I would like to point out that the way the gay movement manifests right now has been termed by scholars like Lisa Duggan as “homonormative.” In other words, it does have a problem with accepting the “other,” such as the SSA Mormon. But just as you are idealizing Mormonism here (even though your novel shows the good, bad and ugly), there is an idealized way of imagining queer politics, too. A very good example that comes to mind is when Michael Quinn at the 1996 Sunstone Symposium presented his book “Same-Sex Dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons.” A LDS feminist critiqued him this way: “By nudging the interests in the limited direction of homoerotic experience…Quinn hardens the boundaries around the concepts ‘homosexual’ and ’same-sex dynamics’ and implicitly naturalizes the categories. …Oppressive structures are perpetuated.” Then she was quick to add: “[But] if readers accept Quinn’s argument and maintain appreciation for the lives and contributions of these early Mormons, then…our community is considerably enriched.” Now THAT’s the kind of politics I like, both within and without Mormon culture. I’ve taken a few queer theory and Women’s Studies courses, and let me assure you, you’ll find these kinds of critiques more than the critiques one sees in “gay culture” that are highly identitarian.

But, if you really want to get into the history, the “gay identity” was not created by SSA people. “Sexual orientation” was created by sexologists whose aim was to scientifically stamp out “homosexual” actions (which we see through the 1970s). People began to be labeled homosexual (an “essence”) by others (the closet was transparent, particularly for effeminate men and masculine women), and these people were ostracized from their families in great numbers. “Gays” embraced the identity and flocked to urban areas as a ~survival mechanism.~ People often demonize the gay movement without realizing this history. Given this history, though, I fail see how attraction and action on that attraction require “identity.” If anything, homosexuality was just a compartmentalization based on gender choice of attractions and actions that were already occurring in relative frequency. This is not to say that sodomy wasn’t frowned upon, but I would have to agree with Quinn that the definitional boundaries, like the one you posted above from BYU’s Honor Code, were simply unheard of. The oppressive “homosexual” structure isn’t just coming from the gay rights movement; Mormonism has latched onto it wholeheartedly.

I defer to your greater expertise and exposure within the gay community with respect to goals and aspirations, although I’m not really talking about the gay rights movement as such, but rather something older and less political. Call it the gay identity movement, or perhaps mindset would be a better word.

It has seemed to me, based on what I’ve seen of that mindset, that one of its fundamental assumptions is that if you are homosexually oriented, you won’t achieve true happiness or satisfaction unless you strive to achieve whatever your romantic aspirations may be within that context. Certainly you’re free not to do so, but there’s no way you’ll really be happy unless you do. The universal message of the gay narratives I’ve read has been that satisfaction and happiness require embracing a gay identity (if, of course, you’re homosexual). Choosing to walk away from that identity, for religious or other reasons, is presented as a road leading to frustration and disappointment.

It’s my sense that when faithful Mormons who are SSA talk about not being understood or accepted in the gay community, this is part of what they’re talking about. Choosing not to pursue a gay identity is seen as self-limiting behavior within the gay community — or at least, that’s my sense of what their perceptions and experience have been. Would you say that’s not the case?

Thinking about it, this, I think, is what distinguishes the notion of homosexual (or gay) *identity* from homosexual *attractions.* An identity, by definition, is something that must be satisfied in order to be whole and complete within oneself. Attractions, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily so central to one’s self-definition.

The orthodox Mormon position, as I see it, asserts that regardless of the origins of homosexuality — genetic, chemical, environmental, or other — there is a deeper level at which none of us is truly homosexual. This is a position that only makes sense if you accept LDS notions of a preexistent spirit (or something else that stands in for such notions). This, I think, is one of the reasons why Church leaders are often unhappy with notions of gay identity even if not coupled with homosexual activity per se: because it incorporates a mindset they see as being fundamentally at odds with core Mormon doctrine.

FYI, though, the gay movement is NOT about satisfying romance ~necessarily~ through the same gender; it’s about having the freedom to do so if one chooses. I think your character of Sarah at the GSA is telling in this regard (her discussion with Paul about “denying who you are. Trying not to be gay when you are gay.”)… but this is not the whole of the gay rights movement, or even what I would even consider a fundamental bedrock assumption. It is, perhaps, what many straight people take from the movement.

This, I think, has important implications for how those who are SSA view themselves and for the strategies they and those who work with them might favor for dealing with their attractions. I agree, though, that on a fundamental level it’s not any more positive toward homosexuality as a phenomenon or lifestyle choice. Disapproving of homosexuality because it’s a misdirection of divine potential is, from a Mormon theological standpoint, just as strong as disapproving because you believe homosexuality is (say) a manifestation of lust. In fact, it may be worse. Of course, from an LDS viewpoint, it’s possible to see all sin as a misdirection of divine potential…

This, by the way, was the biggest beef I had with Kushner in Angels in America. Among his other carelessnesses with Mormon culture, the biggest thing he completely missed was the way that “if you’re Mormon, being part of a family is more than just a badge of normality; it’s part of your essential purpose for existing, a key element of your eternal identity. Surely part of what makes being Mormon and gay so poignant is the sense that choosing a life of homosexuality isn’t just a sin; it’s also giving up who you are and what you are meant to be as a child of God” (quoting my review essay from Irreantum). In short, Kushner treats Mormons as more or less generic conservative Protestants, when (on this issue in particular) we really aren’t — even if on the surface our position looks very similar. I’d similarly argue that Mormons are the only Christian denomination with reasons against homosexuality that spring from bedrock doctrine, as opposed to codes of conduct — because we’re the only religion that makes heterosexuality a key attribute both of divinity and of humanity.

All of which, I think (at least the last part) is my way of agreeing with you that trying to explain the Mormon position on homosexuality to a non-Mormon audience is likely to be quite a challenge.

One of the fundamental bedrock assumptions of the gay movement is that in order to achieve true satisfaction and fulfillment in life, you must in some way satisfy your romantic aspirations as expressed through your orientation. Orthodox LDS teachings (whether from position A or position B in my typology) directly challenge that. Basically, if you’re going to accept the orthodox LDS position, you have to accept that those who experience same-sex attraction are broken in some way. But then, I would argue that in order to accept the gospel of Christ, you have to accept that *all* of us are broken in some way. Hence the need for an atonement. The specific fracture patterns may be different for those with SSA than for those who suffer from other specific afflictions, but in our brokenness, we are all alike before God.

What I’m beginning to realize is that the Church is cordoned off enough that the question of SSA has developed in its own way, a uniquely Mormon way. To present this to the outside world takes a lot of readjusting. I’m reminded of how Armaud Mauss in his All Abraham’s Children argues that for Mormons, unlike other Americans, ideas about race were never tied to the census, but to their own doctrines about lineage. This does not discount “racial” thinking, but it helps to explain 1978. Similarly, I wouldn’t consider Mormons “homophobic” (except when, well, you know) but they’re certainly still heteronormative — yet, in their own way. Still, I doubt most people have the patience to understand Mormonism on its own terms, which will be a detriment to the Church moving forward.

I still want to push on the way you’re categorizing the field. It is all very well to put Mansfield and Byrd in the same category because they’re ultimately both “faith-affirming.” But let us not forget that paradigm (a) is also faith-affirming, and not a minority viewpoint. In your descriptions of the paradigms, only does paradigm (a) use the word “sin.” But as Rick Phillips (sociologist of religion) argues, if you consider the fact that the Church hasn’t abandoned the earlier edicts of apostles and prophets who have said, without equivocation, that homosexuality can (and should) be changed, then it becomes clear that a “fundamentalist undertow” — AKA paradigm (a) — hides barely beneath the new current of tolerance. When “change” is NOT the main argument put forward, then what you end up having are a bunch of gay Mormons being celibate, “struggling.” And unlike other Christian faiths, there is no theological niche for the celibate person in Mormonism. The gay Mormon defines this niche in practice (Evergreen, Northstar, storytelling, blogs), even if in theory this is all under the guise of Mormonism. The “worldmaking” powers are taken out of the hands of Church leaders, and this can eventually cause fissures, especially now that the Church is the size that it is, and especially since it does not exist entirely in a social vacuum (which is why there are paradigm (c) Mormons).

Another way to think of it is this: now that Paul has experienced an environment like the GSA, is he any more likely to stay in the Church as an adult? Opposing values can certainly strengthen one’s testimony, and give one a sense of “extra experience” they can offer Mormonism. But the Church doesn’t exactly push its members to relate with those who oppose their values. As a whole, this kind of intermingling causes deep change, even if on the individual level it’s just “personal.”

I reminded of the 19th century theologian Walter Rauschenbusch who said: “The Kingdom of God is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven.” Gay people in the Church are trying their hardest to do the latter (make their earthly lives happy), rather than concentrate on the former (change for the sake of Heaven). But this puts them in contention with the Church, which over time, makes the idea of “a Church for all people” seem questionable.

I’d hesitate to call my (b) position “essential” gayness, since one of its key components is the idea that homosexuality as such is not an eternal part of a person’s nature, at least not in terms of sexual or romantic desire. It may be a distortion of some other positive desire. But you have to go to the (c) position in order to find the notion of gayness as a permanent and eternal manifestation of personality.

I also think you may be oversimplifying Dean Byrd’s position to call him a proponent of position (a) (again using my typology from comment 20). As I understand it — and I’m far from an expert on this — Byrd is a proponent of reparative therapy, which if anything seems pretty heavily committed to the notion the same-gender attraction is an unhealthy distortion of real desires for intimacy.

What I would say is that Byrd and Mansfield both represent different flavors of (b), with their major difference lying in the degree of emphasis they place on the possibility of change during this lifetime. And even that difference is more apparent than real, in my opinion — since Mansfield doesn’t deny that such change can happen, and Byrd (so far as I can tell) doesn’t claim that it can happen in all cases. Sure, there are significant differences between the two (and among the other positions of those involved with Evergreen, North Star, etc.), but most if not all of those all lie within the (b) camp, so far as I can tell.

Speaking of which… If you want to situate your research within respect to mainstream LDS views of SSA, you probably should check out (if you haven’t done already) the collection Understanding Same-Sex Attraction (LDS edition), published in 2009 by the Foundation for Attraction Research. Byrd is one of the editors, but it seems to have drawn across a range of contributors. I haven’t read the book myself — didn’t even get a copy until after my own book was published — but it sounds like it may be a relevant resource for the research you’re doing.

Back to my book: I agree that the problem Paul experiences in the GSA is part of my framing, but it’s also a reflection of one of the originary impulses of my story: that is, to depict the sense of faithful LDS who are same-sex attracted of being caught between two worlds — misunderstood both within the Church and within the gay community. Paul certainly longs for that understanding, but ultimately he has to choose which identity is more important to him. This, I believe, is an accurate reflection of the experience of those who are SSA but choose to stay in the Church.

So, even though I’m a paradigm C person, I can very much see the paradigm A position and the concern this position has with books like yours. Mormonism, at its heart, embraces paradigm A because gays will not be gay in Heaven. Paradigm B is a position that is “flimsy” and requires delicate care. For that reason, I believe that your book is doing something right; it’s engaged in a kind of necessary cultural work. But frankly, the culture as a whole does not determine the outcome of this issue; those heavily invested in it do: social workers, Church leaders, those with SSA, families with family members who have SSA, ~you~. These people tell everyone else what to think. They frame the debate.

Oh, and on the GSA thing, yes Paul keeps attending, but then it eventually bites him. This can be read as justifying Richard’s concern, but it can also be read as “Langford’s framing.” I don’t know of any gay person who doesn’t find solace in finding other gay people…which Paul is the only gay Mormon in the story, so far as I’ve read.

I like your abomination/addiction/affliction breakdown, which serves a somewhat different purpose from my typology but does serve to point out an interesting evolution.

I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say that “when folks read your book, they don’t only see Paul’s struggle, but they also see how the culture at large is treating him in service of paradigm (b),” since in the end, most of Paul’s problems come from people who buy into either (a) — mostly intolerant kids in his ward — or (c) — the kids at GSA, including the one who “outs” him. However, I will agree that one of my rhetorical goals was to be realistic about how hard (b) can be.

Most of my readers who have had ideological problems with my book (so far as I can tell) are those who have a strong interest in SSA, with definite views about it (either because they are SSA or because they work with those who are). As best I can tell, they dislike the book because they think I “get it wrong” in some way: e.g., by not having Paul (or someone close to him) interrogate his notion of “being gay” (because by accepting this as a label he’s buying into Satan’s ideas), or because I don’t emphasize the possibility that his feelings may change over time, or whatever.

I take the fact that many readers from paradigm (c), as well as those who share paradigm (b), find my novel compelling as a sign that I’m doing something write. Most mainstream members, though, don’t find my novel threatening, so far as I can tell. This is one area, I think, where believing LDS Church members and nonbelievers are likely to read my book very differently, because the spiritual consolations Paul receives — testimony, blessings, promises from priesthood leaders — are inherently less meaningful for nonbelievers than they are for believers. A nonbeliever, I think, is likely to read and wonder why Paul would think it was worth it to stay in the Church. This is true, I think, even if the nonbeliever is a former believer — because ultimately, even if he/she felt those things at one time, they were not ultimately powerful enough to keep the reader in the Church. The most that such a reader can do is remember a time he/she would have felt like Paul. I’m not saying this is a bad way to read the book; but it’s not my intended way, and based on my experience, it’s not the way most of the audience I was trying to reach interprets the book.

I guess my point is that I don’t think believing members of the Church who read my book will feel less inclined to accept the Church’s position on homosexuality, partly because it’s their expectations that *all of us* have to undergo hard things for our faith. What I’ve tried to do is help them see the situation of those who are SSA but attempt to stay faithful in that kind of light — as similar to the sacrifices and difficulties all of us undergo as part of the price of trying to follow God. My larger rhetorical goal was a feeling of understanding and compassion, not an undercutting of the Church’s position on this issue. And while some readers may see that as a result of my book, my experience so far is that most believing Church members haven’t.

And by the way, since Chad’s dad is also the bishop, your confusion is understandable — though I think it’s stretching it a bit to see cautioning a teenager to stay away from a group with different values as a form of abuse… Not to mention that Paul goes ahead and keeps going to GSA anyway.

I do look forward to reading your book so I can include it as part of discussions like this one. It sounds like an interesting thing you’ve attempted. It will be interesting to see how it works.