Download Print-Friendly Version

David Archuleta’s new book, Devout, begins as a moving and candid account of overcoming family trauma, toxic relationship dynamics, suicidal ideation, and an overbearing father determined to live vicariously through his talented son.

Which is why its ultimate conclusion is so tragic.

Because his understanding of God was that of a bludgeon instead of a balm, David decided that leaving the safety of the restored gospel was the best route for him and could be for others.

There’s no way for any of us to know what choice we would make in his shoes, so this isn’t about judging his heart. Thankfully, that’s God’s job. But it is about making righteous judgments about the morality of his choices and the impact his advocacy will have on others. As Latter-day Saints, how do we currently respond to stories like David’s, and how could we shift that response toward something more theologically sound and compassionate?

Patterns of Responding

There’s a predictable pattern that emerges whenever a prominent Latter-day Saint comes out as gay. This pattern typically plays out on both extremes of the political divide. One side uses the announcement as an excuse to ignore, belittle, or theologically dunk on anyone battling with LGBT+ concerns and questions. While that’s going on, the other side recognizes the individual’s sincere expression of pain and uses it to discourage faith-affirming, truth-filled ministering. 

As a sexual minority myself, I alternate between being engrossed with watching it unfold one day and being completely jaded by the drama the next. While our stories diverge in many ways, I do understand the feeling of watching a Church-wide debate that addresses deeply personal aspects of myself. It can be engaging, but it can also be frustrating. 

Both approaches come with a variety of intentions and goals—both good and bad—but both approaches also get us further from reconciliation, community, and truth. Let’s explore these patterns, examine how they fall short of discipleship, and uncover some possible alternatives.

Pattern 1: Apathy and Dismissal

One pattern of responding comes from a subset of Latter-day Saints who are deeply committed to their faith but struggle to embrace any attempts to address morally complex issues, especially LGBT+ issues. Either they take hard conversations about these topics as an attack on faith that requires an aggressive response, or they worry about saying the wrong thing and do not engage at all.

I have great sympathy for both of these worries. After seeing so many examples of church members using LGBT+ issues as a way to shoehorn progressive politics into the gospel, I find myself starting from a place of skepticism whenever I encounter the topic in a faith context. But seeing so many poor examples of addressing a topic doesn’t automatically justify avoiding the topic altogether.

When we encounter approaches like the one in David’s book, it can sometimes feel easy to justify taking a dismissive approach to his story or the story of others like him. Although David’s book begins as a respectful, candid exploration of his trauma and adversity, as it continues, it takes a rather sharp turn toward caricaturizing our beliefs and disparaging church leaders. This might make some inclined to stop considering David’s perspective altogether.

For example, when describing a conversation with Elder M. Russell Ballard where David was asking questions about homosexuality, Elder Ballard admits that we don’t have many revealed answers (a sentiment that other leaders have expressed): “Well, David, to be honest, I don’t know much about any of this. We don’t really have the answers on what to do about LGBT people. We’ve gone as brethren…and prayed about this, but we’ve never received any answers.” David’s conclusion to that answer was that Elder Ballard was admitting they were being dishonest about their role as prophets, seers, and revelators: “I was surprised by what Elder Ballard seemed to be admitting to me—that they didn’t actually know what God wanted or not. They were making guesses. But they were going to tell everyone the message was from God so they would just follow along without questioning them.”

The apathetic, dismissive approach falls short of discipleship by leaving a void. The more aggressive approach falls short of discipleship by pushing others away. Christ did neither. He purposefully sought out those who were rejected or engaging in behavior that was considered sinful or outside the norm. He approached the woman at the well, a social taboo given her Samaritan background, to minister to her. Even though he acknowledged she was living with a man who wasn’t her husband, he didn’t condemn her. Instead, he taught truth lovingly. He didn’t show apathy toward her choices, but he didn’t berate her either.

Being a disciple means engaging in these conversations with both courtesy and conviction. It means listening to the experiences of others with an open mind and a receptive heart. And it also means keeping truth tied to our efforts to minister.

Pattern 2: Discouraging True Ministry 

Another pattern of response comes from a broad group of Latter-day Saints who graft the modern approach to LGBT+ activism into their ministry. Some are politically involved and actively campaign for doctrine to change, while others take a more pacifist, you-do-you approach. When encountering stories like David’s, they rightly sympathize with the expressed pain, but their actions move beyond sympathy. Instead of anchoring their support in gospel truths, they remove many core components of the gospel from their attempts to connect and comfort. Instead of merely affirming the pain and lending an ear, they join in on disparaging our beliefs, prophets, or modern revelation. In the name of ministering, they share and leave supportive comments on social media posts that undermine doctrine. They discourage gospel discussion on topics like the eternal family and reject parts of the family proclamation.

David’s story commands compassion. His dad pushed him to participate in singing competitions, including American Idol, which he was ultimately grateful for, but which weren’t without their scars; he dealt with toxic family dynamics that split his family into factions; his parents divorced after years of turmoil; and, worst of all, he dealt with feelings of despair so deep that he considered taking his life. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel for someone who has gone through as much as David.

But what makes situations like this even more tragic is when the conclusion of that pain is to feel ostracized from or to reject the very thing that will help them heal best: namely, Jesus Christ and the understanding of His atonement found in His restored church.

The most challenging dynamic is when church members feel pressured to participate in this type of support because of language or behavior that mirrors manipulation more than advocacy. For example, a common theme in Devout is David’s mention of the effect our beliefs about marriage and family had on him. In referencing a group of people that walked out of his Christmas concert in Delta, UT (where I lived for a couple of years), after he used it as an opportunity for political advocacy, he said, “If that made them uncomfortable, then fine. I want them to think about why it made them uncomfortable. Maybe because sharing their beliefs led someone like me to consider ending my life, and they just wanted me to pretend to be a happy straight Mormon whom they loved watching on Idol?” Hurt by their lack of enthusiasm for his advocacy, he used our beliefs as a bludgeon. He furthered the idea that if we continue to believe and express our beliefs, we’re going to push people to the brink of desperation. A claim that, thankfully, is contradicted by the data. 

This same dynamic plays out in David’s account of suicidal ideation. I have no doubt that David’s suicidal ideation was genuine. He explains it in detail, and while I’ve never experienced that myself, I could nearly feel the despair as I listened to the audiobook. What a horrible reality to experience. I’ve seen it firsthand in a close friend who tried multiple times to end his life, thankfully to no avail. 

Instead of lacing our support with modern symbols and ideas, we can anchor it in the teachings of Jesus Christ. And not just the parts of His message that, in isolation, could seem to fit in with LGBT+ activism. But the totality of His message—including the sacrifice, responsibility, and love that’s moored to God’s law.

A Christlike Pattern for Responding 

Growing up a sexual minority Latter-day Saint was confusing enough for me. I can’t imagine adding to it the type of mixed messaging and morally confused advocacy that’s so common in the way that members of the Church often respond to experiences of same-sex attraction today. I came out of adolescence with plenty of fears and insecurities, but just enough faith to move forward toward the life I wanted. For me, that led to a life in the Church, an amazing wife, and children of our own. I don’t know that I would’ve been so lucky if I grew up in the environment that exists today.

As disciples of Christ and members of His restored church, we have the duty to love David and people like him without reservation. We also have the duty to love those who will be negatively affected by the message he’s promulgating. Are we loving them by cheering David’s choice to leave the path? Are we loving them by insinuating or explicitly stating that the covenant path is oppressive or harmful? Or that modern prophets are standing in the way of God’s true will for gay people? 

We can’t let emotion decide what’s true. Suffering and hardship—like the kind he experienced—don’t automatically discredit a path. On the reverse, relief or elation—like what he’s described after removing gospel standards from his life—doesn’t automatically vindicate one. 

I doubt David will ever see this. But if he does, I hope he also considers why his advocacy might not be received well by all, not out of hatred for him, but out of concern for our children and loved ones.

More than any other social debate, LGBT+ issues have challenged the idea that we can love those who share a different perspective. And it’s no wonder, with how high the stakes are viewed on both sides. But I reject the idea that in order to love someone, we must either adopt or cheer on their choices. As the late and missed President Holland put it, “As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, ‘Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.’ We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.”

My aim is to strike that balance. I hope you’ll join me in that goal. 

The post A Devout Sexual Minority’s Response to Archuleta’s “Devout” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

For many sexual minorities within the Church, the temple can sometimes evoke feelings of exclusion or stir complex emotions that are challenging to navigate. Yet for me, the temple has become a sacred refuge—a place of profound healing, enduring peace, and personal revelation. From a young age, I have experienced sexual attraction to other men—an aspect of my life that has brought both confusion and introspection over the years. As a married covenant-making member of the Church, this part of me has become something I’ve learned to acknowledge, understand, and bring before the Lord. Through years of counseling, personal study, and deep spiritual searching, I have worked to reconcile these feelings with my faith in Jesus Christ and His gospel plan. The temple has been an essential part of that process. It has reminded me of who I truly am in God’s eyes and offered me hope, healing, and a path forward rooted in covenant relationships. In the sacred spaces of the temple, I have found peace with both my identity and my discipleship.

In this reflection, I share how the temple has been a guiding light through my unique struggles and a source of strength through its holy ordinances and divine teachings.

The Temple: A House Open to All

At the heart of the Church’s teachings is the truth that the temple is a place meant for everyone. President Russell M. Nelson has emphasized this, declaring, “The blessings of the temple are available to any and all people who will prepare themselves … The Lord wants all His children to partake of the eternal blessings available in His temple.” The temple’s doors stand open wide to all who earnestly strive to follow Christ, embrace His teachings, and live His commandments.

While society often imposes limiting labels based on identity, attractions, or choices, the temple strips away such distinctions. Here, all are seen simply as beloved children of God, each with infinite divine potential. For sexual minorities, this invitation is deeply transformative. In a world that might cast me as “other” or define me by my sexual identity, the temple teaches that we all can come unto Christ and receive His healing—without any labels, without division. The temple is a sacred space where every individual is invited to covenant directly with God and receive His promises.

The Baptistry: A Symbol of Purity, Repentance, and Unity

One of my most cherished spaces in the temple is the baptistry. The baptismal font, supported by twelve oxen, symbolizes the cleansing of sin, rebirth of spiritual identity, and forming essential covenants with the Savior. For those who have faced pain, trauma, or past mistakes, the baptistry can represent Christ’s power to heal and forgive.

Each time I sit near the font, I am reminded that no matter our history, we can be made new through the Savior’s Atonement. This sacred ordinance is a poignant reminder that renewal is possible—not only for ourselves but for our ancestors through proxy baptisms. The twelve oxen supporting the font remind me that salvation is a collective effort, rooted in the legacy of covenant Israel. It reminds me that I am not alone; God surrounds me with family, friends, and leaders who help carry my burdens.

Safe Touch and Healing from Trauma

For those who have endured trauma, abuse, or difficulty with physical touch, the temple offers a unique place of healing. The initiatory ordinance, performed with reverence and respect by temple workers of the same gender, presents a sacred experience of safe touch. This environment fosters trust and healing, allowing wounds from the past to begin to mend.

For me, especially, this sacred touch affirms my gender identity and provides a safe space where I can feel secure and valued. It is a quiet yet profound balm for my soul.

The Covenant of Taking Christ’s Name

The temple garment symbolizes the covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. In this holy place, labels, identity politics, and social divisions dissolve. Instead, we are called to become disciples of Christ, united by His name and His love.

As the Apostle Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In the temple, all are equal before God; our truest identity is as His beloved children.

For me, this truth has been freeing. While others may find meaning in specific labels, I have found peace in embracing my eternal relationship with Christ alone. This relationship is what defines me, brings lasting worth, and reveals who I truly am. I belong to Christ, and as I keep the covenants I have made with Him, I am reminded of His protection as I honor the temple garment and my belonging to Him. 

Resurrection: The Promise of Complete Healing

The doctrine of resurrection offers profound hope to all who have suffered emotional, spiritual, or physical pain. The resurrection is not merely a return to life—it is a promise of perfect, complete healing. I believe my unwanted sexual attractions stem from deep emotional wounds, fears, and unmet needs. I hold with full faith that in the resurrection, these pains will be fully healed, and these struggles will no longer define my eternal journey.

Elder Uchtdorf’s words ring true to me: 

Every time the Savior healed anyone ‘afflicted in any manner,’ both before and after His Resurrection, it was a testament to His ultimate power to heal our souls. Each miraculous healing was but a prelude and promise of the lasting physical and emotional healing that will come to each of us in the Resurrection, which ‘is the Lord’s consummate act of healing.

The temple, rich with symbols of resurrection, instills within me a hopeful anticipation of that day.

The Altar: A Sacred Place of Sacrifice

The altar in the temple symbolizes sacrifice—a vital part of spiritual growth. For sexual minorities, this concept resonates deeply, reflecting the personal sacrifices made to align my life with God’s will. While the Book of Mormon teaches that “men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25), true joy arises not from indulgence but from consecration and sacrifice.

At the altar, we are invited to offer our whole selves—heart, mind, and body—as living sacrifices. The temple endowment teaches that life’s “thorns” create necessary opposition and trials. I find comfort knowing my struggles are not meaningless; they serve a divine purpose to help me lean more heavily on the Savior and learn unwavering trust.

The altar also symbolizes death—the death of false beliefs that have burdened me: the belief that I don’t belong, that my attractions define me, or that I am unworthy of love. The temple is where these lies die, replaced by eternal truths of God’s love and acceptance.

Gender in the Temple: Healing and Honor

Gender is a sacred part of God’s plan, reflected in the temple’s respectful separation of men and women during ordinances. This division is not exclusionary but designed to foster healing, respect, and understanding.

For sexual minorities who have struggled with confusion related to gender or identity, the temple offers a rare and precious space to heal. President Nelson reminds us, “Spend more time in the temple, and seek to understand how the temple teaches you to rise above this fallen world.”

In a world moving toward erasing gender distinctions, the temple upholds the divine importance of masculine and feminine roles, offering a sacred environment where these roles can be understood and embraced.

Marriage and Sealing: Trusting God’s Eternal Plan

The temple teaches that God’s plan for marriage is between a man and a woman—a truth that can be challenging for sexual minorities to reconcile. I have learned to trust in God’s higher ways, reminded by a line in my patriarchal blessing that in the next life, I will be reunited with both family and “loved ones.”

President Holland has said, “I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me.” I agree—heaven would not be heaven without my wife or children, but also not without the companionship of cherished friends who are vital to my emotional well-being.

The sealing ordinance also reinforces my roles and responsibilities as a husband and father. Though imperfect, as I strive to do my part, the Savior’s grace covers my weaknesses, promising immense blessings to those who remain faithful.

The Veil Ceremony: A Moment of Divine Connection

The veil ceremony is one of my very favorite temple experiences. It offers a tangible sense of closeness to the Lord. I often reflect on how Christ desires to communicate with me and draw me near. Standing before the veil, I feel seen, loved, and fully accepted.

The veil, rent at the Savior’s crucifixion, symbolizes the bridge He created—through His sacrifice, we can return home and be united with Him. This ordinance encapsulates the intimate relationship God wants each of us to have with Him.

The Celestial Room: A Place of Light and Reflection

The celestial room is a sanctuary of peace where I commune quietly with my Heavenly Father. Often, I ask Him, “What do You want me to know or feel today?” The answers come as gentle assurances of His love and awareness of my needs.

Our prophet encourages us to “think celestial,” and the more time I spend in this room, the more I carry that light into the “lone and dreary world.” Surrounded by beauty and light, I leave with renewed hope to share that light with others.

Sharing the Temple Experience with Friends

Going to the temple with close friends or family enriches the experience. It becomes a space where we can share vulnerable moments, deepen gospel understanding, and uplift one another.

A few years ago, I invited a brother I minister to, to accompany me weekly to the temple. I wrestled with whether I was attending to feel closer to my friend or my Heavenly Father. Through prayer, I received reassurance that God gave me friends so that I might feel His love more fully.

Conclusion: A Journey of Wholeness and Hope

Each time I walk through the temple doors, I am reminded that I am not alone. The peace I find there renews my spirit and fortifies my resolve to live according to God’s plan. In His eyes, I am whole, loved, and infinitely worthy.

I share my journey in the hope that it might offer encouragement to others walking similar paths—or to those seeking to support them. The temple remains for me a sacred refuge—a place of healing, peace, and holiness that I cherish deeply.

The post Chastity, Covenant, and Quiet Redemption: The Temple for a Sexual Minority Saint appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

There remain some ideologically professional organizations that have not yet adopted the new consensus, including powerful ones such as the American Medical Association. But the overall trend is clear.

Some states, such as Tennessee, have passed laws banning these kinds of medical care. Yesterday, June 25, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the Tennessee Law.

In the Summer of 2023, I joined a series of articles positing that the West was seeing the rise of a new religion. Since that time, I’ve come to refer to this as “the religion of the self.” The religion of the self centers on each person’s own understanding of their psychological core. The greatest good in this religion is actualizing that psychological core into reality. While this religion does not have the formal structure of religion that we are accustomed to, it does follow many of the familiar patterns of the early development of religious systems of belief throughout world history.

The transgender movement is one expression of this religious movement. It relies on dramatic metaphysical claims such as that a biological man is, in fact, a woman. By defining truth as our understanding of our own psyche, the religion of the self provides the philosophical grounding necessary for these claims. The new name and social transition rituals that derive from this philosophy find counterparts in many religious traditions.

So what happens when medical science says that hormone and surgical transitions for teenagers are harmful, but a religion has arisen that believes the transition of the outer self into the vision of the inner self is the greatest good?

Free Exercise of Religion

Let’s start by making it clear that when it comes to adults, the free exercise of religion pretty well guarantees the right to perform hormonal or surgical transitions. 

Body modifications, such as tattoos or piercings, are part of religious rituals in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca. Case law has even guaranteed tattoo parlors the right to operate. 

Surgical transition is, of course, much more invasive, but even on this front, there is some precedence. The Synanon, a new religious movement active from the 1950s to 1970s, mandated some followers to engage in vasectomies. 

But most importantly, surgical sterilization is legal for adults in the United States. Having a procedure be legal for non-religious reasons but illegal for the rationale of the religion of the self would violate our most basic tenets of religious fairness.

Adults who choose to undergo gender transition procedures in order to align their outer self with their vision of their psychological core as dictated by their religious beliefs are constitutionally protected.

Religion and Kids

However, the new research is focused much more specifically on children. The constitutional landscape for children and the free exercise of religion is much more nuanced. Let’s look at the landscape around medical interventions for children, particularly when they intersect with religious freedom laws.

On one end, you have male circumcision. Male circumcision does have long-term negative effects, such as reduced sexual sensation. But these effects are generally mild, the procedure involves very little risk, and some doctors believe there may be an upside to hygiene.

Still, there have been attempts to make the procedure illegal. The most notable attempt was in San Francisco in 2011. Ultimately, however, the male circumcision ban was stopped for unrelated legal reasons. California soon passed a law preventing local governments from passing bans against male circumcision, citing parental rights to make religious decisions for their children. So, on one end of the spectrum, you have procedures with mild side effects that are protected for religious reasons. 

On the other end of this spectrum, you have female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM is universally condemned in the medical community. The negative effects on women are much greater and long-lasting than the effects of circumcision on men. FGM is illegal across the United States and most of Europe, regardless of whether the girl or her parents consented to the procedure. There is no exception for religious reasons.

In one case, lawyers were planning on challenging the bans on freedom of religion grounds but ultimately did not. Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional Law Scholar, told the Detroit Free Press about the freedom of religion argument, “It is hard for me to imagine any court accepting the religious freedom defense given the harm that’s being dealt in this case. It is a losing argument. You don’t have the right to impose harm on others in practicing your religion.” 

Between these two poles, you have a variety of cases, and judges tend to consider a number of factors:

1. What is the opinion of the child, and is that child mature enough to make the decision?
2. How severe is the harm done, and is that harm reversible?
3. How effective would the procedure be?

Let’s look at a few example cases and how judges balanced those factors.

The first is the case of E.G. She was a 17-year-old Jehovah’s Witness who decided not to get a blood transfusion to treat her leukemia.

The judge in the case considered that E.G. was considered mature for her age—psychologists said she had the maturity of an 18-21-year-old. E.G. also understood her religious beliefs well. Of course, her decision to not take treatment would not be reversible, but because the judge also considered that even if E.G. did take the treatment, the survival rate was only 20%. In weighing these factors, the court found E.G. had the right to refuse the blood transfusion.

The second is the case of Daniel Hauser. Hauser was only 13 years old. He practiced a Native American religious belief called Nemenhah. Hauser was not able to articulate his beliefs well, and his reading capabilities were put below a fifth-grade level. In addition, doctors said he had a negligible chance of survival for five years without the treatment but an 80% plus chance of survival with the treatment. In this case, the court found that Hauser (and his parents) did not have the right to turn down the treatment.  

The third case involves Shannon Nixon. Shannon died at 16 years old because her diabetic ketoacidosis was not treated. Her parents believed the treatment was in opposition to their religious views as members of the Faith Tabernacle Church. In this case, the parents were tried for child endangerment, and they made the claim they were acting in accordance with their child’s religious wishes. In this case, the judge found that because the consequences of not taking action—death—were so severe, it was not something that minors could consent to.

Children in the Religion of the Self

Children who have been raised in the religion of the self may seek to obtain medical procedures that the latest medical consensus concludes are harmful, much like FGM.

Let’s look at the same factors these judges have considered.

Maturity of the Child. This would largely need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, there is significant research to suggest that those who have gender dysmorphia have developmental disorders such as ASD at a higher rate than the population at large.

Severity of the Harm. One of the most important findings of the Cass report is that medical transitioning does not protect children from suicide. This procedure does not alleviate another risk. Those who describe teenage medical transitioning as “life-saving care” are misinformed about the research. However, surgical transitioning does similar but much more severe harm than FGM, and hormonal transitioning can cause permanent harm, such as sterilizing the child.

Effectiveness of the Procedure. Various studies suggest that gender dysphoria stops without medical intervention in 60-90% of cases. Between this and the conclusion on suicide, it appears that medical transition in the teenage years has little medical purpose. Rather, the purpose is a religious one of aligning the outer presentation of the self with the inner conception of the self.

Based on these factors, it appears that transgender transitioning is further outside the acceptable parameters than even FGM. Altogether, it seems likely that challenges to potential laws against medical transitioning for children would survive any objection to the religious rights of those who practice the religion of the self. 

While the religion of the self is a new religious movement that is still forming, it is a legitimate philosophical worldview that deserves the same deference and respect in our law as any other religious worldview. But it is not a superior worldview that deserves additional deference. In the same way, the courts have limited the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Native Americans when those practices could harm children, it is reasonable, based on the developing consensus, for states to ban medical transitioning for children as well.

Of course, the litigation now headed to the Supreme Court is not attempting to protect the religious freedom of transgender teens and their parents. They are basing their claim on the idea that gender identity is an attribute protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And because it would so clearly not survive under religious protection guarantees, the US government, in this case, is implicitly arguing that gender identity is an attribute more worthy of constitutional deference than religious belief. I wouldn’t expect the Supreme Court to agree.

The post Religion, Medicine, and the Future of Transgender Youth appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

These words have provided a foundation for the way in which we want to approach a Latter-day Saint understanding of gender identity and, ultimately, eternal identity. We feel a keen desire to provide ‘reasonable evidence’ for our perspective because, too often in contemporary society, gospel-informed views are dismissed as mystical, unscientific, and insensitive simply because they are also founded in religious teachings.

1. When we engage in conversations about human experiences, we’re not merely listing objective observations; we’re also offering interpretations based on our implicit or unstated understanding of reality. Put simply, every observation of human life is intertwined with our beliefs about the nature of reality. 

2. Second, with this being the case, there are many ways in which one could explain various human experiences. Each explanation would be grounded in its own understanding of the nature of the universe and personhood. 

3. Third, because there are many different perspectives, they cannot all be true because many are antithetical to one another. For example, it cannot be true that people are both agentic and devoid of free will. Additionally, many of the esteemed and touted ideas of our society face overwhelming criticism based on scientific, historical, philosophical, phenomenological, and spiritual evidence. However, all people are susceptible to false ideas masquerading as truth, even ‘scientific’ ones. 

4. Fourth, all explanations carry assumptions that shape our understanding of personhood, with potential unintended consequences in how people see themselves and structure their lives. This is particularly worrisome for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, as divergent beliefs may steer them away from the teachings of the Restored Gospel. However, these negative outcomes are not always immediately evident, and seemingly innocuous ideas can subtly influence our identities, behaviors, and testimonies. implications for how other aspects of personhood are to be understood. 

5. Fifth, because of the worrisome possibility that divergent beliefs about personhood may steer people away from the gospel, particularly those masquerading as truth, it is of utmost importance that members of the Church can discern clearly between the philosophies of men and the doctrines found in scripture and those revealed through living prophets. That way, as Elder Bednar stated, they can learn to “press on [and] hold fast” to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel and “heed not” the philosophies of men.  

The topic of human identity, and by extension, gender identity, is no exception to these propositions. Many members of the Church struggle to understand their identity. Additionally, in trying to understand, question, or explore this identity, some have had negative experiences themselves or know those who have had negative experiences due to the insensitivity and misunderstandings of others within the Church. The personal wrestle to know of one’s individual place in God’s plan in the context of the very real, lived experience of gender dysphoria can be a challenging journey. The difficulty and heartache of this wrestle are not ones we wish to make light of. Our intention is not to dismiss the reality of individual experience with gender dysphoria and the pain a person can experience in trying to navigate and understand themselves. Leaders of the Church have often addressed these experiences as being real and in need of compassionate understanding; we echo those statements most ardently.

1. Contemporary gender identity (CGI): Gender identity is found within us; its reality is based upon our sense or feelings about ourselves and is not necessarily related to our physical body/presentation or our biological sex. This way of understanding human sexuality is far newer in the history of ideas.

2. Divine gender identity (DGI): Human sexuality goes beyond the modern conceptualization of ‘gender identity’ and presumes that moral sexual embodiment, in which gender and sex are unified, has a divine intent and purpose bound within eternal families and exaltation.

To accomplish our aim, we wish to provide a simple yet clear descriptive comparative analysis between these two understandings of gender identity in order to clarify their differences and alleviate some of the confusion people experience when trying to understand their experiences with gender. While many of the topics we discuss can apply to a broad application of human sexuality, this article seeks only to address gender identity. We explore the ideas behind gender identity by (1) naming the assumptions about personhood undergirding those ideas that are taken as fundamental realities, (2) linking some of the main claims of each understanding of gender identity to each assumption articulated, and (3) summarizing the assumptions of the two views to show their differences, and concluding with some remarks. 

Contemporary Gender Identity

Regarding sexuality and personhood, the contemporary approach to gender identity asserts at least three key claims wherein its fundamental assumptions are clearly established and through which a clear contrast between CGI and DGI can be demonstrated. Additionally, we feel it important to note that our understanding of CGI has been greatly influenced by the various works of Carl Trueman on the subject, who has provided an extensive analysis of the history of the ideas underlying CGI, pointing to the various philosophers and psychologists we will mention here.

Assumption #1: Cartesian Dualism

To begin to understand the basic concepts of ‘identity’ and ‘self,’ we must explore Cartesian dualism. To put it simply, Cartesian dualism is a philosophical position that maintains that the world, and more particularly, human nature, is fundamentally composed of two separate, distinct realities: an internal subjective reality and an external objective reality. 

Accordingly, persons are described as ‘subjective selves,’ whose essential characteristics are internal to them (i.e., their personality or identity) and, thus, distinct and separate from the external world of objects. In this framework, all thoughts, desires, and claims regarding what kind of person one is, or self-understandings, are necessary products of a person’s subjective reality. Thus, their “real self” is the inner self. A person’s body, on the other hand, is taken to be an object of the external world that is separate from (but can be manipulated by) a person’s subjective, inner mind. In other words, in Cartesian dualism, persons’ bodies are likened to a puppet (i.e., an external object) that is manipulated by a puppeteer (i.e., the inner, subjective, “real” person) exerting the force of its will upon the body.

In short, CGI, based on Cartesian dualism, asserts that gender identity and associated behaviors stem from the unique inner feelings and desires of individual persons. In other words, gender identity is a subjective reality and, therefore, the truth about who each person is will be found in reference to that inner reality, which is taken as being completely different than the external reality, not in reference to the physical body that houses that subjective reality (e.g., “I am a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “I feel like a woman”). Additionally, the concept of ‘authenticity’ comes from outwardly living one’s internal reality, or more simply, ‘being true to how we feel on the inside.’ We find the root claims of these statements and ideas not in the 21st century but in Cartesian dualism, an idea that came about hundreds of years ago in the philosophies of Rene Descartes.

Assumption #2: Radical Subjectivism

Understanding the concept of radical subjectivism, particularly illustrated in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, is crucial in understanding CGI. Essentially, radical subjectivism is the idea that the truth about the self is entirely constituted and determined by one’s individual, inner emotional experience, “feelings,” and thus can only truly be known to the individual themselves. As discussed in the previous point, because of the assumption of Cartesian dualism, CGI presumes that gender identity is inside each human being and is distinct from the body. When this is combined with the assumption of radical subjectivism wherein one’s internal emotional experience is the sole arbiter of truth, then there is no apparent or easily distinguishable external characteristic by which individuals or those around them can determine their gender. Accordingly, external genitalia or chromosomes are considered unimportant in determining gender identity because gender, like all other aspects of human identity, is ultimately manifested internally in one’s subjective feelings. Such feelings are taken to be the highest authority on an individual’s gender identity such that no one else is allowed to comment on the person’s lived experience. “My feelings are fact” is the heart of radical subjectivism. Therefore, within CGI, “my feelings about my gender are the facts about my gender” is the sentiment.

Feelings are taken to be the highest authority on an individual’s gender identity.[/perfectpullquote]Radical subjectivism, then, is the very reason why ardent proponents of contemporary notions of gender and sexuality encourage, even insist, that people be allowed to listen to and explore any and every gender-related feeling or activity until it “resonates” with them. The feelings that “resonate” are interpreted as being in line with the person’s inner gender identity. The emphasis on subjective feelings as indicators of identity is a critical point of difference between how CGI and DGI state persons should understand their gender identity; CGI assumes the superiority of subjective feelings in determining gender, while DGI does not. Many of us have been exposed to the radical subjectivism of CGI as we’ve encountered advertisements like the following that clearly presume that one’s sexuality isn’t obvious.

Assumption #3: Sexual Moral Relativism

Building upon the idea of radical subjectivism, moral relativism is the notion that moral claims can only be determined true or false depending on an individual’s viewpoint or preference. In other words, moral relativism claims that morality ultimately depends on the perspective of the individual. Given the claim that gender is a fundamentally subjective and internal reality, known only to the individual person through their individual feelings, CGI makes a third moral claim about gender identity: there is no right or wrong way to identify, so all persons should pursue any desires, labels, and expressions as they personally see fit to do so in accordance with their subjective sense of their sexuality. In fact, to do so is the ultimately moral thing to do, the highest form of human living. This is what is typically referred to as “living authentically,” as mentioned previously.

Summary of CGI

In summary, CGI asserts a conception of personhood in which gender is taken to be subjective and separate from the body (i.e., Cartesian dualism). The truth about gender identity is known only to individuals through their inner subjective emotional experiences (i.e., radical subjectivism), and individuals are morally accountable only to themselves such that they are and must be free to pursue whatever gender identity they wish (i.e., sexual moral relativism). CGI is not some idea that is without consequence—It is founded upon philosophical principles that were thought of long before our time and implicate a great many things, things that we might not want to believe, about who we are as human beings. 

Divine Gender Identity

President Nelson articulated that there are three identities that we should put before all other identities: (1) children of God, (2) children of the covenant, and (3) disciples of Christ. All the principles of divine gender identity (DGI) ultimately point to and support these essential identities. We will discuss at least three key claims wherein DGI supports a gospel understanding of who we are as human beings and what our ultimate purpose is here on Earth. 

Assumption #1: Moral Gendered Embodiment

 DGI starts from the simple and fundamental claim made in the Family Proclamation that gender identity is considered an eternal and essential part of a person’s identity. Leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ further clarify that gender refers to a person’s biological sex and biological sex is patterned relationally (i.e., male bodies in complement to female bodies). In other words, according to DGI, gender is (1) inseparable from how a person’s body is sexed (i.e., gender is embodied; sex and gender cannot be fully separated), a claim that is a clear contrast to the Cartesian dualism of DGI, and (2), with very rare and notable exceptions (which the Church has provided counsel on) bodies are sexed in two complementary ways. Therefore, moral gendered embodiment is the assumption that the truth about a person’s gender is, in part, to be found in reference to a person’s sexed body and how its complementarity relates to the opposite sex. That is, the truth about one’s gender is inseparable from one’s sex, and that fact is evidenced in that (1) male bodies differ from female bodies and (2) both are essential in order to bring to pass the unity of husbands and wives required for God’s eternal purposes for the family—”Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” While it may be beyond the scope of this article, we wanted to provide another resource that discusses eternal identity in the context of human sexuality beyond the discussion of gender (you can find it here).

Revelation is a long-established order by which the Lord helps us to know and understand both temporal and eternal truths. As such, this is the method for obtaining knowledge assumed by DGI. In other words, revelation is the way by which we ought to seek to know and understand our divine identity and purpose, especially in terms of our moral sexual embodiment. For DGI, then, the words of prophets, seers, and revelators, both ancient and modern, teach individuals the divine truths about their identity. Through divine revelation, we have been taught that we are eternally sexed (gendered) as men and women, that sexuality is meant to be expressed in marriage between a man and a woman, and that flourishing eternal gender identity is fully realized in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage found only in temples. 

DGI further acknowledges that we will often have experiences that seem to pull us in directions that oppose divine revelation. There are all kinds of ideas and feelings related to moral gender embodiment, many of which are confusing and difficult to understand in light of revealed doctrines about sexuality. For example, the idea of discouraging affirmative care seems cruel if we assume a contemporary understanding of identity. Some may argue that the gospel teaches us to be kind, not cruel, so it would seem the gospel would support the idea of affirmative care/practices. However, we would identify these ideas as mingling scripture and incompatible philosophies. We must exercise caution and be sure that we are starting on the proper premises taught by the gospel in order to find genuine, consistent, and sensical answers. Additionally, given the way that DGI understands gender identity, we must have Christ-like patience, long-suffering, and compassion for those navigating such an experience. However, love and compassion do not necessitate assuming a CGI perspective wherein feelings alone are taken as the authority on one’s identity and destiny, especially when they have clear ties to worldly philosophies that have become mingled with scripture. We are meant to overcome the world through Christ, not capitulate to it. As President Nelson conveyed to us in a recent conference address, 

What does it mean to overcome the world? It means overcoming the temptation to care more about the things of this world than the things of God. It means trusting the doctrine of Christ more than the philosophies of men. 

Revealed doctrines, scriptures, covenants, and the ongoing revelation of prophets, seers, and revelators are the source of knowledge for who we are, including our gender identity. This goes beyond the radical subjectivism of CGI. Perhaps this is why church leaders continually point people to the Family Proclamation and why President Nelson encouraged members to put their identity as children of God, disciples of Christ, and children of the covenant before all other identities. 

 Assumption #3: Covenant Purpose & Divine Destiny

Furthermore, in DGI, moral gender embodiment is taken as a gift from God, a gift given for a divine purpose. Accordingly, gender plays a critical and eternal part in that divine purpose. DGI asserts that sexual powers are complimentary sexed (gendered), given for the purpose of creating families and unifying men and women as husbands and wives in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Accordingly, the law of chastity is the higher moral standard which represents that divine purpose. In other words, God has revealed clear moral standards concerning moral-gendered embodiment.

Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters. And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. [emphasis added]

This is not to say, however, that every mortal experience with gender identity, or even every feeling associated with moral gendered embodiment, can and should be categorized as a temptation or as being depraved. We do not wish readers to come away from this using other persons’ emotional experiences related to gender as weapons against them. That being said, neither is every experience and feeling associated with moral gendered embodiment an unequivocally pure indicator that one’s gender is in opposition to one’s divine destiny to be sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. It is because it takes time to understand such a divine destiny that we are repeatedly invited to pray, study scripture, and participate in ordinances that remind us of our covenants on a regular basis that remind us that men and women are meant to be sealed together for time and eternity. 

Ty Mansfield, a well-known scholar who has done a lot of work on the intersection of faith and LGBT+ issues, has said this concerning how such a process takes time in order to realize the truth about gender and sexuality: 

… this journey demands greater patience, time, and a readiness to place our trust in God and the expansive cosmic design—requirements that often exceed the patience of prevailing cultural narratives about gender and sexuality.

As we attempt to make sense of the idea of gender as faithful latter-day saints, we ought to exercise our embodied gender in accordance with God’s divine purposes. Indeed, we will be held morally accountable for how we teach and live these divine laws. Ultimately, DGI asserts a conception of personhood in which all persons are relationally gendered, can know that truth through faith and revelation, and whose sexual behavior and identity are morally dependent upon God and others as taught and ensured in divine covenants.

Conclusion

Put side by side, we can see a clear difference between the assumptions of a contemporary understanding of gender identity and a divine understanding of gender identity. It is important that we are not deceived by the compelling narratives solely based on the feelings of the individual. Just as our religious ideas are grounded in a specific worldview, so too are those secular perspectives. Simply put, the assumptions of Cartesian dualism, radical subjectivism, and sexual moral relativism are not the same as the assumptions underlying the doctrines of the gospel. Therefore, we must be careful not to adopt these worldly perspectives on ‘identity’ because they contain falsities about who we are, why we are here, and how we should live our lives.

The voices of CGI convey that the gospel is too hard, too unloving, and too intolerant to remain committed to the gospel. Covenants, from this perspective, are a burden that makes life harder. However, as President Nelson has conveyed, “making and keeping covenants actually makes life easier!” While life may be easier on the covenant path, that does not mean that life will be easy.

President Nelson promises us that “As we strive to live the higher laws of Jesus Christ, our hearts and our very natures begin to change. The Savior lifts us above the pull of this fallen world by blessing us with greater charity, humility, generosity, kindness, self-discipline, peace, and rest.” Life is going to be hard, none of us are exempt from that reality. But, life on the covenant path, consistent with our moral gendered embodiment, is better and entails more blessings and peace than we can imagine.

The post The Givenness of Divine Gender Identity appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The WPATH Files

 Last year, whistleblowers leaked materials from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to reporter Michael Shellenberger, who released the files in March, along with a comprehensive report by writer Mia Hughes. The materials include a recording of a virtual panel discussion by medical and mental health providers as well as screenshots of case discussions among WPATH members, revealing improvised, unethical, and arguably illegal conduct.

These materials show that doctors are knowingly prescribing medications and performing experimental procedures on children and vulnerable adults who don’t fully understand the consequences and risks. As one psychologist said in the panel discussion, “It’s out of [minors’] developmental range sometimes to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them.” Panelists acknowledged that many parents of minors defer to so-called experts, with the same psychologist stating, “But what really disturbs me is when the parents can’t tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed up for.” 

Despite this lack of understanding and the providers’ awareness that some treatments eventually cause a lack of sexual functioning and sterility, another panelist—a pediatric endocrinologist—stated, “We still want the kids to be happier in the moment, right?”

Repeatedly, the documents reveal the propensity of gender-care providers to make ad hoc decisions not based on evidence. For instance, the forum discussions show clinicians offering various ideas for cases without referencing reputable studies or other evidence. In one conversation, providers discussed patients who appeared to have dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly known as multiple personality disorder. One clinician wonders whether others have experienced difficulty in getting all of their DID patients’ “alters” (additional personalities) to agree to medical transition, “especially given that not all the alters have the same gender identity.” Another clinician responds by saying he or she has “concern about transition” in such cases, but no one urges the clinician to wait to administer treatment until the clinician’s patients with DID are mentally stable. 

The providers also frequently acknowledge that they are in uncharted clinical territory, essentially running unsanctioned experiments on a highly vulnerable segment of the population. As documented in the report, one of several examples is an endocrinologist admitting to experimenting with testosterone dosages on females.

Respected organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and the Endocrine Society endorse WPATH guidelines and defer to their recommendations, as do many gender clinics and professionals across the country and throughout the world. In the Intermountain West, patients seeking gender transition surgeries come from Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming to Denver Health in Colorado and the University of Utah. Both hospitals tout their adherence to the latest WPATH standards of care. 

In response to the leaked files, WPATH president Marci Bowers released a statement that did not address concerns nor provide any support for the organization’s assertion that it is evidence-based. Instead, Bowers made a circular appeal to authority by stating that WPATH is “widely endorsed by major medical associations throughout the world.” In other words, WPATH is widely respected because it is widely respected.

Bowers wrote further, “We are the professionals who best know the medical needs of trans and gender diverse individuals. …The world is not flat. Gender, like genitalia, is represented by diversity.” Like the organization itself, Bowers’s statement is based on ideology, not science.

Another concern expressed in Hughes’ report is that the new standards of care removed all suggested age requirements for medical and surgical treatments of trans-identified youth. Psychologist Amy Tishelman, lead author of the child section in the standards of care, didn’t even try to claim this change was based on research. Instead, Tishelman said the removal was for “legal and insurance” reasons. “We wanted there to be some clinician judgment without being at risk for being held in court for not sticking completely to these standards. So we did write them in a way, I think, so that there is leeway.” 

The Cass Review

The Cass Review, commissioned four years ago by England’s National Health Service, is the most comprehensive review of youth gender medicine ever undertaken. Released on April 10, the findings peppered throughout its 388 pages are sobering: again and again, it decries the weak evidence underlying youth gender transition, the dearth of information regarding long-term outcomes of social and medical interventions, and the serious risk of major harm being done to our young people. 

 The Review notes the recent dramatic rise in transgender identification, particularly among young females, as well as the high rate of co-occurring conditions such as significant mental illness, autism, and trauma. Despite widespread claims that transition prevents suicide, the Review shows that these claims are unsupported by evidence. Further, it confirms that the guidelines developed by WPATH lack any scientific rigor. The review recommends a focus on holistic treatment for youth based on psychotherapy rather than experimental medical treatments.

In addition to England, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, France, and Finland have all substantially curtailed these treatments and now recommend a “therapy first” approach for minors and young adults. Other European countries may be “rethinking” their transition-first approaches.

The question now is, will the WPATH Files and the Cass Review have any influence here in the United States? At this time, federal government agencies and the influential scientific bodies that currently endorse WPATH standards do not appear to be changing course and may even be doubling down. And why would they not, with the money rolling in? A recent research report affirmed that the incredible growth of medical treatments for gender-related distress represents a financial bonanza for clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. With growth rates of almost 12% per year, the report projected that transition surgeries alone will balloon to a five billion dollar annual market by 2030.

One ray of light recently appeared in Utah with the opening of a new clinic that explicitly focuses on non-medical approaches to gender-related distress. It appears to be the first clinic of its kind in the U.S. to have this exclusive focus. (This article’s co-author is one of its founders.)

Gender-questioning youth have been poorly served by the medical and mental health establishment for far too long. They need thoughtful care that takes a holistic approach. The WPATH Files and the Cass Review make it increasingly clear that medical transition treatments for these youth are unscientific, unethical, and often harmful. We feel a professional and moral responsibility to call for a halt to all “gender-affirmative” medical interventions on minors, which are simply not based on good evidence.

The post The Consequences of Ideology-Driven Medicine for Transgender Teens appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The recently published Cass Review in the United Kingdom highlights the tumultuous debate surrounding gender-related distress and how to best provide professional support, particularly with young people. A little more than a year ago, Utah prohibited pharmaceutical and surgical transition for minors, following the lead of several other states and countries that have banned or severely curtailed these treatments for minors. At the same time, other states and countries have moved in the opposite direction, expanding access to these treatments and disciplining those who publicly oppose them. What is to be done? And what about the vulnerable young people and their families caught in the middle?

We agree with Dr. Hilary Cass when she urges clinicians and others on all sides to stop vilifying each other and instead engage in open, respectful debate about how to best conceptualize and treat gender distress. She describes the difficulty clients and families face in finding timely therapeutic support, and the need for clinicians to provide sensitive and cautious care to developing youth.

Yet research in this area is controversial and often generates seemingly contradictory conclusions. Sincere and caring providers come down on different sides of this issue and disagree, sometimes bitterly. While we respect the skills and devotion of medical providers, we believe, based on our own values and our understanding of the scientific research, that psychological and family therapy — without the inclusion of medical and social transition options — is the best treatment approach, especially among young people.

A deeper analysis by an independent researcher showed a more nuanced finding: roughly one-third of patients got worse, one-third stayed the same and one-third improved in their psychological function — accompanied by all the medical risks entailed in prolonged use of puberty blockers, including reduced bone density, height, infertility and stunted brain development. As a result, England has seriously curtailed these treatments for young people.

For years, the loudest voices have assured distraught parents that social transition, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are safe and easily reversible and provide such dramatic mental health benefits as to be “life-saving.” While some research suggests that these social and medical efforts sometimes improve client well-being, other research indicates that little to no benefit is derived from these interventions. Additionally, puberty blockers are often the first step in a more invasive and permanent transition process that includes cross-sex hormones and surgery.

Despite these side effects and questions over benefits, parents who do not believe medicalization is the best treatment route for their child sometimes feel pressured to travel down the medicalized pathway against their intuition. We believe psychological and family-centered treatments have much to offer gender-distressed clients and their families, and that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel — we just need to use it with this population. Regular, family-centered therapy can be used to promote strong relationships, body acceptance and authentic living.

As independent family therapists, we came together during the debate and passage of Utah’s HB40 law restricting medicalization and surgery for minors. We supported the law, but also understood that families would need more support than ever. The distress and anguish these young people and their families feel is real, and their need for support and effective treatment is great.

We recently founded the Gender Harmony Institute to implement best practices of regular, time-tested therapy in treating this population and pairing it with solid research that monitors the well-being of our clients even after they terminate treatment with us; follow-up is all too lacking in this area where there are still so many unknowns. We recognize that not all clients and families will want or will respond to treatment that is limited to psychological and family therapy. In these cases, we will flexibly adjust treatment interventions according to client responsiveness and well-being. If clients desire support for legal, social and/or medical transition, we will refer them to professionals to help them in these areas, while continuing to support their overall well-being.

Additionally, our nonprofit model allows us to receive grants and donations to provide subsidized care to a growing population that sometimes lacks economic means. For maximal impact, Gender Harmony Institute also plans to disseminate what we are learning through training and certification programs directed at other clinicians, parents and schools. We’re gathering caring providers in Utah and around the country to apply well-established and empirically validated psychological and family treatments for gender-related distress.

There are a variety of professional options to support families facing this complex experience.[/perfectpullquote]Three examples of clients we have treated demonstrate the power of this approach:

1. A teenage girl told her parents that she “really is a boy.” At first, she thought the only way to deal with her gender-related distress was to socially transition. She was highly anxious and vacillated between shutting down and becoming angry when talking to her parents about her experience.. We supported the family in strengthening their connection, accepting her experience of same-sex attraction, and navigating the challenges of female puberty. Now, she has far less anxiety about her relationship with her parents, her body and her sexuality, and happily identifies as a gender-nonconforming girl.

2. A young adult woman came in because her parents suggested that therapy would be helpful as she makes steps toward medicalization. Through therapy, she realized where some of her anxieties were coming from — difficulties fitting in with others in the past, neglect as a child, a strained relationship with her parents and difficulty maintaining employment. While she still feels unable to fully accept her body, she is more confident, has better relationships with her friends and parents, and is able to tolerate work she does not fully enjoy. She also has a better understanding of the risks and the reasons why she is choosing a medical pathway.

3. A teenage boy came to therapy at the insistence of his parents after he announced that he “is a girl.” He is autistic and had been struggling with his mental health and peer relationships. Through therapy, he noticed that he started thinking he was transgender when he was experiencing a depressive episode. We supported him in learning to better communicate with friends, regulate his emotions and engage in self-care — getting enough sleep, having a healthy relationship with tech, spending enough time outside and staying active. Now, he says he doesn’t think about gender very much, and focuses most of his energy on building healthy relationships and taking good care of himself.

These examples demonstrate the value of taking a comprehensive, family-focused approach to gender-related distress. There are a variety of professional options to support families facing this complex experience, and there is always opportunity for families to strengthen their relationships — even when strong disagreement persists. We invite clinicians, gender-related distress patients, families and community leaders to partner with us to support families and clients by helping them strengthen their relationships, accept their bodies and live authentically.

The post An Alternative to Gender Transition appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Wounds and Pornography

Jay Stringer is the author of a popular book written for individuals seeking help from sexual brokenness entitled Unwanted. Amazon states that it has sold over 100,000 copies. On his website, he writes the following, “What if your porn use could be a roadmap to healing, not a life sentence to sexual shame or addiction? That’s exactly what my research on over 3,800 men and women showed. I learned that there is nothing random about the fantasies we pursue and the porn we use. If we want to outgrow our involvement with pornography, we will need to identify the hidden drivers that bring us to it in the first place.” One of the main ideas of Jay’s work is that the very specifics of our sexual fantasies and addictive patterns can show us how we can heal. 

The website Fight the New Drug features an article written about how porn can misrepresent and fetishize LGBT+ individuals and relationships. In the article, they state that in 2019 the most popular gay porn categories on the website Pornhub were “Straight Guys” and “Daddy.” According to Jay Stringer, could that give us an indication of what gay men are really wanting to heal and what is driving their porn addiction? Could they be wanting to be accepted by the world of straight men, and could some gay men be wanting to heal their underlying father wounds? Like Corianton, could these men also be nourished by their brothers?

I can think of fewer topics less understood and prone to division in our world or in the Church today than the topic of human sexuality. Even our prophet, President Nelson, reminded us in his last conference address that we are living in a “sexualized” world as he taught us that “choosing to live a virtuous life in a sexualized, politicized world builds faith.”  

Adrenaline and Dopamine

In the past few years, our understanding of the hormones related to sexual desire has increased substantially. Among the new discoveries is that adrenaline and dopamine act in parallel and sometimes overlapping manners in our brains.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter of desire, attraction, and addiction and is a key driver in sexual behavior. Adrenaline is a neurotransmitter released in response to trauma and fear. However, high enough levels of adrenaline can bind to and stimulate the same receptors as dopamine, leading to an increase in the effectiveness of dopamine. Research into this has focused on education, not attraction. While these intersecting factors are extraordinarily complicated, for laypersons, this may explain Stringer’s observation that what we are attracted to can help us understand what has wounded us. 

While the idea of inflexible sexuality was popular from the nineties through the early oughts, the current consensus is that sexuality often changes over time. Research from 2022 found that within a 12-year period, 33% of people’s sexual attraction changed.

If excessive adrenaline and dopamine together can create sexual attraction, as these recent studies suggest may be possible, it may go a long way to understanding why this is.

Self-Directed Sexual Fluidity

This sexual fluidity has long been experienced by people who experience same-sex attraction but wish not to because of religious commitments.

Chuck, for example, experienced sexual fluidity away from same-sex attraction. In his experience, he describes, “What I was really seeking was non-sexual affirmation from the world of men. Sexual gratification never filled the underlying void. I felt deep in my core that I was not homosexual; rather, I had sexualized those male qualities that I judged that I never possessed—sports ability, a muscular physique and other masculine physical qualities, strength of character, and more—all things that I deemed different from me.”

Jerry similarly explained his sexual fluidity from homosexuality to heterosexuality, “I’ve come to realize that this attraction is an emotional one for me. When my core emotional needs are met by men in healthy, non-sexual ways, my SSA automatically decreases.”

Whether or not this sexual fluidity can be directed, as these men claim in their experience, remains a controversial subject. Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) have been disclaimed by the APA. But their February 2021 decision was based not on evidence that SOCE causes harm, but rather a lack of evidence either way as well as an ideological position that the existence of SOCE can result in stigmatization.

Perhaps our new paradigm on sexuality should lead us to see this not so much as sexual orientation change efforts, as described by the APA, but rather self-directed sexual fluidity. 

Nourished by My Brothers

A couple of years ago, I opened up to a few close friends and to my wife that I was struggling internally with unwanted sexual attraction toward men. I had experienced these feelings ever since I was a young boy and hadn’t talked to anyone about them for many years. I felt trapped and felt an intense amount of shame. I was drawn to sexual images of men and viewed them as foreign, unfamiliar objects. Opening up about these feelings was terrifying for me, but how grateful I am for loving priesthood leaders and friends who have shown me Christ-like compassion and have helped me to feel love, and to help me with my fears of emotional male intimacy. My sexual attraction to men has greatly decreased. I don’t fantasize about being close to men because I feel close to them in real life. I have been nourished by my brothers.

I began meeting monthly with my stake president, who read numerous helpful books with me, and we talked about what I was learning. I received several priesthood blessings from him that gave me comfort and guidance. He listened to my greatest fears, my biggest aches, my past mistakes, and sins, and reassured me of our Savior’s healing power and of forgiveness and repentance. 

During this time, I started going on a walk once a week before work with my best friend from high school, who specializes in mental and emotional release work. We talked about what I had experienced in my life in regard to a difficult relationship with my father and other peer wounds and relationships. He lovingly listened to me and helped me process things. He helped me change my internal emotional response and false beliefs related to my past experiences. 

I also began talking to other men and to a therapist who similarly experienced same-sex attraction. I learned about how our stories were similar but also were sometimes different. It has been very helpful for me to find men I can relate to in a way that I can’t with others, who have experienced many of the same feelings that I have, and that has also helped me reduce shame. 

I bought a mountain bike and took a redemptive risk of opening up to and spending time weekly with my brother-in-law and other safe men mountain biking. I learned more about and experienced intimately and personally the world of men that I have often felt apart from. This was very intimidating and scary for me, but with time, I began to feel that I belonged, that I wasn’t different, and that men were safe people I could get close to. I learned that I could talk about my feelings and what I experienced. I learned that I wasn’t that different from them in many ways, and more and more, I began to feel like I belonged with them. My brother-in-law always gives me a big hug and tells me that he loves me after we spend time together. This has meant so much to me and helped me to feel safe and accepted by him, and has been very healing. It has given me the confidence to develop other healing relationships with men.

A Gospel of Compassion. A Gospel of Healing

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is full of hope and healing, repentance and change. Christ always healed with compassion and turned people’s wounds into opportunities for connection, empathy, and belonging. This is the antidote to the highly sexualized world we live in—true Christlike covenant belonging. The Savior showed us by His actions how to help the outcast, to help those who were misunderstood, those who were different, and those who were hurting. He changed fear, trauma, and false beliefs to safety, love, belonging, faith, and peace. He also healed the inner vessel first before the outer.

Is it no wonder President Nelson has pleaded with us lately to be peacemakers? To keep our covenants and to walk the often narrow and uphill covenant path that is so different from the way of the world? To avoid labels that can hinder our progress and growth? To strive to minister in a higher and holier way to our fellow men? To avoid any addictions and to seek spiritual and professional help as needed? And to prepare the world for the second coming of our Savior by learning how to love others better? 

It is my belief that as we minister to and nourish those around us, we can become saviors on Mount Zion by helping save our fellow men who are held captive by the entanglements of addiction, trauma, unwanted attractions, shame, and false beliefs. I have surely felt others doing this for me, helping me fulfill my life mission and reach my full potential. If we do not do that—surely they will continue to turn elsewhere for those needs to be met. 

I know that I will forever be grateful for those who have helped me and how grateful I am to my Heavenly Father that I have been able to, like Corianton, be nourished by my brothers.

The post Sexual Fluidity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Once after a breakup, I reminisced to a friend about how I missed my ex-boyfriend, remembering how I appreciated him trying to take care of me and demonstrating he would be a good protector and provider. My friend lectured me, telling me I was being sexist for my comments and that I should be a strong, independent woman who didn’t “need” a relationship. According to her, nothing about dating or relationships should reflect a difference in gender. Specifically, she said that men opening doors for women is backward, and there shouldn’t be any regard for gender in offering such gestures. Her comments seemed to reflect the attitude of many in today’s culture.

Despite modern society’s insistence, the idea that men and women aren’t inherently different and any gesture implying that they are is wrong goes against our nature. When a man walks a woman to her door after a date, he is reflecting his responsibility to protect, and the woman is likely going to appreciate it. That is the way we inherently are, and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to deny that is denying our nature. 

Dating rituals such as men holding the door open or walking the girl to her door make a date different than hanging out. I agree with Brett McKay; if men and women act the same way on a date as they would getting tacos with friends, then dates lose some of what makes them interesting, fun, and special.

As I thought about it, stigmatizing the celebration of gender differences in courtship privileges homosexual relationship ideals over heterosexual ones. Erasing gender differences might work if one is pursuing a same-sex relationship, but it’s straight-phobic to expect heterosexuals to have the same ideals. As a heterosexual woman, I don’t want a relationship with a guy who acts just like a woman. I want a man. And the men I know generally appreciate women who are not only intelligent and capable but who embrace their femininity. Heterosexuals aren’t interested in the opposite gender just because of physical attraction but because they are different. Celebrating these differences makes relationships, especially romantic ones, not only more meaningful but interesting.

Progressives are offended by the notion that the genders are different and that women should strive for femininity while men strive for masculinity. But this is them placing their post-gender values on heterosexual, cis-gender people. It’s like a new form of imperialism.

When I express the importance of men embracing masculinity, many of my progressive friends think I expect men to be toxic, emotionless brutes. But for the most part, traditional masculinity has offered more range for masculine expression than many modern thinkers give it credit for. In “The Necessity of Chivalry,” C. S. Lewis explains that chivalry encourages men to be brave and gentle, explaining that they need to encourage their protective instincts when necessary while also being sensitive enough to express tender feelings when appropriate. I’ve known men who enjoy choir and other stereotypically “soft” interests, but I still consider them to be masculine if they willingly embrace their responsibilities as protectors and providers. Masculine ideals have more often been like how C. S. Lewis describes Lancelot as both fighting courageously in battle and being meek in court rather than being Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.

Unfortunately, we often aren’t teaching young men how to express chivalry. Our culture used to have rules to help navigate courtship. Now young adults are entering the dating world with little idea of what “rules” to follow. This creates problems because many women want men to act like gentlemen, but many young men don’t know how. I’ve been surprised how many guys I’ve been on dates with seem oblivious to gestures such as walking me to my door afterward, but I can’t blame them because they likely weren’t taught to.

As Brett McKay expressed, “Rules and traditions give life texture and meaning.” For too long, our society has attempted to erase rules and tradition, and as a result, many young people are confused and wandering. It’s time to recommit to celebrating our differences and the rituals that make courtship different than hanging out.

The post More than a Door: Celebrating Gender Difference in Courtship appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When choosing to associate with a group, you have to consider the implications and effects the group has as a whole. In recent years our prophets and apostles have implored us to seek to understand the experience of our LGBT+ brothers and sisters. At a BYU devotional in 2017, and in regard to members of the Church with an experience under the LGBT+ acronym,  Elder Ballard said, “We must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord.” 

At the same time, pride celebrations are advertised by many as the best way to show LGBT+ people love and support. This juxtaposition has led some to the conclusion that the brethren are instructing us to use pride celebrations as the catalyst for showing “support” for LGBT+ people. But what message are we sending when we support such a movement?

Church members who engage with pride do so either oblivious to the more radical and sexual aspects of the movement or ignore them—writing them off as mere aberrations to the general purpose of the movement.  You can individually decide to engage with pride and have the best intentions, but that doesn’t mean you have control over the totality of the message it sends. As one in the thick of squaring my sexuality and religious values, I ask you to consider the impact pride has on the most impressionable members of the Church. 

The Loudest Message of Pride 

The pride movement isn’t a monolith or even a structured organization. There are gradations of radicalism within the pride movement, and there’s not one single organization we can point to and critique. We can, however, look at the trends and loudest opinions coming from those who engage with it.

Ahead of the event, it received national criticism. In response to the backlash, the organization in charge of the event posted on Instagram that they made further efforts to ensure the event was family-friendly. This included having the performers only go by the first part of the drag queen’s name since many of them were sexual puns. Still, when videos of the event surfaced, a drag queen danced in explicitly sexual ways. 

There are also events like the Loveloud music festival. Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons stands as an unofficial cultural leader of pride celebrations and puts on events like the Loveloud music festival. The goals of the event are two-fold: provide support for LGBT+ people, and campaign religious organizations like the Church to change their doctrine. 

HBO funded a documentary that followed the creation of this event. At the climax of the film, there’s an introspective montage of Reynolds walking the grounds of Temple Square. The filmmakers juxtaposed these shots with footage from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’s talk “Love and Law,” in which he reaffirms the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. He gave this talk shortly after the first Loveloud festival. During the montage, they cut to Reynolds voicing his disappointment with Oaks’s message, as if to say, “We failed in our goal.” While it’s clear that cultural figures such as Reynolds have a genuine concern for LGBT+ people, it’s just as clear that they share a common goal: pressure the Church to change its doctrine regarding marriage.

Doctrinal Uncertainty 

Pride celebrations have and continue to influence the culture of the Church. One of the effects of pride is the increase in doctrinal uncertainty and speculation. It’s all too common to run across members of the Church, with varying levels of activity, who entertain or sanction the idea of doctrine on the family changing to include same-sex unions or gender expansiveness. More often than not, these same church members are those who are also active in pride celebrations and view their political activism as a kind of missionary work. They take the more radical activists at their word that pride celebrations are the best way to show love, and they don’t dare to suggest other methods.

When we engage with the pride movement, whether intentionally or not, we are promoting the message that doctrinal change is the only acceptable way forward—or at least, that it’s a strong possibility. Please consider how spiritually damaging this message can be for gay/SSA and gender dysphoric Latter-day Saints. 

Imagine you’re undergoing therapy, and your therapist helps you outline a plan of action to help you overcome some social anxiety you’ve been feeling. The plan is thorough, specific, and comprehensive. It outlines specific tasks for you to complete each day, goals to work toward, methods to overcome negative thought cycles, and a rough timeline for when to complete each thing. You both feel good about the plan, and you leave feeling motivated. 

When you get back home, you get a text from your therapist:

“Oh, by the way, I may change my mind on all of what we talked about today before your next appointment.”

“You—what?” you ask.

“Yeah, I might decide that everything we outlined will actually make things worse for you. I haven’t decided yet, but it’s a pretty good possibility. Just do your best to stick to it, and we can discuss it at our next appointment. I’ll have my secretary message you if I change my mind.”

Would this make it easier or harder to follow the plan? Would it inspire or destroy confidence in your therapist? How are you supposed to follow the plan if it’s all but inevitable to change completely?

Now, raise the stakes to an infinite degree as we compare this analogy to the pursuit of eternal progression for gay Latter-day Saints. How are we supposed to commit ourselves to the gospel with the possibility of fundamental doctrinal changes hanging over our heads? 

I didn’t grow up with that idea as a common talking point, but I can only imagine how difficult that would be to a young, impressionable, gay/SSA Latter-day Saint already having trouble finding their place in the Church. This type of thinking inevitably leads to a state of religious paralysis. Gay Latter-day Saints in this category likely wouldn’t want to leave the prescribed path of happiness they believe in so deeply, but committing themselves to something with such a flimsy foundation seems fruitless. So instead, they exist in religious limbo, too dedicated to Jesus Christ to leave the fold but too uncertain about the future of our doctrine to progress in a healthy direction. We talk at length about the mental health of gay/SSA and gender dysphoric Latter-day Saints, and rightly so. Aside from the obvious atrocity of familial shunning, what other factor could negatively impact their mental health as much as this type of religious whiplash?

Some see doctrinal speculation as a way of providing comfort for church members with these experiences. Squaring same-sex attraction with a covenant life isn’t easy, and it can cause real distress. When someone is feeling distressed, it’s natural to want to find someone or something accessible to blame. When someone we love is hurting, we feel a distinctive push to vindicate their suffering at any cost. In some cases, members of the Church with LGBT+ family or friends start viewing the doctrine of eternal families as an obstacle instead of the very reason for living the gospel.  They start adopting what I call the “maybe someday” language, which acts as a band-aid for cognitive dissonance instead of setting them up for success on their spiritual journey.

The most compassionate thing we could do for gay/SSA and gender dysphoric Latter-day Saints is to treat them like any other church member—be forthright and understanding while discussing the doctrine of eternal families. Don’t relegate your message to a slew of speculation or empty promises. Teach the doctrine simply and with love, so we know what’s expected of us and can move forward in our pursuit to know Christ.

As Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt warned last General Conference, “These lesser, secular approaches are beneath you and can be lethal to the long-term faithfulness of your child … I know from personal experience that teaching your beloved child why we all desperately need Jesus Christ and how to apply His joyful doctrine is what will strengthen and heal him or her.”

How Can We Support?

There are better ways to support our LGBT+ brothers and sisters than engaging with pride celebrations. First, let us define our terms. What do our prophets and apostles mean when they implore us to “support” our LGBT+ brothers and sisters?

“Kindness” has become “cheery, whole-hearted agreement.”

“Disagreement” now means “erasure.”

And “Love” is defined as “fully affirming  my morality, choices, and actions.”

Not only does this make conversations more confusing, it makes them all but fruitless. Instead of talking with one another, we talk past each other, each using the same words to mean completely different things. Then, instead of arguing about the substance of an idea, we argue about definitions and then leave feeling frustrated rather than understood.

In the Book of Mormon, shortly after the prophet Lehi dies, Nephi speaks the words of his heart. “I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness;” 

Recognizing that it was sin that caused his heart to groan, Nephi explained how God supported him through those trials. God didn’t just comfort Nephi during his trials; He didn’t just tell Nephi what he wanted to hear or only listen to his groaning; He helped Nephi leave his sins behind and cling to Him.

Same-sex relationships aren’t the only place we find sin. There are a host of ways we distance ourselves from God. But few sins are more celebrated than same-sex relationships. Few diversions from the covenant path are more lauded than gender transitions. 

I’m not suggesting that we abrasively find every opportunity to tell those committing sexual sin that they are. There are different ways to stand for truth in different scenarios. When we’re speaking with an individual personally, we should handle it much differently than if we’re posting something publicly. What I am suggesting is that we remain mindful of the importance of pointing others to Christ. No path will lead to more joy than the covenant path. 

As Elder D. Todd Christofferson reminded us, “… the first commandment must be first because attempts at love that are not grounded in God’s truths risk harming the person or persons we are trying to help.” When we value being right more than helping an individual, we’ll just push them further away. At the same time, if we value cordiality more than truth, we’ll quickly abandon truth in an attempt to remain cordial.  

The balance of grace and truth is the hardest one to achieve; it’s also the most important. Without grace, we’ll serve as barriers to others finding Christ; without truth, our grace will comfort others in their voyage away from Christ.  

It’s one thing to tolerate others celebrating what they want; it’s another thing entirely to join them in a celebration that serves to cut against our religious beliefs—beliefs of which, by our own admission, help the most vulnerable to succeed.

If we truly believe this is Christ’s Church restored to the earth, it makes sense to believe in the reality of the plan of salvation. If we believe in the reality of the plan of salvation, it’s morally consistent to believe that marriage between a man and a woman sets us on the spiritual trajectory toward ultimate and lasting joy. If someone we love is deviating from that plan, why would we celebrate that? We can honor their choices, maintain the relationship as much as they’re willing, and genuinely cheer on their successes in life. But having an understanding of the plan of salvation means pointing our loved ones toward the Savior, not the world.

The post Beyond the Rainbow: Supporting LGBT+ Saints Faithfully appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

We enjoyed the recent Public Square exchange between Jacob Hess and Patrick Mason and appreciated the way both of them discussed potentially difficult issues with respect and open-mindedness. We found a lot to like with Brother Mason’s views but were stopped short by something he said about the Church’s long-standing teachings on gender, sexuality, and family. Patrick articulated a view held by some of our fellow Latter-day Saints, as well as many of our doctrinal detractors: 

When it comes to gender, sexuality, and marriage, I think that over the past two decades, liberals and progressives have done a better job than conservatives of making persuasive arguments for their positions. I think conservatives have often been flat-footed and have resorted to defending their positions based purely on authority or tradition (both of which are central to the conservative worldview, of course). Frankly, liberals and progressives have, in recent decades, won the contest of ideas.

Patrick is reading the cultural landscape well when he notes the dominance of progressive views in these areas. In the Latter-day Saint space alone, left-leaning writers have been active in promulgating multiple book-length treatments either explicitly defending same-sex marriage or sidelining the centrality of male-female marriage in Christian faith. And more broadly, the progressive ideological offensive has been impressive, while defenses of the truths about gender and sexuality found in The Family: A Proclamation to the World are more difficult to find, particularly if one is not looking for them. 

One reason for this is that many mainstream publishers and writers either oppose the Church’s position or, more commonly, just avoid discussing and defending it altogether. And even within our faith, when was the last time you’ve seen a book-length defense of the Church’s positions on marriage, sexuality, and gender at faithful publication houses or by anyone teaching at Church Universities?

So, yes—Patrick has a point. The disparity he describes is partially correct, especially since progressives have won the decades-long battle to shift public opinion. This has been a patient, long-term, and concerted campaign, followed carefully as detailed by activists and advertising experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (writing as Erastes Pill) in a 1987 blueprint document called “The Overhauling of Straight America” and expanded in Kirk’s 1990 book After the Ball. The spectacular success can be seen in Gallup surveys, which show support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage on par with heterosexual marriage climbing from a mere 27% in 1996 to an all-time high of 71% last June. 

Seemingly with the wind at their backs, progressive writers have been much more assertive in promoting their views and have dominated cultural consciousness in a way that makes it seem like the ideological contest is over.  

There is more to the story, however.

For instance, it’s worth spending a little more time asking why conservatives are sometimes more hesitant to write and share on these topics. And when they do, are they really only pointing back to authority and tradition? 

Strong incentives not to share. A sense of progressive dominance is no doubt reinforced by conservative scholars and commentators too often feeling reluctant to speak out because of concerns about academic or social opposition. Consistently, Blake Fisher wrote last year wrote about this hesitance to speak among Latter-day Saint sexual minorities who embrace the teachings of the Church:

LGBT+/SSA Latter-day Saints who are “all-in” (fully committed to Jesus Christ, His Church, and revealed doctrine) are engaging less with public conversations about their experiences for multiple reasons. This is partly due to exhaustion with patronizing pushback from other LGBT+/SSA individuals and “allies.” The desire for privacy also arises from personal revelation, an increased focus on other aspects of life, and a desire to avoid “story-weaponization.”

That doesn’t remove the responsibility for the faithful to raise their voices more and with greater frequency. But even when they do (and they do a lot more than is being noted, as we will outline below), current societal trends make it far less likely that their arguments end up being passed along and known. This further siloing of more orthodox thought makes the case for the Church’s position seem less defensible than it really is. For instance, Patrick himself appears to be almost wholly unfamiliar with a great deal of work that has been done, which spans the gamut from scientific research, to moral philosophy, to legal arguments, to multimedia productions meant for popular consumption. Could that be, in part, because a secularizing higher education both fails to introduce people to these ideas and actively disincentives people from seeking them out? Especially if your own intuitions and preferences are not aligned with these truths, it would seem highly unlikely for anyone to come into contact with these kinds of resources.   

LGBT+ activists and advocates have been so successful at branding orthodox views (or, might we say, “unorthodox”) as “homophobic” or “hateful” that it’s little wonder that academics who wish to be taken seriously in the larger academy would seek to distance themselves from them.

Beyond the political bifurcation. It’s true that many people operating with more typical conservative intuitions of authority and tradition have often appealed to those sources in their efforts to defend the Church’s teachings. But lest you think we’re about to review a list of “right wing” or exclusively “conservative” texts below, one final clarification is crucial. In so many of these discussions, we’re still taking for granted an unnecessary binary—the idea that there are basically two ideological camps: the liberal and progressives camp generally allied on the left against the conservative camp on the right. The problem with this binary of left and right is that it sidelines and overlooks another stance—that of orthodoxy. 

In an article series on conservative and liberal religion, Dan wrote last year:

Every belief system—including secular systems like science—has an orthodoxy, which is a way of thinking that allows the belief system to fulfill its promises. In the case of science, scientific orthodoxy is to experiment using the scientific method, leading to results that are objective and replicable. As Latter-day Saints, we have a belief system that, from the early days of the restoration, has offered connection to God, experience with the gifts of the spirit, continuous divine influence in the Church, a system of divinely-ordained leadership, and a loving, supportive community that can turn outward and spread God’s influence into the world. Latter-day Saint orthodoxy, then, is an approach to faith—sometimes conservative and sometimes liberal—that enables us to experience these promised fruits of our religion. (additional emphasis our own)

We speak from a position of orthodoxy within a Latter-day Saint worldview—not progressive, not conservative—firmly believing that there is a right way to view the Church’s teachings on gender, sexuality, and family—one essentially in line with God’s own words and will. And in parallel, our starting point here is sustaining: the basic commitment to give church leadership the benefit of the doubt. This commitment to sustain is especially relevant when Church leaders are speaking consistently, with a united voice, and over an extended period of time. There are few areas of church teachings where these patterns are more apparent than in the Church’s teachings on gender, sexuality, and family, much as many might wish otherwise. 

The key point here is that socio-political progressives may be more aligned with Church doctrine on some points, while socio-political conservatives may be more aligned with the Church on other points—but clearly established Church doctrine becomes the starting point, rather than any particular socio-political worldview. The problem for those who start with their preferred socio-political worldview is that they are likely to sustain the Church only when it agrees with their worldview and to be critical of the Church when it disagrees with them. As President Dallin H. Oaks has articulated, “Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”

By the way, something interesting happens when we shift our thinking from conservative-liberal to orthodox-unorthodox. We find that there are allies of various aspects of the Church’s position all across the ideological spectrum. Far from its boring and stodgy reputation, orthodoxy, as Neal A. Maxwell taught us long ago, is a fertile, refreshing, and continually surprising intellectual and spiritual undertaking. That’s why, while we are both believing and sustaining Latter-day Saints, we will sometimes be citing non-theists and others who hold views that, in some areas, may be actively hostile to the restored gospel. Truth is truth, whether it is spoken by friends or enemies of our faith.

May we, then, seek truth together, rather than resist any particular view due to overactive socio-political hypervigilance. As is clear below, books are only one resource to consider, with a great number of other genres worth examining. Unlike some other articles that we might just read through and ignore the hyperlinks if we really want to become familiar with the ecosystem of orthodox arguments, readers should click through and read or watch the hyperlinked content in order to fully grasp the points being made. We are merely annotating key references here in a kind of guided tour. 

1. Sexuality

Although discussed popularly as an obvious and taken-for granted reality, it’s worth noting at the outset long-standing debates about what sexual orientation even is. In recent years, as science has continued to erode some of the simplistic and problematic constructs of sexual orientation and identity, lesbian-identified psychologist, Lisa Diamond, and a progressive professor of constitutional law, Clifford Rosky, both of the University of Utah, have worked to develop and articulate a case for LGBTQ rights that doesn’t rely on the sympathies of the “born gay” thesis, given that the science doesn’t support it. Additionally, Michael W. Hannon, writing from a Christian perspective, outlines the moral problems with sexual orientation as a concept in his provocatively titled essay “Against Heterosexuality.” Some of these ideas are reaching a larger audience, as you can see here and here.

Why does any of this matter? Our own years of careful observation have led us to the conviction that the ability and willingness to follow church teachings on sexuality have more to do with how we frame our sexuality rather than the intensity or character of our sexual desire. It’s not so much what our sexual feelings are that defines success here, but how we think about our sexuality. Even so, we hardly ever think about how we think. BYU-I Professor Jeffrey Thayne helps us correct that problem in this fascinating presentation on worldviews, using the Proclamation on the Family as an example. An accessible book-length treatment of many of these ideas is also found in philosophy professor James Smith’s How (Not) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor. 

This is why we consider deeper questions of identity foundational to any discussion of sexuality. In 2011, Yale professor Joshua Knobe discussed his and his colleagues’ research on competing notions of identity and how they relate to sexuality in his New York Times article, “In Search of the True Self.” In our view, Carl Trueman’s book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self is essential reading for understanding the intellectual pedigree of modern notions of identity. (For those who want to sample his thesis before diving into the book, you can watch Trueman present portions of his book’s thesis here, here, and here). 

Far from mere philosophical debates, there are distinctive personal and practical consequences for the particular identity narrative we embrace. For a rigorous survey of population survey data demonstrating that LGBT+ identities are increasing, and are strongly associated with both progressive political leanings and poorer mental health, see Eric Kaufmann’s study, “Born This Way? The Rise of LGBT as a Social and Political Identity.” We’ve also weighed in on these competing notions of identity, in Jeff’s piece entitled “Whose Image are You Seeking in Your Countenance?” and Dan’s series of essays, “Our Deepening Divide Over Identity,” “Intersectional Anger on the Left and Right,” and “The Only True Love of Self.” 

Identity questions aside, is it ever proper for a society to privilege married heterosexual behavior above other forms of sexual expression—especially one that forbids enshrining any particular religious belief in legislation or public policy? Latter-day Saint writer Brian Sabey has compiled eight entirely secular and non-religious reasons why establishing this form of sexual expression as the preferred social norm makes sense. Activist thinkers might object to the presence of any kind of social norm as inherently oppressive, but in fact social norms are essential to any functioning society, as this primer explains thoroughly. Once we understand that, then the important question for society to consider is whether certain norms are good for society or harmful.

In the larger culture war over homosexuality, slogans like “born that way” and “nature not nurture” were used to argue that sexual orientation wasn’t chosen and, therefore, same-sex behavior should have no moral opprobrium attached to it. (Implicit in this argument was the idea that what you feel should dictate how you act, in harmony with the larger goals of the sexual revolution.) While this was definitely preferable to the formerly dominant view of homosexuality as a disease or mental disorder, it’s important to note that both of these (seeing homosexuality either as a disease or as an immutable attribute) were also at odds with the traditional religious view of sexuality, which is that it’s something you do, not something you are. This also explains a common way traditionally religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims can talk past their progressive interlocutors and even cause unintended offense because when the former criticize homosexuality, they are usually referring to behavior, whereas the latter usually understand it as an essential and unchangeable aspect of one’s being, which is very hard not to take personally. (Carl Trueman nicely explains the problem here.)

But is it even true that sexual attractions cannot ever change? No. Despite what you have heard and how it has been portrayed, all objective researchers who have studied the question have discovered that, for some people, it absolutely does. Sometimes that change is dramatic so that the direction of attractions shifts. And other times, this is merely a shift in the intensity of the attractions, or even a broadening of attractions, for example, from exclusively homosexual to a more bisexual orientation. We explored this in our recent article “A Few Questions Before You Try to Change The Church.” A more rigorous academic discussion of this phenomenon can be found in the work of Lisa Diamond whom we mentioned previously. One presentation by Professor Diamond is here, though many others are available. Finally, we recommend the recent podcast discussion “Is Hormonal Birth Control Causing More Women To Become Bisexual?” for understanding how women’s physiology leads to a more fluid experience of sexual orientation than is experienced by men. 

A helpful discussion of the various dimensions and complexities of sexuality, including attraction/aversion, orientation, identity, fixity, and fluidity, is found in Ty Mansfield’s 2014 FAIR Conference address, “‘Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay’? An LDS Perspective.” We also recommend a valuable follow-up discussion by him, “Loving Truth and Truly Loving: Mapping the Problems and Possibilities in the Latter-day Saint/LGBTQ+ Conversation” from the 2022 FAIR Conference. 

To be very clear, these citations are not prescriptive and not an attempt to dictate to anyone the nature of their specific experience of sexual orientation (in fact, the extremely varied, changeable, and complex nature of these things is one of the reasons we generally are opposed to putting sexualities in neatly-labeled but ever-expanding boxes like ‘L’, ‘G’, ‘B’, ‘Q’, ‘A’, ‘P’, etc.). Furthermore, there is plenty we still do not understand about sexuality. What these readings can do is help to expand our understanding of sexual orientation and identity to see the complexities that are often missed by people entrenched in the simplistic and reductionist culturally-dominant paradigm.

2. Gender

Gender is now the most heated battleground in the culture wars, and language is one of its primary battlegrounds, as Dr. Valerie Hudson recently observed. Yet we must not neglect the very real experience of gender dysphoria that absolutely needs to be recognized and understood better than it has been in the past. (If it was recognized at all in the past, it was usually only to be mocked.) This experience where an individual feels a keen dissonance between their biological sex and inner sense of gender is sometimes described as a feeling that one has been “born in the wrong body.” It is a human experience worthy of compassion and understanding. 

We believe it’s possible to do just this, while simultaneously seeing with concern the deliberate deconstruction of gender as something doing real damage for these same precious brothers and sisters. The significant consequences involved have led to pushback from surprising places. Camille Paglia, Martina Navratilova, J. K. Rowling, and feminist icon Germaine Greer are among the most prominent critics of gender theory coming from politically liberal and feminist ranks. Agree or disagree, their critiques are worth considering. Female-to-male transsexual Aaron Kimberly identifies queer theory as a narrative that carries a significant personally damaging impact, and Paul Kraus points out its underappreciated connection to Marxism. (Juxtaposing these Marxist roots with Miquel Misse’s discussion of profit motivating some of the actors involved highlights an unexpected alliance between Marxist activism and Capitalism).

There’s no question that, presently, the medicalized approach to gender incongruence is supreme. The United States federal government, several other countries, prominent medical and psychological associations, and prestigious scientific journals all endorse what is called “gender affirmative care” and confidently claim the concept of humans as either male or female (the binary nature of sex) is false. They go on to assert that the research overwhelmingly shows that what they call “gender-affirming hormones” (including puberty blockers) and “gender confirmation surgery” have high patient satisfaction, reduce gender dysphoria, and at any rate, aren’t optional anyway because the only alternative is inevitable suicide. 

With such an impressive array of consensus, surely this must reflect an incredibly robust, broadly replicated evidence base? Not at all. A more careful look at the research shows that mental health outcomes are ambivalent at best, and some interventions may actually worsen mental health. Indeed, the sex researcher James Cantor (who would surely disagree with many of our points in #1) issued in 2018 a thorough “fact check” of the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents,” showing that the research cited does not support the conclusions they make. (And, to the earlier point, even though his article was well-supported, Mr. Cantor could find no reputable journal willing to publish his rebuttal, so it can only be found, self-published, on his own website.)

There’s no question that in the short term, most people who have transitioned report high satisfaction and improved mental health. Longer term and with more objective measures, the research is much less clear. One of the most prominent and highly touted studies showing improvement in mental health actually demonstrated only slight improvements in mental health. And when the data were more closely evaluated, the entire study was corrected to show “no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison.” The authors also admitted their original conclusion was “too strong.” (Of course, the correction to the study got nowhere near the attention garnered by the original study).

Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir went through all sixteen of the best studies purporting to show an advantage to “gender-affirming care” for young people. Try comparing for yourself Sapir’s careful critique of them with the initial claims about these studies by an advocate of the gender affirmative model. To most fair-minded readers, it quickly becomes clear these studies are low-quality, of limited applicability, and have much lower certainty than they are usually portrayed to have in the popular press (even when they are cited by most scientific and regulatory bodies). A recent review of the two foundational Dutch studies which inaugurated pediatric gender transition likewise demonstrates fatal flaws in the research design involved.  The authors remind us that “the burden of proof—demonstrating that a treatment does more good than harm—is on those promoting the intervention, not on those concerned about the harms.” (Emphasis in original.) More broadly, Dr. Jay Cohn, an endocrinologist, has published a comprehensive and yet highly readable review of the many problems with pediatric gender transition.

Regarding the claim that “gender dysphoric individuals must be allowed to transition or they will commit suicide,” Sapir has another article discussing the many highly problematic aspects of this dangerous and harmful claim. 

Widening our lens to the broader issues of public policy, Sapir describes how many countries and health care systems are backing off the affirmative model and moving towards a more cautious, “talk therapy first” model. Riveting documentaries like the Swedish-produced Trains Train (with part two here) and the Dutch-language “Transgender Regret” (where this medical approach was originally pioneered) probably played an important role in this. Neither of these is in English, but they do have English subtitles, and we highly recommend both of them.

These documentaries were among the first to recognize the growing number of stories of people who have experienced what we might call deconversion from gender ideology, and speaking from their own personal experience, they are directly challenging narratives of the innateness of transgender identity.

Known as detransitioners and desisters, you can read about them in the Quillette article series, “When Sons Become Daughters,” along with the stories of detransitioners chronicled by Benjamin Boyce. Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage (a good presentation distilling her findings is here) and Deborah Soh’s book The End of Gender; the YouTube channel chronicling the insights of a gradual desister, “Call Me Sam,” and the forthcoming documentary “Affirmation Generation” as some examples of this apparently growing phenomenon. Scott Newgent chronicles some of the underappreciated side effects of female-to-male surgeries.

Detransioned commentator Michelle Alleva offers on her substack a compelling visual before-and-after representation of the process she underwent, shifting from a narrative where “trans” served as the overriding narrative that explained all of her life experiences to a more thorough and patient investigation of a more varied set of explanations. Similarly, Chloe Cole describes how recklessly she was initially assessed for her gender dysphoria, how easily she was prescribed cross-sex hormones, how little follow up she received, and then how actively hostile her health care providers became when she eventually decided to desist.

In a striking counterexample, the patient deliberation involved in thoroughly examining the varied factors contributing to gender dysphoria in one young woman was highlighted in another remarkable article by the psychologist mother of a teen girl: “To My Daughter’s Therapist: You Were Wrong.” 

There are many other aspects of this discussion worth considering. For instance, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright explains how sex is binary, not a spectrum, as many now assert. For further explorations, we recommend these websites, which compile research and discussion from secular sources on gender issues that do not follow the dominant narrative: The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Genspect, and 4th Wave Now. 

There is no question that many of the stories and research we cite in this section are hotly disputed by trans activists insofar as they are aware of them. Agree or disagree, however, our purpose in highlighting them here is to demonstrate that the case for the dominant view of gender is far from settled or proven. 

On a practical level, what can be done? No one wants these individuals to suffer unnecessarily from gender dysphoria or from potentially permanent side effects from medications like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, let alone surgeries that may not resolve the root of the problem anyway (as even the New York Times has now admitted). And yet anything except medicalization is instantly dismissed as harmful “conversion therapy” that should be avoided at all costs. Still, the tide is shifting. Psychotherapists Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad have a popular podcast that offers many constructive ideas to fellow therapists, parents, and individuals, as does the SEGM, as linked above. The Gender Exploratory Therapy Association recently released a guide for therapists treating youth and may even be able to help you find a more helpful therapist who won’t just rush to affirmation and transition. These can be quite difficult to find through normal means because of the threats made to therapists who do not push surgical and medical treatments. In fact, it may even be illegal in some jurisdictions. 

Other kinds of interventions might be helpful in the treatment of gender dysphorias, such as those developed for derealization and depersonalization disorder. Cynthia Breheny describes how her serendipitous encounter with phototherapy, a treatment developed initially for body dysmorphias like anorexia, almost entirely resolved her gender dysphoria. Hers and other stories encourage people struggling with this experience to keep looking and keep trying. As a last resort, it is important to point out that the Church does not counsel against the use of cross-sex hormones as a way to treat gender dysphoria, so long as it is not used to transition, and some have reported it to be helpful at reducing their dysphoria. Even for this purpose, however, it should only be undertaken cautiously with close follow-up because these medications are powerful and have potentially serious side effects, especially with long–term use.

Striking a healthy balance, the Church’s website affirms our doctrine on gender while also acknowledging that feelings of gender incongruence are a real human experience. Church leaders and members face a unique challenge in maintaining clarity about the real dangers in the aforementioned societal trends around gender while also providing a welcoming community that can serve as a loving context wherein people can process gender dysphoria and other challenging life experiences. 

There is nuance, there is complexity, and there is lots and lots of room for careful, compassionate listening to each individual’s unique story and suffering. As disciples of Christ, we should practice grace and compassion in response to people’s efforts to navigate these life experiences, with the expectation that we and the people we seek to welcome will not always get it right as we learn and practice a principled inclusion based in both love and doctrinal clarity. 

3. Marriage

Turning to questions of marriage and procreation, prophets have repeatedly taught that the Church’s teachings on marriage and procreation are doctrine and will never change. For an in-depth exploration of this, we recommend the article by Cassandra Hedelius and Jeff, “Treasuring All That God Has Revealed.” For a foundational discussion of the purpose of marriage from a not specifically Latter-day Saint perspective, we recommend What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, by Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis. And two anonymous Latter-day Saint writers have created anonymously (to our earlier point) comprehensive websites articulating key insights in the marriage debate—discussingmarriage.org and What is Marriage?—in a way that helps people explore for themselves some of the various competing perspectives involved (and without a single “because the prophet said so!”).

In recent years, with the embrace of same-sex marriage in Western countries, there has been an accompanying stream of popular messaging to persuade society that children do not benefit in any unique way from being parented by their married, biological mother and father. This notion is thoroughly challenged in stories gathered in Them Before Us, by children’s rights activists Katy Faust and Stacy Manning, with an accompanying website (and empirically supported by this study). See also Heather Berwick and Robert Oscar Lopez’s experiences being raised by same-sex parents, along with this article by Daniel James Devine chronicling a number of similar stories. 

The hostility of the academic and popular culture to this idea was shown by the unwarranted criticism Mark Regnerus received when he first published his well-designed 2012 study of United States children showing poorer outcomes among children reared in same-sex relationships. This fierce pushback came even though his study was much better constructed than many of the studies the American Psychological Association relied on purporting to show no harm or even benefits to children reared in same-sex relationships. Dr. Regnerus’s findings have subsequently been replicated with unbiased samples of population data from the UK, Canada, and Australia.

We need to underscore here that in no place does the Church teach that same-sex couples are bad parents, and that is not what we are saying either. (Katy Faust effectively rebuts this accusation here). It is also obviously true that heterosexual pairing is no guarantee of good parenting, since painfully many heterosexual couples likewise become abysmal parents to vulnerable children.

Pope John Paul II, in a series of 129 lectures (and later collected in his encyclical Humanae Vitae), lays out how gender and sexual morality are grounded in natural law and our physical bodies. It is a rich, comprehensive, and persuasive explanation of the traditionalist views of the points in this essay and many other related matters. We might even dare call it prophetic, as it anticipated most of the later disputes about sexuality and gender in a sort of “pre-buttal.” For those not quite ready to make a commitment to read the entire book, here is a brief overview by Christopher West. Even our non-Christian brothers and sisters have made admirable and insightful contributions from their own religious frameworks, and many of their insights are applicable to our faith, which demonstrates the universality of these concepts, even as they seem fringe to the modern west. Here are examples from Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam.

In a similar manner, some dear friends in our own faith put together thefamilyproclamation.org website, which has every single portion of the family proclamation supported by (a) Scripture and church leaders’ statements, (b) scientific research, and (c) personal stories. It’s a tremendously valuable reference work that is helpful for family home evening lessons and other classes.

Questions for Reflection

We share this article as part of Public Square Magazine’s ongoing efforts to facilitate a better, more generous conversation about this and other sensitive issues. Much more needs to be said and is being planned in the months ahead. We are also preparing some accompanying video presentations on the YouTube channel Latter-day Presentations. In the meantime, we invite you to consider a few parting questions: 

1. Is it true that the Church’s notions of sexuality, gender, and marriage have somehow been defeated in broader society? If so, what exactly does that mean? If it was defeated, who won, exactly? And what did they win?

2. Do those who assert the foregoing mean to say that secular notions of identity, sexuality, gender, marriage, and family have been shown to be better than the traditional/religious ones when it comes to mental health, human connection, along with an associated sense of personal value and purpose? 

3. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spoken in unity for decades, maintaining that our teachings on sexuality, gender, and family are, in fact, unchangeable doctrines. In light of all of these cited resources and the trends we are observing in society, do church leaders and sustaining members have well-considered grounds for maintaining that position?

4. On exactly what grounds do critics of church doctrine make their claims to a superior construct of identity, sexuality, gender, marriage, and family? Beyond special pleading, what empirical, philosophical, or religious basis do we have for considering modifying or undermining church doctrine and traditional norms in these areas? 

5. We would also ask what principle do doctrinal detractors propose that provides a clearly articulable reason to limit romantic and sexual relationships to certain people while denying them to others (such as polyamorous individuals)?

6. Lastly, we note that the burden of proof is often on conservatives to prove that whatever “socially just” change is being pushed should not be accepted. But doesn’t the burden of proof work the other way? Shouldn’t those wanting to change norms that have lasted the test of millennia across the broad majority of human cultures carry a much higher burden of proof?

Notes: 

1. This hardening and coalescing of public opinion is also at least as likely to result from our cultural embrace and saturation of philosophies of sexual liberation, expressive individualism, and sentimentalism as they are “making persuasive arguments for their positions.” Things do not have to be true or thoughtfully reasoned in order to be attractive. For example, the idea of being “born gay” has proven so useful in the advancement of LGBTQ causes, despite the fact that scientific support has always been weak. As stated by John D’Emilio, gay activist and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago: 

“Born gay” is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.

Reasonable arguments from conservatives being automatically portrayed as unloving—and the social consequence of those arguments—may also partly explain why conservatives are uniquely hesitant to raise their voices today.

John D’Emilio, PhD (professor emeritus of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago), “LGBT Liberation: Built a Broad Movement,” International Socialist Review, 2009, Issue No. 65; similarly, Jane Ward, a professor of gender studies at the University of California-Riverside, said that “There are a lot of [people] who subscribe to the ‘born this way’ narrative, in part because it’s become almost an obligatory story.”

2. On his own podcast, when discussing “LGBT+ Mormon History and Philosophy,” Patrick included only panelists who seem to share a very similar—and progressive—worldview. While this may or may not reflect conscious intent on his part, it’s also fair to point out that when scholars today become aware of any counter-example, they are more likely to not mention them and perhaps even dismiss and marginalize them.

 3  A colleague of ours noted that during graduate school in the social sciences, one of the faculty told him he would likely be deemed non-hirable in academia due to some of his positions on certain social issues. 

 4, Though he is likely no friend of conservative religions, gay legal scholar Edward Stein elaborated on the many difficulties in the construct of sexual orientation in his 1999 book The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. He writes:

In general, I shall attempt to convince you that much of what most people think about sexual orientations is probably wrong, or at least misguided. Many people think that a person’s sexual orientation is inborn in the sense that a person’s eye color is inborn. Most of the popular scientific theories concerning the origins of human sexual orientation—as well as our commonsense theories about them—accept this claim or one similar to it. Further, many people of various political stripes think that this claim and the scientific theories that relate to it are relevant to ethical and legal questions relating to sexual orientations. I am skeptical of each of these commonly held views… I will argue that much of what is widely believed about human sexual orientations is not [likely to be true]… contemporary theories of the nature and origin of sexual orientation, in effect, mismeasure desire. (Page 5, emphasis in original)

In the years since Stein’s book, even LGBTQ advocates have furthered this thesis. 

5. Conservative nonbeliever Douglas Murray, even though he himself is gay, writes in his book The Madness of Crowds that homosexuality “is an unstable component on which to base an individual identity and a hideously unstable way to try and base any form of group identity,” which foreshadows some of the fractures now appearing in LGBT+ activist circles. 

6. We also recommend the provocatively-titled account “The Day I Decided to Stop Being Gay” for the author’s description of a spontaneous shift in his attractions from homosexual to heterosexual (this shift was spontaneous; the “decided” in the clickbait headline refers to a decision to change behaviors and identity in response to the unchosen shift in attractions). 

7. Similar to what has been discovered with the fluidity of sexual orientation, the claimed neuroanatomical basis for gender identity has instead been shown to be an artifact of sexuality, not gender. There has been no “transgender brain” discovery.

8.   “We should allow this because the people asking for it are politically sympathetic and they want it really badly.”

The post Have Progressives Really Won this Contest of Ideas? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Here we propose a simple inventory of items to consider before we attempt to coax the Church and its members toward acceptance of our own “wish list” items reflecting rival visions for the future. As LGBT+ issues are maybe the most prominent concerns about the younger generation, most of our discussion will focus on those issues.

1. Have I really interrogated my own assumptions?

The saying “garbage in, garbage out” applies to many areas of human activity, and when it comes to questions of faith, we might rephrase it as “poor assumptions in, poor conclusions out.”

Questions around identity are a core set of assumptions underlying many criticisms of the Church. As we wrote here, the choice to “identify as” something is exactly that—a choice. For example, many Latter-day Saints who live with the experience of same-sex attraction make the conscious choice to not identify with their experience but rather to view it as a present lived reality. This may superficially seem like denial or repression to people steeped in the worldview of expressive individualism, but in fact, the expressive individualist view of identity is a modern construct that makes people miserable.

Turning to a better construct, Buddhism shares with the restored gospel some common insights regarding identity’s tendency for misery-making.  According to Buddhist psychology, when we say of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and desires, “This is who I am,” we are engaging in identity delusion that leads to ever-increasing suffering.  Although you won’t hear this from many popular mindfulness teachers today, the Buddha originally raised caution about “unenlightened” individuals who regard “feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self …”  From this vantage point, form (matter, or body), feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness are understood to be categories of human experience that we use to construct false identity and a delusionary “false self.”

The Buddhist perception of identity and suffering is also supported by an alarming recent study by Eric Kaufmann:

Among young people, mental health problems, liberal ideology, and LGBT identity are strongly correlated. Using factor analysis in two different studies shows that assuming one common variable between all three traits explains 40-50% of the variation … [The increase in LGBT identification] has been disproportionately concentrated within the overlapping ‘very liberal’ and anxious/depressed part of the young population.

Contrary to a core assumption of expressive individualists, the growing mental health problems associated with these identity choices are not a result of society’s refusal to embrace these identities: in fact, in the time periods under consideration in the study, the correlated trends in rising identification and mental health problems were accompanied by a skyrocketing trend toward acceptance and celebration of these identity constructs in broader society. Acceptance of people’s misery-inducing identity choices does not lessen their misery. It may even be contributing to making it worse, as the current view demands not merely acceptance but active affirmation and celebration, which can’t help but center the “false self.”

2. Have I followed my reasoning where it goes?

In logic, a tool called reductio ad absurdum is employed. The basic idea is that if you take a claim to its conclusion and the conclusion is absurd, then the claim is worth questioning. As an example, imagine we were to say that mathematics is not a reliable guide to reality, and we should abandon our use of it. You might respond by designing a bridge using your intuitions instead of engineering math and then asking us if we would be willing to drive a car on it. Obviously, we wouldn’t. And if we think it sounds absurd to drive a car on a bridge that was designed using only intuitions, then our original claim about the lack of value in mathematics is questionable.

Let’s apply the reductio ad absurdum to questions around identity—specifically to this phrase we often hear: this is how God created me. As we just outlined, it is wrong—and bad for our mental health—to conflate our current thoughts, feelings, desires, and perceptions with self. Our selves existed eternally before any of our mortal experiences and will exist eternally after our mortal experiences. Moreover, our thoughts, feelings, desires, and perceptions are the product of a number of factors: our genetics, our development, our experiences, our culture, our environment, our relationships, our choices, and more. All of these amount to vast numbers of switches being flipped from our time in the womb, through infancy and childhood, and on through the rest of our lives—switches that greatly influence every aspect of how we experience life and the world around us. Yet this is how God created me is a statement that assumes that God personally flips every single switch affecting our development throughout life; that He is somehow the cause of even the sins that other people perpetrate against us that influence our development.

A better assumption, one that avoids such absurdity, is found in a theological claim articulated by Joseph in Egypt, who tells his brothers, “God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” Obviously, it was not God, but Joseph’s brothers, who sold him into Egypt. But by aligning himself consistently with God’s will against forces of sin and opposition, Joseph became a vehicle for God to work His purposes, to the point where Joseph saw no need to frame his adversity in anything but a positive and faith-promoting way. The healing balm of the atonement of Jesus Christ can thus turn misfortunes into blessings for ourselves and those around us. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “The good man’s past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven.” 

If we follow the reasoning where it goes, then the idea that “God made me this way,” that God personally flips every single switch that shapes our experience of mortality, is absurd. It’s bad theology, and it’s spiritually harmful. When considered in the proper light, we should be cautious to support the implications of these assertions—or pretend like they are a wise basis for future teaching or policy.  

3. Am I current in my understanding of the issues?

Again in the discussion of LGBT+ issues, it is important to operate with current understanding. In past decades, debates used to center on questions of “nature versus nurture,” and opponents of the Church’s teachings on gender and sexuality would point to the “unchosen” nature of same-sex attraction as an indicator that the Church’s teachings were in some way unfair.

The idea that attractions are “unchosen” is generally considered to be true, but as Brandon Ambrosino wrote for the BBC, for some people, this is a question that resists easy answers. Vera Whisman’s analysis complicates things:

The claim that homosexuality is legitimate because it is not chosen is androcentric, treating a common male experience as generically human. Apparently, the vast majority of gay men in the U.S. do understand their homosexuality as an orientation they did not choose or create.  But lesbian identities span a continuum, from a model of lesbian identity as a conscious political choice to a determinist model like that of most gay men. The “born that way” stance not only “lets the other side set the terms of the debate” in heterosexist terms, but [also denies] “the complexities of the lesbian world.”

The same Kaufmann study also confirms a more nuanced picture of identity. Rather than universally an “unchosen” experience that is perceived in the same way by all who identify as LGBT+, he points out:  

When we look at homosexual behavior, we find that it has grown much less rapidly than LGBT+ identification. Men and women under 30 who reported a sexual partner in the last five years dropped from around 96% exclusively heterosexual in the 1990s to 92% exclusively heterosexual in 2021. Whereas in 2008, attitudes and behavior were similar, by 2021, LGBT+ identification was running at twice the rate of LGBT+ sexual behavior.

Why the discrepancy between LGBT+ identification and behavior? With the rise of intersectionality as a guide to people’s credibility and the value of their voices, people increasingly identify with marginalized groups as a response to social incentives, whether their actual experience corresponds to that of the marginalized group or not. Perhaps these identities are not directly and obviously chosen in a straightforward and conscious way; for many or even most people, they are definitely strongly influenced by the choices of the individual and the people (and culture) around them. That’s because the way we think about identity is naturally shaped by whom we choose to associate with and how. At any rate, the claim that individual choice never has any bearing on sexual identity and behavior no longer has scientific backing if it ever did. 

Another claim that was prominent in past debates and is now questioned in the present is the idea that sexual orientation is fixed and never changes. This is another example of the importance of keeping current on what are basic, broadly-acknowledged realities of people’s experiences of gender and sexuality. University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond’s research on sexual fluidity is not new; her 2016 study opened with a clear explanation of her research:

Sexual fluidity has been defined as a capacity for situation-dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness, which allows individuals to experience changes in same-sex or other-sex desire across both short-term and long-term time periods. I review recent evidence for sexual fluidity and consider the extent of gender differences in sexual fluidity by examining the prevalence of three phenomena: nonexclusive (bisexual) patterns of attraction, longitudinal change in sexual attractions, and inconsistencies among sexual attraction, behavior, and identity.

Harvard University’s Sabra L. Katz-Wise affirms this observable reality: “changes in sexual orientation are a common thread in many people’s lives. People may experience changes in who they are attracted to, who they have sex with, and which labels they use to describe their sexual orientation.” 

While this truth has been wholly ignored in popular culture depictions of sexual minorities, this has actually been understood in academia for decades. For instance, contrary to the commonly-held view that orientations are not chosen, queer theorists have long argued that sexual orientation is socially constructed and, therefore, can be deconstructed and reconstructed in any number of ways through social engineering (particularly among the young). We witnessed the divide over these views at a recent pride event in Vermont, where Stonewall-era gay activist Fred Sargeant was assaulted for holding a sign that said: “GAY NOT QUEER.” But queer theory aside—given the reality of sexual fluidity, on what grounds would anyone assert that there is no action that anyone could possibly undertake, no life experiences that could happen to someone, that would ever affect their sexual orientation in any way? When we claim sexual orientation never changes in any way, on what grounds do we make that claim?

Given the amount of research and personal counsel from knowledgeable people that inform the deliberations of the governing councils of the Church, we would do well to examine the depth and currency of our own understanding before undertaking to counsel them, especially on issues that seem simple but are in fact very complex. Chances are that they have considered vastly more information and gamed out vastly more implications for various courses of action than they are often given credit for. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency:

As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth.

4. Am I aware of problems in my own methodology?

Many suggestions to church leadership come from a fatally-flawed assumption in historical criticism. It is the idea that if we can look at a doctrine or policy and demonstrate that it has undergone a long process of evolution that includes some amount of cultural factors, then we cannot firmly state that the doctrine or policy is God’s mind and will for the Church in the present moment.

An interesting refutation of this assumption is found in the baptism of Christ, which He explicitly understood to be in fulfillment of the law. Baptism for repentance as performed by John was not required in the Law of Moses, and modern attempts to trace it to a Mosaic precedent result in imaginative reconstructions of the evolution of the practice. Yet regardless of how baptism emerged over time to become a well-known practice in the time of John, it was understood by believers from the time of Christ’s ministry as being firmly binding upon all of humanity for salvation. Even then, as we read in the Book of Mormon, a practice like baptism can carry some amount of ambiguity in how it is implemented, and until it is settled with finality by the Lord, as was baptism in 3 Nephi 11, it can still serve the valuable function of pointing toward a future ideal.

Whether a doctrine or policy has emerged through a process of evolution and refinement over time is a question that employs one epistemology, typically academic research. Whether a doctrine or policy has now developed to fruition and is God’s mind and will in the present day requires a different epistemology that invariably includes revelation.

Questions around the evolution of doctrines and practices are like catnip to theologians because they offer a comforting illusion that God’s will in the present is still somehow unknown, subject to those same forces of evolution, and tantalizingly, always surely (one day) destined to end up exactly where the theologians’ own biases and preferences lay. God’s mind and will are imagined to be a perpetual jump ball available to the tallest intellect.

One fatal flaw in the progressive approach to questions of faith is the fallacy of composition: the idea that if something is true of a subset, then it can be said of the whole group. It is undeniably true that in our faith, there are open questions. And our understanding of important concepts is still evolving. We have made adjustments—even hard adjustments—in the past, and we will no doubt continue doing so in the future. But the fact that some things are evolving does not mean that everything is. The fact that some things need clarification does not mean that other things are not crystal clear and fully settled. When consistent teaching points to settled doctrine, the responsible and sustaining course of action is to make the best possible case for the Church’s position. The promise of continuing revelation does not mean we can afford to delay making our stand and staking our faith on what is known and what has been revealed. We must choose this day, and every day, whom we will serve. We must decide daily whether we will either continue to halt between two opinions or take up the cross, shame and all.

5. It is easy to give people what they want. It is harder to give people what they need.

Anyone can play the game of finding theological loopholes that exempt people from unpopular doctrines or even render those doctrines moot. This is surely a great way to get yourself placed on faculty at a prestigious university or a fawning write-up in prominent national media.

To be fair, sometimes, these doctrines are a source of legitimate pain, especially when we feel we do not currently measure up to the ideals of our doctrines in noticeable ways. And this search for loopholes can be motivated by otherwise genuine attempts at kindness or emotional pain relief. But however nice this might initially seem or feel, does such an effort ultimately help people? 

If the full doctrine of Christ represents timeless truths and the roadmap to exaltation, we are not doing anyone any favors by misleading them into thinking these doctrines are soon to be renounced. While this may be motivated by a sincere desire to decrease pain, the real effect is only to prolong it. Therefore, these efforts would be better spent gaining a deeper understanding and testimony of these doctrines and then ministering to those having difficulty with them by encouraging them to live in greater accord with these truths. Healthy spiritual development is a process of increasing our ability to live well in reality.

Though hopefully done in love and in the context of a relationship where there is already trust and credibility, facilitating the spiritual development of others may entail a willingness to speak some hard truths. It means we encourage people to accommodate and align their views to doctrine to the greatest extent possible, rather than the other way around. While less popular and less welcome in society today, this is nonetheless practicing a higher love where we place our confidence in the power of Christ to lead people to greater spiritual development, with all of its attendant emotional benefits. We give people what they need, not necessarily what they want.

What we hope for are discussions of doctrine and policy that are firmly grounded in reality. Again, it is normal to have a wish list of things we would like to see happen or stop happening in the Church and other organizations. But we would hope for all church members to understand that fixating on our mental models of an imaginary future is a miserable way to live a life of faith. The happiest and most fulfilled disciples of Christ are living a very present-oriented faith, basking in the peace that comes from sustaining God’s servants and being fully engaged in the life-long work of surrendering to God’s perceptions and priorities, moment by moment.

The post A Few Questions Before You Try to Change the Church appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash

In today’s article, I sketch an alternative to the expressive self discussed in part one. To give away the ending, what I call the “value-responsive self” seeks to honor and respond affirmatively to moral truth, while the expressive self has an ambivalent (and sometimes antagonistic) relationship to moral truth. The existence of value outside our own thoughts and feelings has immense worth in guiding our lives and shaping our happiness. I make some general points about this conception of the self in view of discussing the connection of these competing identity views to sex, gender, and sexual morality in the next parts of the series. 

An alternative to authenticity unhinged. To recap the first essay, the expressive conception of the self claims to be a liberating vision of human existence and potential. In this view, the truth is found deep within, and the point of life is to live authentically in accordance with “your truth.” This self is also free and sovereign. It bows to no one and is limited only by the reach of its own ingenuity and imagination. 

But, as we saw, the road to authenticity includes several major pitfalls for the expressive self. As Charles Taylor explains in The Ethics of Authenticity, “the contemporary culture of authenticity slides towards soft relativism.” Identifying the truth with one’s feelings and one’s duty with expressing them leads to subjectivism about value, which can ultimately and surprisingly  undermine the possibility of being authentic. 

So, where else can we turn? Perhaps it would be useful to revisit a central claim of the expressive self—that we should be free from any unchosen norms or values. Why would this be important? Presumably, because freedom has come to mean for many being able to do whatever we want. If there is something constraining, structuring, or restricting us that we did not choose, then we are fundamentally unfree, right?

This is why I call the alternative to the expressive self the “value-responsive self.” The value-responsive self recognizes the importance of moral (and other) values and seeks to respond appropriately to them. The value-responsive self does not imagine that it ought to be the author of all the standards and values that apply to it—instead, it humbly accepts the givenness of the moral law and tries to follow it as well as it can. And in doing so, it gains a freedom that the expressive self lacks—the freedom to transcend itself towards moral goodness and truth. 

Autonomy and authenticity reimagined. If moral truth—sometimes called “natural law” or “moral law”—is taken as a given, the importance of looking within, autonomy, and authenticity are all cast in a new light. None of them need be discarded, and each is transposed to a higher plane. Inwardness is important because the human mind and soul are structured to perceive and respond to moral truth. And our sincere and sometimes anguished reflections can help us better understand who we are and what we should do. Yet within this broader reframe, the point of such reflections is not merely to sort out one’s feelings or to “feel good” about one’s self, but instead to try to understand what one’s conscience demands—and for religious people, what God has called us to do and be. As in Augustine’s Confessions, the self looks inward in order to look upward. 

The value-responsive self also retains a focus on autonomy, though understood differently from the expressive self. Within this conception, we accept the responsibility to live according to our own best understanding of the truth; and we seek to follow moral claims that we understand and can whole-heartedly endorse. In understanding the point and relevance of a moral truth and choosing to follow it, we are not submitting to some foreign influence that is imposing itself upon us. It is our own perception and appreciation of the truth that drives our commitment and action, and thus, in the most central sense, we are autonomous. As John Crosby writes in his excellent book, The Selfhood of the Human Person, “my action becomes entirely my own only when I act on the basis of my own understanding of the point of my action.” (Crosby explains how this view is compatible with some kinds of authority, but that is a discussion for another day.) 

The value-responsive self also retains a focus on authenticity, but again, it is authenticity in a new key. In its pure form, the expressive self is largely indiscriminate about what it expresses—that is, whatever the self feels deeply and powerfully ought to be expressed. It is not the content but rather the strength of what one feels that determines expression. In contrast, the value-responsive self does not place all of its desires, thoughts, and feelings on an equal footing. It recognizes some as good and uplifting and others as base and degrading—or simply as untrue and misleading. Though all of them may be conceived as being part of the self, the value-responsive self seeks to align its will and character with the best desires, thoughts, and feelings. As Plato taught long ago, we should seek to bring all parts of the self under the rulership of the best part of the self. Authenticity means living in accordance with your best sense of what is good and true (which, to repeat, is your best sense of what is good and true, not something imposed on you without your understanding). 

But why is this self any better than the exciting expressive version? Some readers might wonder why anyone would want to act as a value-responsive self. Perhaps they can’t shake the sense that the value-responsive self is a kind of self-righteous slave, acting according to the dictates of some unchosen and arbitrary moral code that makes life a chore and feeds feelings of moral superiority. Why would anyone sign up for this?

At a certain level, value cannot be demonstrated—it has to be experienced or perceived. Dietrich von Hildebrand, whose account of value I draw on heavily in what follows, writes that value belongs “to those ultimate data and notions such as being, truth, and knowledge, which can neither be defined nor denied without tacitly reintroducing them.” In other words, something like the concept of “truth” is a necessary part of any claim about reality, including the claim that there is no truth. Saying “there is no truth” is equivalent to saying “it is true that there is no truth,” which leaves the speaker without a leg to stand on. A similar logic applies to value in the sense used here. Value has to do with things or ideas that are intrinsically important and that merit a certain response from us. Even denying the existence of value presupposes that it is valuable to be aware of the way the world is, to “face the facts” about reality, etc. But this value presumably exists whether we recognize it or not, which means we have only let in the back door what we pushed out the front. But even if value cannot be grounded in something more fundamental, it is still possible to say something about what it is and how we are elevated by it. 

First, value offers the possibility of transcendence. Imagine witnessing or becoming aware of an act of great courage—for example, Irena Sendler’s efforts to save Jewish children in Poland during World War II. Speaking of this kind of experience, Hildebrand writes that such an act “shines forth with the mark of importance, with the mark of something noble and precious. It moves us and engenders our admiration. We are not only aware that this act occurs, but that it is better that it occurs, better that [she] acted in this way rather than another. We are conscious that this act is something that ought to be, something important.” 

When we encounter value, we have the sense of being in the presence of something higher, something of intrinsic importance. That importance issues a challenge to us: will we honor our own best sense of what this value calls us to do or be? If we answer the call affirmatively and align our hearts, minds, and actions with the value we perceive, we take a step out of the immanent confinement of our limited desires and thoughts and move upwards towards what is truly important and good. This transcendence, of course, does not undermine our deepest identity but instead helps us reach our full potential as moral and spiritual beings. 

Second, value respects our freedom. This may come as a surprise, as many people cannot get over the fact that value issues a command. But this experience is far different from the way that other desires and urges impress themselves upon us. Hildebrand uses the term “subjectively satisfying” to refer to things we find pleasurable but which do not have the character of value—having a drink of water when thirsty or playing a trivial game. We may become extremely engrossed in a frivolous game and even take great pleasure in winning, but we certainly do not “owe” the game any positive response, and our pleasure in it often leaves us depleted and unsatisfied. Further, our desire to play it can be incessant and impair our better judgment. It would be hard to describe this distinction better than Hildebrand’s own elaboration: 

The call of an authentic value for an adequate response addresses itself to us in a sovereign but non-intrusive, sober way. It appeals to our free spiritual center. The attraction of the subjectively satisfying, on the contrary, lulls us into a state where we yield to instinct; it tends to dethrone our free spiritual center. Its appeal is insistent, ofttimes assuming the character of a temptation, trying to sway and silence our conscience, taking hold of us in an obtrusive manner. Far different is the call of values: it has no obtrusive character; it speaks to us from above, and at a sober distance.

Third, value offers recollection. Imagine yourself faced with a situation in which some great injustice is about to be committed, and you feel called by your conscience to do something about it. In such a moment, perceiving the value that is about to be desecrated, one achieves a kind of clarity and self-presence—a proper understanding and orientation towards things and the world, a letting go of that which is trivial and unimportant—something John Crosby and others call “recollection.” This does not mean just remembrance, but “re-collection”—to be collected again, to come to one’s self, to be grounded and actualized as the self one is. Trivial or insignificant things can never offer this sense of grounded self-presence, for they do not engage us at the deepest level of our being. Only a part of us—and sometimes only a very small part—is required to deal with the trivial, but things of true value call to the core of who we are. And in responding to the call, we recover the center of our being. 

Of course, recollection need not only occur in dramatic moments. We can live in recollection whenever we are oriented to things of value. The light of value calls us back to our deepest identity. 

Fourth, everything other than value is ultimately unsatisfying. Value offers us a qualitatively different kind of joy or happiness than we can otherwise find. Imagine the joy you feel when a friend stops a self-destructive path, when you experience the repairing of a friendship that has soured through misunderstanding, or when you hear of or express sincere gratitude for a beneficial deed. In each case, the joy one feels has reference to a value that was either restored, protected, or instantiated; the light of value permeates the experience. On the other hand, when we buy another trendy outfit or watch another vapid but moderately amusing tv show, we may briefly feel a ping of excitement or pleasure, but it has nothing of the depth and nobility of value. It grows cold even before it is fully consumed, and we are left hungry and anxious, looking soon again for another hit of fleeting pleasure.

Some final clarifications. This, then, is a brief introduction to the value-responsive self. I believe it incorporates everything valuable about the expressive self without falling into its self-contradictions and limitations. But before concluding, a few clarifications are in order: first, the expressive self and the value-responsive self are ideal types, and all of us are a mix of the two. Many people talk as expressive selves but then act as value-responsive selves in many parts of their lives. A concern for social justice, say, or other moral or social issues are incomprehensible without the notion of value. It is probably impossible to be an expressive self “all the way down.” But this is rarely noticed, for noticing it would reveal the limits of the expressive self. 

Second, trying to follow value can go tragically wrong. People can be mistaken when they try to respond to value, and the results can be disastrous. But the solution to this problem is not, as some people seem to think, to get rid of the idea of value (John Lennon’s song “Imagine” comes to mind). This is another self-defeating move—without value, we wouldn’t be able to give an account of what it means for things to go “tragically wrong.” The notion of value is unavoidable, so we may as well own it. 

Third, value can be difficult to perceive. Some matters of value are easy for most people to perceive, and others take a good deal of persistence, effort, humility, dedication, or love. It can be tempting to identify value with what we or our “tribe” has always believed, what we have become emotionally attached to, or what makes us feel comfortable. But the beauty and challenge of value are that it exists independent of our wishes, desires, beliefs, or actions. By existing independently of us, and by existing above us, value gives us something to aspire to. 

As with yesterday’s essay, this is a vastly condensed account. I would recommend that readers interested in learning more read Hildebrand’s Ethics and Crosby’s The Selfhood of the Human Person. In parts III and IV, I’ll be exploring what relevance the distinction between the expressive self and the value-response self has for sex, gender, and sexual morality.

The post The Value-Responsive Self: Authenticity as Alignment With Truth appeared first on Public Square Magazine.