As both professionals and parents we have been heartened in recent years by several statements from members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve regarding homosexuality and the gospel. Particularly, we have been impressed with 

In a context in which there is a lack of definitive scientific evidence and much disagreement among psychotherapists as to the appropriate treatment for homosexuality, it is essential that communication to the lay membership be judicious in presenting scientific evidence and cautious in recommending spiritual and psychotherapeutic solutions. Byrd's article is neither cautious nor judicious.  Because there is considerable misinformation about homosexuality among the general public and because there is still wide-spread prejudice against homosexuals in our society, we feel it is particularly unfortunate that Byrd's article appeared in an official Church publication where many members of the Church are likely to take it as authoritative.

Byrd's arguments tend to be based on faulty science, buttressed by slanted evidence, and supported by questionable theology.

"Byrd's arguments tend to be based on faulty science, buttressed by slanted evidence, and supported by questionable theology."

 
 
 
 
 

FAULTY SCIENCE

Byrd states in the beginning that "it is helpful to have accurate information about homosexuality and its development."  He then states, "Homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable.  Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic."  While it may be true that, as Byrd states so categorically, "individuals [can] diminish homosexual attraction and make changes in their lives," there is no scientific or psychotherapeutic evidence that this is true of all people with same-sex attraction. Also, if Byrd is accurate in stating that "Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic," the opposite is also true: "Research has not proved that homosexuality is not genetic."  Byrd's assertion that "Homosexuality is not innate 

Byrd's assertion of evidence of more than 50 percent rate of successful treatment ("Similar to the success rates for treating other difficulties") is misleading since he does not define what constitutes either "successful treatment" or "other difficulties." His statement leaves the impression that over half of those treated have successfully changed from same to opposite-sex attraction.  There is no reliable scientific evidence for such a conclusion. Byrd's citation of the research of the NARTH group to support his assertion makes it even more questionable since this group has a reputation of ignoring credible scientific research which does not support its point of view.

Although Byrd and other LDS psychotherapists and clinical researchers at BYU, at Church Social Services, and in private practice have been studying homosexuality and counseling homosexuals for at least several decades, they have produced no scientific studies that support the reorientation or change point of view. Without such data, it is irresponsible to make general or definitive claims.

A respected LDS psychotherapist at BYU contacted after Byrd's article was published reported that all of the studies done on reparative therapy were completed in the 1970s.  He stated, "There is no good new evidence regarding reorientation of homosexuals." The research from those early studies, pointing to a 25% rate of successful reorientation of homosexuals, was far from conclusive.  Researchers have challenged some of the scientific methods of these early studies.  Even if the results could be trusted, they point to a successful reorientation rate of only one in four.

A 1978 BYU thesis by Elizabeth James illustrates the difficulty of evaluating this kind of therapy.  James demonstrates that there are wide estimates of success, based on the care the researchers took in discriminating between homosexuals and bisexuals, who have different rates of reorientation.

Another important factor in reorientation studies is longitudinal evaluation, and few studies have included this component.  That is, some researchers conclude that recidivism rates for those who claim successful reorientation is quite high.  Some LDS psychotherapists report that a number of people who claim to have been "cured" of their homosexuality through Evergreen actually revert to their homosexual feelings and activities after a period of time.

Anecdotal evidence reported by a BYU psychologist is that some people do seem to have success diminishing their homosexual feelings over a long period of time and in establishing successful heterosexual relationships.  He cannot establish whether those who report such success are bisexual or homosexual and he says that when he interviews these people after many years of therapy, they "still seem gay" to him. He also states that "there is no such thing as a cure."

Byrd's claim that the therapy success rate for homosexuality is similar to that for depression is particularly misleading and is seriously at variance with reputable sources. To begin with, antidepressant medications help 80-90% of those with depression and there is a considerable body of research on the efficacy of cognitive, behavioral and interpersonal talk therapies as being helpful well over the 50% rate that Byrd claims.  Of course, those with personality disorders and severe mental illness have much lower rates of success.

SLANTED EVIDENCE

The personal examples Byrd uses in his article are as misleading as his scientific claims. Since one of the unproven, yet widely-held assertions about the causes of homosexuality is the withholding of a father's love and affection, to cite an example of a father reaching out to his homosexual son and hugging him for the first time in his life might lead one to infer that there is a causal relationship between the father's withholding physical affection and his son's homosexuality. Byrd's example is not helpful to those parents who feel this theory has little relevance in their lives or the lives of their children, and it could be devastating to those parents who still labor under the assumption that they are somehow responsible for their child's sexual orientation.

The other example Byrd uses, that of a gay son misinterpreting his parents' support as approval of his promiscuity seems to suggest that the parents should not have given support to their son and that parents are somehow responsible for decisions made by an adult child.  At a time when many parents withhold love and affection from their homosexual children, such conclusions could lead to the homosexual child being even more isolated from the very family members from whom he or she might most expect and need understanding.

At times, Byrd's comments on homosexuality are clearly irresponsible. For the most part, he makes no distinction between 

Byrd's citation of Paul's statement from Corinthians is unfortunate also because it associates "effeminate" behavior with homosexuality.  While it may be true that some homosexuals are effeminate, many are not, and many men with effeminate characteristics are clearly heterosexual.  Such associations can lead to misjudgments that cause pain and embarrassment.

QUESTIONABLE THEOLOGY

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Byrd's article is his suggestion that Christ's atonement can change a homosexual into a heterosexual.  He concludes his article with the statement, "There is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient," implying that the effort to change sexual orientation can be successful through the atonement.  By citing President Benson's statement that "Christ can change human nature," he implies that Christ can change a person's sexual nature. Not only is 

When Byrd urges parents to bear a "testimony of change" to their homosexual children, he may in fact be asking parents to testify to something of which they are in no position to testify.  The implication for Latter-day Saints, of course, is that such testimony is inspired of the Spirit of the Lord.  In a church in which testimony is a central part of our spiritual experience, it is misguiding to use this term in such a context.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

We understand that Byrd has been giving seminars on homosexuality in various regions of the Church.  We have examined material he and others have distributed at such seminars and find that some of it contains the same misinformation and misleading counsel as his Ensign article.  The result is that some bishops and stake presidents are counseling homosexual members of the Church and their families, not with balanced scientific and therapeutic information or from the point of view or with the tone of discourse evident in the statements by President Hinckley and Elder Oakes, but rather with material that is outdated and inaccurate and from a point of view that is rigid and judgmental.  The result of such counsel is that it sometimes has led to the treatment of homosexuals with draconian measures and has added to rather than lifted the burdens of family members who are dealing with these issues.

While Brother Byrd offers some helpful suggestions and while he undoubtedly is well intentioned, if he continues to convey the ideas and attitudes presented in his article and in seminars, we fear that his writing and teaching are likely to be counterproductive to leaders, family members, lay members of the Church, or those Latter-day Saints who face this particular challenge.

As pointed out above, there is no good scientific research that would lead to unambiguous conclusions about either the causes of homosexuality or the degree to which it can be changed.  In such a context, we feel it is unwise to take a definitive stand on these issues.

It  alienates parents when Byrd includes "familial factors" as one of the possible causes of homosexuality and the argument he promotes here about "born that way" is unnecessary.   A more constructive approach would be to acknowledge that homosexuality is complex and that it may involve genetic, biological, and environmental factors. Indeed, the 1995 Ensign article by Elder Oakes takes such an approach.

Providing "accurate information" means being honest with people about what we know about the possibility of change.  No promises should be made about change therapy.   The point of change, after all, is to prepare persons for marriage.  When Byrd insists change is possible, it seems to support the feasibility of marriage for all who are in this situation. Those who are in marriages and have dual attraction should certainly be encouraged to focus on opposite sex attraction and seek to reorient themselves sexually. While others who are motivated to try to change should be encouraged in their efforts, families and church leaders should be prepared, if such efforts are unsuccessful, to continue loving and helping such individuals. These persons may choose to ignore their same sex feelings even if they never change.  That is a far better position  to take than the one Byrd advocates when he insists in some vague way that change is possible for 50% and therefore presumably for everyone who has enough faith.

In summary, there is little in Byrd's article to comfort or guide parents who have homosexual children when, in fact,  something truly supportive and accurate is sorely needed.  Byrd's article asks them to think of  their children's lives in a very