Dear Sister Nelson

 Dear Sister Nelson,

I would kindly ask you to refrain from spreading false doctrines in your official speaking assignments. No one can completely condemn you just for your sincere (though incorrect and non-doctrinal) beliefs but you are not safe from scrutiny and condemnation when you teach those falsehoods publicly.

Now, you might very well become defensive and upset at hearing a statement like this and that is understandable. Nevertheless it is much more polite than what most members of the Church (and leaders) have said to members of the LGBT community and to persons who are friendly to our community, even recently. Still, it is true that you said things that are not doctrine and are in fact not accepted by the First Presidency. I am not simply stating my own opinion of your words but I intend to prove by the words of the First Presidency and various Apostles the truth of my own claims.



The most important falsehood in your talk Sister Nelson is and I quote:

• "Perhaps we need the gift to have our sexual feelings be in harmony with eternal laws." 

The clear meaning of these words is directed at the LGBT community. It is not addressable to heterosexual couples who might be cohabiting or engaging in other unsanctioned sexual conduct. Instead it is directed specifically at "sexual feelings" which clearly refers to sexual orientation and is frequently the wording of choice for various Apostles when referring to homosexuality. Your suggestion is read to mean that sexual orientation can be changed through a gift of the Spirit of God. That assertion was once common among the leaders of the Church, it is true. It is also true that a casual search on LDS.org will imply, through the collected resources displayed, that the Church currently supports and believes sexual orientation itself is either (or both) sinful or changeable. Though the more recent declarations of the Church may be unpopular among the faithful the fact remains that the Apostles have declared that a homosexual orientation is not a sin nor is it expected to be changed.

The Welfare Manual of the Church for Priesthood Leaders comes with a section designed to help leaders work with individuals "struggling with Same-Sex Attraction". And though I have personal thoughts on that term itself "struggling with Same-Sex Attraction", those thoughts will have to wait till another time. For the purposes of this letter I am referring only to official statements provided by the Church itself that contradict your disavowed assertion.  This Priesthood Manual that we need to address has a number of references to modern instructions regarding the attraction itself and how to interact with and support those who might be "struggling" or their family members and friends. One such reference directs the reader to an article written by Elder Jeffery R. Holland: "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction" published in 2007. I quote: "You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings." Elder Holland also states: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life." This last statement directly contradicts your assertion that desperation leads to a guarantee of healing and cleansing, but I will get to that falsehood shortly.

I do feel the need to communicate clearly the fact the Church does not endorse pushing Heterosexual marriages on persons "struggling" with Homosexuality. The same article by Elder Holland that I have quoted above also includes a paragraph on this subject. And I quote: 

"Walk by faith, and help your loved one deal the best he or she can with this challenge.

In doing so, recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness. But other attempts have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes."

In short I would advise all members of the Church, as well as you Sister Nelson, to take from Elder Holland's humility and understanding on the subject of homosexuality. He has shown the wisdom to recognize that homosexuality is not a "one size fits all" issue or struggle nor does it have a "one size fits all" answer. I quote again from Elder Holland's article:

"Although I believe members are eager to extend compassion to those different from themselves, it is human nature that when confronted with a situation we don’t understand, we tend to withdraw. This is particularly true of same-gender attraction. We have so little reliable information about it that those wanting to help are left feeling a bit unsteady. Admitting my own inadequacy in this regard but wanting to assist, let me offer some suggestions to help those who have loved ones or friends who are attracted to the same gender."

Additionally present in the Priesthood Manual is the link for the Interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman of the Seventy, dated to 2006. Again I have personal views on their words and believe them to be misled according to the prevailing customs and culture of the times in which they lived as was the case for Church leaders on the matter of Race and the Priesthood. But once again, for the purposes of this discussion their words are relevant and important. In regards to your statement Sister Nelson that sexual orientation was changeable and your extended comments that such change was connected to a person's desperation Elder Wickman said the following: 

"This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters."

Now, I do want to bring out an example of just how conflicting and contradictory the Church's statements have been over the years with no clear or direct transition from one doctrinally valid standing to another. It is in fact very easy to become confused about the official stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in regards to the nature of Homosexuality, especially when older statements are held as currently valid. In 1996 an article was published by the Church in the Liahona titled "Same-Gender Attraction". This article states:

"We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior."

At first glance this statement appears valid, it is published by the Church and is currently circulated Church-wide. But the joy of having a "modern" and "living" Prophet and Apostles is the fact that God sends updates to His people. And this statement has been updated in more recent years. Though perhaps due to the unwillingness of the faithful to believe God's updated word they cling to older declarations and forget to distribute the most recent councils.

Most recently Elder Jeffrey R. Holland spoke in General Conference. His talk: Behold Thy Mother; included a very bold statement: "And, I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change—no one assumed it would." This statement from an Apostle of the Lord directly declares the reality and doctrinal position that a homosexual orientation is not expected to change, nor is it necessarily required to change, potentially even in God's eyes. But Elder Holland's words do not stand alone in their assertions. A few years ago the Apostles created a new website titled "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction" the opening paragraph of this new and official website of the LDS Church (the official status of this site is very important) speaks volumes:

"The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

The modern instructions from the Apostles is clear. Homosexual orientation is not chosen nor is the experience a matter of choice. Feelings of attraction to the same sex are now understood to beyond the range of a person's ability to choose and in many cases (perhaps in most) they are also beyond a person's ability to change.


Now there is one more issue I want take notice of in your words Sister Nelson. There was a general tone and several connecting quotes that seemed to imply that if a person was not healed, did not have their "sexual feelings changed", when emotional or spiritual pain is not alleviated etc. the reason was because that individual was simply not desperate enough to receive God's aid. That is a very dangerous implication to those who are in fact struggling with pain, repentance, illness or any other less than ideal circumstance of life. I do not know if such an implication was your intent but I sincerely pray and hope that it was not. While need can drive people to action, desperation is not a guarantee of success. Was Father Lehi not as desperate as King Mosiah or Alma Sr. in regards to the salvation of their children? Mosiah and Alma had their prayers answered with a miraculous and permanent change of heart and repentance while Lehi was not so blessed in the case of his two son's Laman and Lemuel.

I ask you and all others to think about that those words and implications can do to those who are desperate or in pain. Think of a gay man or woman who has dutifully and tearfully attended the Temple regularly, fasted often, prayed daily, attended Church every Sunday, accepted every calling without question, always with the prayer and desperation that his or her homosexual feelings be taken away so that he, or she, could enjoy a Temple Marriage and an Eternal Family. Imagine say 20 years, or 40, or perhaps longer, have gone by with no change in that person's sexual attraction despite all the tears and prayers. This man or woman have done everything right, their personal righteousness is noted by their Church leaders and their dedication to the Gospel is praised by their fellow members, he or she has been so desperate to avoid potential sin and change their sexual orientation that they have restricted all non-essential contact and friendships with members of their own sex. Perhaps they have dated and even married someone of the opposite sex out of duty or hope. Yet despite it all they still are faced, every day, with their sexual attraction to their own gender. Will you actually tell them that they still have these feelings because they simply weren't desperate enough to get rid of them? Will you actually tell them that they didn't want to give up their feelings or "favorite sins" enough for God to take them away? Desperation is dangerously close to Despair.

I would ask you, Sister Nelson, and anyone else who reads this to take care with your words. Some might say that myself and others in the LGBT community are simply easily offended and that we should simply change our attitudes regarding the things the faithful say and do. To answer that, and encourage all to take care with what they say and how they say it I quote from the Apostle Paul in the New Testament:
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way."
Romans 14:13

Sincerely,
Joseph Samuel Edwards

There is something I feel impressed to share with everyone. This is my own view based on the quotes and teachings I've shared in this article, so it is not an actual LDS Church position:
In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus Christ himself suffered dearly:
"Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
Matthew 26:38-39
Jesus himself was desperate to remove the pain and burden that he bore yet it was not, and could not, be removed. Is it so hard to see that perhaps some burdens of life are not meant to be removed and even do not need to be, no matter how desperate one might be? Is it so hard to believe that each and every gay man and woman has their own bitter cup to drink and that the cup needs to stay with them? Is it so hard to believe that (as Elder Holland said) a person's sexual orientation was not expected to change, by miracle or otherwise? Perhaps it doesn't need to be changed.

For those who might not be aware, Sister Wendy Nelson is the wife of President Russel M. Nelson, 2nd in line to be the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.