumstances, and viewpoints.”

Benefits of Counseling While finding that these LDS people probably did not change the core aspects of their homosexual orientation, the study did demonstrate that counseling could improve their psychological wellbeing. The authors of this study argue for a “broader based treatment approach,” not directed at changing orientation (which they believe is unalterable), but at helping gay and lesbian people find individual solutions to the social and religious conflicts they face. Those who reported beneficial outcomes of their counseling programs cited the following examples: relief due to disclosure of their homosexual orientation, exposure to coping strategies, realization of and communication with other homosexual individuals - a sense of belonging, increased spiritual feelings, and for some, a solidifying of a homosexual identification upon an acceptance that change in orientation was not possible. Some of these outcomes were sufficient to assist a few persons to remain in heterosexual marriages.

The largest study of LGBTQ Latter-day Saints provides compelling empirical evidence that sexual orientation change efforts do not succeed in altering a person’s core erotic feelings. The subjects were 1612 current and former members of the Church. They submitted answers to 149 online questions, including extensive written narratives about their experiences. The resulting data included descriptions of the effectiveness of private SOCE (individual effort, personal righteousness, and ecclesiastical counseling) [36], or those with professional counselors (psychotherapeutic) [37]. This research documented that only 4% of the participants claimed that either private or professional-mediated attempts at removing same-sex attractions were successful. The data in the table below indicate the nature of the 39 “changes” reported by 32 individuals. The claims for change took the form of reduced homosexual behavior, decreased anxiety, or a redefinition of oneself as not gay, but actually just a heterosexual with a challenge – none of which represent genuine reversal of a homosexual orientation. Moreover, the average self-assessed orientation scores for behavior, attraction, and identity for these individuals were all in the low end of the bisexual range of the scale; it is bisexuals, with some capacity for sexual attraction to both men and women, who are the most likely to report a positive outcome for SOCE [38].

The most recent LDS Church statement regarding Seeking Professional Help contains the following: “While shifts in sexuality can and do occur for some people, it is unethical to focus professional treatment on an assumption that a change in sexual orientation will or must occur. Again, the individual has the right to define the desired outcome” [39].

NATURE OF “CHANGE” CLAIMS (N=39) Category # % SSA decreased in frequency and/or intensity 14 36 SS behavior decreased or stopped 11 28 Increased OSA (General) 2 5 (Spouse) 3 8 Anxiety about SSA reduced 4 10 SSA returned after 10 years 1 2 Report of “change” vague 4 10

The most telling narratives contained in this study were those heartfelt accounts of the failure of very personal, heroic efforts to become straight. Consider the following example, representative of hundreds of such reports.

“From the time I realized I was attracted to men until I was 27, I tried my best to change it. I prayed, fasted, read scriptures, went to church, went to the temple, lived a very religious life etc. all I an attempt to be straight. No matter how hard I tried and concentrated on it, I could not make myself straight. It was severely disappointing on every level at the time. I always felt like I could never quiet figure it out or make it happen. I felt God was disappointed with me. I also felt that the church and the people in my life would likewise be disappointed if they knew. I did not want to be gay. I hated that I felt the way I did. But it would not go away. I guess if you look at it, I was able to hide it and not act upon it for a very long time. The church may view that as a success, but I don’t any longer. It’s stupid to deny who you are and lie to yourself and everyone you know. In my opinion, it’s harmful to live in such a state of denial and lies. You never can have a self-worth when no on (including yourself really even know who you are.”

As this account reveals, the failure of psychotherapy, counseling by ecclesiastic leaders, and valiant efforts at personal righteousness (prayer, fasting, temple service, etc.), proved significantly harmful for many, leading to depression, suicide ideation, and loss of faith in deity, when the promises of change failed to materialize.

COULD YOU CHANGE? Any woman or man who is dubious that sexual orientation in gay people is unalterable should seriously ask, “Could I reverse my own heterosexual romantic attraction to men or women?” “Can I remember deciding that I was going to be someone who would fall in love with a person of the opposite sex?” “Can I envision any argument or program of persuasion that would cause me to change the object of my romantic feelings?” I have yet to find a heterosexual person who has said ‘yes’ to any of these questions.

THE EXPERIENCE OF LDS THERAPISTS AND ECCLESIASTICAL LEADERS

Beverly L. Shaw holds a doctorate in clinical psychology and has been a practicing psychotherapist since 1982. She is a life-long active Latter-day Saint, and past President and Board Member of the Association for Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists (AMCAP). She summarizes her experience with Latter-day Saints who have attempted to change sexual orientation as follows [40].

“During the years I have been in practice I have had men and women in my office with just about every variation of homosexual issue – from those who are open about their orientation to those for whom I was the only one who knew. I’ve seen individuals who are repressing their attractions in order to remain acceptable in church environs, and those who left the church feeling they have been unjustly labeled as evil, dirty, and/or perverse. I have seen those who are in committed same-sex relationships working on the same types of issues as heterosexual couples and those who have tried or are trying to make a heterosexual marriage work in order to ‘change those aberrant feelings.’ I have seen women and men who desperately wanted a family and were absolutely heart-broken that they would never have it, those who accepted or had no interest in having children, and those who have actively pursued alternative approaches such as single parent adoption. I have seen everything from the stereotypical leather-wearing gay biker to the (apparently) ‘straight’ recommend-holding Priesthood leader.”

CONFLICT AND PAIN

I can say with some amount of surety that probably the most challenging and heart rending therapy experiences that I have shared is the pain of those individuals who are/were devoted members of the LDS church and who are also homosexual. The anguish they feel at having a part of themselves completely at odds with what they hold sacred is indescribable and unfortunately is usually compounded by feelings of abandonment by God – that He has rejected their pleadings for help. An interesting paradox that I have noticed is that the majority of the individuals I have seen have not been the rebellious, rule-breaking, defiant, anti-gospel individuals one might expect. Almost without exception they have been spiritually devoted to the gospel, and possessed very strong testimonies. . . . most of them have ended up sorrowfully leaving the Church because they feel spiritually and emotionally battered and bruised when there. . . . I can say without reservation that none of them chose this orientation, none of them accepted it with a blasé attitude, and none escaped the heart-rending ‘Why me?’

Not one has ever given any indication it was something chosen or desired. . . . In my experience, it is those bisexual individuals for whom reparative therapy has some possible help. For those further along the homosexual end of the continuum, reparative therapy is yet another instance of dashed hope.”

TESTIMONY #2, G. ALLEN GUNDRY, CLINCIAL SOCIAL WORKER

G. Allen Gundry is a clinical social worker who for decades was employed by LDS Family Services with the specific assignment to counsel with gay and lesbian members of the Church. Of the 400 males with whom he had an extended professional interaction, half were single. He describes these individuals as follows: “For all, the beginning awareness of same-gender attraction was unwanted, and they did everything they knew how to stop or change it.” The summary of his experience is that “professional therapies do not rid the person of same-gender attraction,” but that other positive outcomes are possible. He continues, “only 10% of the single men with whom I worked experienced enough reduction of their same-gender attraction to marry.” He classified these persons (the 10%) as bisexual. The quality of these marriages and the length of time they were maintained were unknown [40].

A BISHOP’S EXPERIENCE The experience of Beverly Shaw and Allen Gundry is mirrored by many LDS priesthood leaders. Robert A. Rees began serving as a bishop of the Los Angeles First (Singles’) Ward in 1986 at a time when he was working professionally on the faculty of the English Department at UCLA. His pastoral efforts in behalf of gay and lesbian members of his ward have led him to the following conclusions [40].

“My experience with the fifty or so homosexuals with whom I have had a close relationship over the past twenty years can be summarized as follows: I have not met a single homosexual Latter-day Saint who chose or was able to change or alter his or her sexual orientation. I also have not met a single homosexual Latter-day Saint who had not tried valiantly, generally over a long period of time, to change his or her orientation. Some of the most painful experiences I had as a bishop related to homosexual members recounting their desperate, even heroic efforts to change their sexual orientation. For many, these efforts took place over a number of years and involved incredible sacrifice and self-denial. Because they had been led by priesthood leaders to believe that they could change if they were just righteous or self-sacrificing enough, when change didn’t come, they tended to blame themselves. Such self-blame often led to alienation from God and his church and at times to self-destructive behavior, including suicide.”

Finally, honesty compels us to consider the direct experience of a very large number of LDS gay people, who in spite of exhaustive, lengthy, and totally sincere efforts, have not been able to change the fact of who they are sexually. A testimony of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel, faithful church activity, fasting, prayer, missionary service, temple service - all of these are important, gratifying, motivating and allow us to increase in power and goodness, but none, in any combination, has been able to alter sexual orientation for the vast majority, and possibly for the totality [41, 42, 43]. I am convinced that this assertion is true because I have heard it expressed in any number of variations from my gay brothers and sisters and the witness of the spirit to me is that they are telling the truth. Whatever other religious or social or personal standards we choose to use in attempting to understand homosexuality and respond appropriately to it, we cannot ignore this fact from the life experience of those most closely affected.

LEGAL DECISIONS

In June of 2015 a jury in New Jersey handed down a verdict against practitioners of conversion therapy [44]. The organization was JONAH, Jews Offering New alternative for Healing, who had made claims that their reparative programs had succeeded in changing homosexuality. They were convicted of consumer fraud under consumer protection laws, and found guilty of unconscionable business practices. The defendants were unable to produce any evidence of a valid reversal of homosexuality by any of their clients. One of the plaintiffs, Michael Ferguson, is a former Mormon. During the trial, details were revealed about the practices of some of their programs, notably the retreats conducted by Journey Into Manhood, founded and operated by LDS individuals. These included highly questionable behaviors such as parental-bashing role playing and nude holding rituals supervised by people with no professional training. Journey Into Manhood continues to operate these retreats today.

As of this writing 8 states plus the District of Columbia have passed legislation that bans SOCE for minors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They are, in chronological order, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont, New Mexico, Connecticut, and Nevada. Many individual cities have done the same including many in Florida and Ohio, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.

CONCLUSION

All of the evidence detailed above leads us to the conclusion that neither empirical scholarship, the consensus of practicing professionals, nor the experience of many, many LGBTQ LDS people support the claims made by proponents of reparative therapy that sexual orientation can be altered. Homosexuality is an unchosen, innate characteristic and gay people cannot become heterosexual by force of will, religious practice, or programs of therapeutic counseling.

WE ARE LED, THEN, TO EXAMINE THE LIVES OF OUR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INTRINSIC GOODNESS, AND TO BECOME THEIR ALLIES IN THE QUEST FOR EQUALITY OF ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN.

1. Oaks, D.H. Same-Gender Attraction. The Ensign, October 1995, pp. 7-14. 2. Oaks, D.H. and Wickman, L.B “Same Gender Attraction,” September 2006. http://www.lde.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100 000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010Vgn VCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1, accessed January 2007. 3. Hinckley, G.B. What are people asking about us? The Ensign, 70-72, November (1998). 4. Oaks, D. H. He heals the heavy laden. The Ensign, 6-9, November (2006). 5. Packer, B.K. “To The One.” BYU 12-Stake Fireside address, March 1998. 6. William S. Bradshaw, An Explanation For Homosexuality, Encircle, 2017. 7. Byrd, A.D. When a loved one struggles with same-sex attraction. The Ensign, September 1999, pp. 51-54. 8. God Loveth His Children http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem. b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?. Accessed 7/25/2007. 9. Bradshaw, W .S. “Seek to be informed.” The Daily Universe (Viewpoint), March 31, 2004. 10. Bradshaw, W.S., Rees, R.A., Schow, R., and Raynes, M. A slippery slope indeed: A response to Byrd, Cox and Robinson’s Review of In Quiet Desperation, http://ldsresources.info/ professionals/response.shtml, accessed September 19, 2008. 11. Maxwell, N.A. If Thou Endure It Well, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, UT. 1996 (pp. 109, 118). 12. Shidlo, A., and Schroeder, M. Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259 (2002). 13. Nicolosi, J, Byrd, A.D., and Potts, R.W. Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071- 1088 (2000). 14. Spitzer, R.L. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417 (2003). 15. Arana, G. (2012). My so-called gay life. Prospect.org/article/my-so-called-gay-life. Accessed April 12, 2012. 16. Spitzer, R.L. (2012). Spitzer reassesses his 2003 study of reparative therapy of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 757. Doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y. 17. Haldeman, D.C. The pseudo-science of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Angles, 4, 1-4, (1999). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. 18. Diamond, L. M. (2015). Sexual fluidity. In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 19. American Psychological Association. Appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Proceedings for the legislative year 1997. American Psychologist, 53 (1998). See also Http://www.apa.org/pi/sexual.html 20. American Psychiatric Association. Position statement on psychiatric treatment and sexual orientation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156 1131 (1999). See also: Position statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (reparative or conversion therapies). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 1711-1721 (2000).

21. https://www.guideline.gov/sumaries/summary/38417?#Section420/ 22. American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy statement: Homosexuality and adolescence. Pediatrics 92, 631-634 (1983). 23. www.Aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/content/about__aamft/position_on_couples.aspx. 24. annals.org/aim/article/229051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparitiesexecutive-summary-policy-position. 25. American Counseling Association. Resolution adopted by the Governing Council of the American Counseling Association: On appropriate counseling responses to sexual orientation. 1998. Available on request. Alexandria, VA: Author. 26. https://www.ama_assn.org/delivering-care/policies-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgenderqueer-lgbtq-issues. 27. www.apsa.org/content/2012-position-statement-sttempts-change-sexual-orientationgender-identity-or-gender. 28. http://www.schoolcounselor.org/school-counselors-members/about-asca-%281%29/ position-statements. 29. National Association of Social Workers. Social work speaks: NASW policy statements 2006-2009 (7th ed., p. 248). 2006. Washington, DC: Author. 30. www.pabo.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&itemid=1926. 31. Just the Facts Coalition. (2008). Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators, and school personnel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from www. apa.org/pi/lgbt/publications/justhefacts.htm. 32. Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/ publications/therapeutic-response.pdf Accessed Aug. 7, 2009. 33. http://www.apa.org/resleases/therapeutic.html?imw+Y Accessed Aug. 7, 2009. 34. https://www.therapeuticchoice.com (NARTH); genderwholeness.com. 35. Beckstead, A.L., and Morrow, S.L. Mormon clients’ experiences of conversion therapy: The need for a new treatment approach. The Counseling Psychologist 32, 651-690 (2004). 36. John P. Dehlin, Renee V. Galliher, William S. Bradshaw, and Katherine A. Crowell. Psychosocial correlates of religious approaches to same-sex attraction: A Mormon perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 18 (3): 284-311 (2014). 37. Kate Bradshaw, John P. Dehlin, Katherine A. Crowell, Renee V. Galliher, and William S. Bradshaw. 2015. Sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy for LGBQ individuals affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41 (1), 391-412. 38. William S. Bradshaw, Nicholas Norman, John P. Dehlin, Renee V. Galliher and Katherine A. Crowell. (2016). Social Reactions, Etiological Perceptions, and Spiritual Perspectives in an LGBTQ Mormon Sample. In Sexual Orientation: Perceptions, Discrimination, and Acceptance. Frances Earley, Editor. Chapter 1, pp. 1-50. Nova Scientific Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY.

39. https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/seeking-professional-help 40. Schow, R., Rees, R.A., Bradshaw, W., and Raynes, M. The persistence of same sex attraction in Latter-day Saints who undergo counseling or change therapy. Resources for Understanding Homosexuality, 2004. https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/seeking-profesional-help, 41. Anonymous. Solus. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 10 (2), 94-99, Autumn (1976). 42. Decisions of the Soul. LDS Personal Accounts of Same-Sex Orientation in Opposite-sex Marriage. The Intermountain Conference on Sexuality and Homosexuality, April 29, 1995. Dwight Cook, Rob Kilian, and Karen Swannack, Series Editors. 43. Pearson, Carol Lynn. No More Goodbyes. Pivot Point Books, Walnut Creek, CA. 2007. 44. Samantha Michaels. A New Jersey jury just dealt a serious blow to gay conversion therapy. www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/new-jersey-gay-conversion-therapy-consumerfraud-jonah.

from time to time, encircle proudly produces materials, like this document, prepared by third parties. this content is the work and research of the author and not encircle.