The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Perhaps.  It would just mean that He lied to me when He told me that there was no other way given for me to fulfill my potential than through a heterosexual sealing.  And then again when He inspires me to share my experiences in support of the current Apostles and Prophets as they teach that there is no eternal future for homosexual marriages.  Maybe God really can lie.  I also accept the possibility that I misunderstand the revelations I have received.  If such a revelation were to be presented, I might accept it if God also concurrently apologized for lying to me and the other thousands of us.    

I don't know.  I dont' see revelation whether personal or not as a fool proof endeavor and to God we're nothing but a bundle of fools who simply can't see.  Unless your mind is enlightened to see beyond the grayness I'm not sure it's fair to think God lied, so much as you misunderstanding.  It might be that God told you, sure.  But it could be that He didn't and you mistook it. 

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure it's fair to think God lied, so much as you misunderstanding.  It might be that God told you, sure.  But it could be that He didn't and you mistook it. 

Is this not exactly what I said in the quote?  

Here:

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I also accept the possibility that I misunderstand the revelations I have received.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Is this not exactly what I said in the quote?  

Here:

 

Well sorry your last sentence confused me.  it seems your accepting it would necessarily hinge on God apologizing to you.  Thanks for clarifying.

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well sorry your last sentence confused me.  it seems your accepting it would necessarily hinge on God apologizing to you.  Thanks for clarifying.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.  And accepting it (the above-named "equality revelation") would in fact hinge on God apologizing to me.  If it were to be true that I (we) misunderstand the current situation, I would hold God accountable for allowing me (us) to remain in that delusion.  If it is not true that "Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God," I can think of no compelling reason to assume that a contradictory revelation through the same authority would be any more true.  Thus to accept such a revelation would require additional personal revelation that helps me make sense of how my current degree of certainty in my relationship with God could be completely wrong.  

[Kevin Christensen]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I read your blog twice.  I found it to be pure speculation based on picking and choosing lines from three people who wrote a book each.  Your conclusion is a diagnosis based on fragments of a story about someones life.  You further seem to want to project this diagnosis on an entire group of people.  Or am I reading you wrong.  PLEASE correct me if that is not your intent.  Because I find that concept to be completely bogus.  It is like diagnosing Clinton and Kennedy as being sex addicts and then concluding that anyone that runs for public office is a sex addict.  Please.. . 

I hope I am wrong about this.  If I am, can you please explain the point of your repeated posts on this speculative blog of yours??

Square Two is not my blog. It's an online journal with Richard Bushman as one of the organizers and Valerie Hudson as the editor.  They accepted and published one of essays.  

I don't want to project the diagnosis of addiction on an entire group of people.  I have been around long enough to know something about the dangers of over-generalization from a limited sample.  I personally don't believe there is a "one size fits" all explanation of homosexual behavior.  But in the cases of Gerald and Steven, based on my reading of two books, and a play, plus my own experience well over a decade of addiction recovery, and meeting closely with scores of other men whose addictions had been manifested in a wide variety of ways and watching them over that time, and reading and working with the expert literature on the topic, it did seem overwhelmingly obvious that the presence and influence of sex addiction is a legitimate question and valid response in these specific cases.  And my examination in these cases is intended to bring the significance of the question. and therefore, the potential benefit of the solution to similar cases.  There is therefore, a real potential for life-changing benefits to other people.  And sharing that kind of information goes along with Step 12, having had a spiritual awakening, you see.

I've mentioned my experience several decades ago in the mid-70s, in Salt Lake in the basement of the Cosmic Areoplane bookstore, when a young man approached me while I browsing back issues of Dialogue, put his hand on my crotch, and said, "Excuse me."   In response, I said, "I certainly hope so."  At the time, I was rather bewildered, but after working recovery, and hearing lots of stories and reading lots of books, I've concluded that his action was probably addiction related.  He certainly wasn't looking for a soul-mate, wanting to discuss life and literature, politics, activism, or spirituality.  Addiction always involves a combination of increased craving and impeded judgment.  Don't you think that publicly groping a taller stranger displays an unhealthy craving and poor judgment?   He could have, back then, gone to the Sun Tavern.

 So, I dispute the applicability of the metaphor about over-generalizing regarding Clinton and Kennedy to all candidates for public office.  And I've also written a great deal on the importance of paying attention to the metaphors we use.  

From my essay:

Quote

In my current view, the main issue is not the direction of a person’s sexuality, but whether the overall pattern of behavior demonstrates sex addiction. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can suffer from sex addiction, and that condition affects behavior via cravings combined with impaired judgment. Consider, for instance, whether sex addiction would be a reasonable diagnosis if the behavior was strictly heterosexual. For example, suppose that Steven had admitted to Emily that he’d had sex with at least twenty women during a six month binge, with some repeats, some just “fooling around,” and that “none of it meant anything” since he wasn’t in love. Suppose the post-divorce Gerald had his apartment filled with hardcore heterosexual pornography for Emily to view, and that on visits back home he brought an endless string of female lovers to introduce to the family? Would anyone be quick to dismiss the possibility of sex addiction in these cases?  

In all addictions, whether chemical or behavioral, the damage involves the enlargement of the dopamine receptors in the mid-brain, which produces increased craving, and a corresponding shrinking of the areas of the cerebral cortex associated with weighing risks and benefits in any action.  Bluntly speaking, addiction involves actual brain damage.  That damage affects cravings and the capacity to weigh consequences in a way that Alcoholics Anonymous pioneers accurately labeled as “cunning, baffling, and powerful.” Pelting the symptoms of that damage with disapproval or indulgence, excommunication or enabling, shaming or celebration does nothing to address the fact of the damage. All addiction involves the presence of a physiological basis for the combination of craving and impeded judgment.  Readers of the narratives in our Mormon Rashomon should ask, “Do any of the key figures display powerful cravings? Do any of the figures display impaired judgment regarding the risks and benefits of their choices in regard to those cravings?”

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Later on in my Mormon Rashomon essay, I have this:

Quote

There is an addiction treatment that works, that actually does address and heal the physiological damage involved in addiction, a treatment that shrinks the enlarged area of the brain containing the dopamine receptors, and restores the area of the cortex associated with weighing costs and benefits.  It is not a treatment for homosexuality as such any more than it is a treatment for heterosexuality. 

Furthermore, I know several men who can report and demonstrate that a homosexual who is not also an undiagnosed sex addict is capable of choices and behavior that a sex addicted homosexual cannot easily manage. Similarly, a heterosexual who is not sex addicted is capable of choices and behavior than an addict cannot easily manage. 

I do not see the presence of addiction as an explanation for an entire group of people if you mean that group to be the gay and lesbian community. However sex addicts are also a group of people, some of whom direct their acting out towards the same sex, some both, and others the opposite.  I personally know all sorts, having heard the life stories of all sorts.  And sex addiction is not rare, but is all too common and enabled far more than it is diagnosed.  It has been closely studied for several decades, with Patrick Carnes publishing much important work, based on wide ranging studies, the first book, Don't Call It Love, looking at about a thousand people.  He has been followed by others such as Marsha Means and Barbara Stephans, John Bradshaw and Milton Magness, among others.  This essay is particularly informative on the brain chemistry and physiology:

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly Articles/HiltonDL_UnderstandingTheAddictiveNatureOfPornography.html

And this is a good resource on the physiology of addiction:

https://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Unwoven-Explanation-Disease-Addiction/dp/B003AC98V2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466633055&sr=8-1&keywords=pleasure+unwoven+by+kevin+mccauley

I showed it to a group of men in a recovery group, and by the end they were all wanting to borrow it to take home and show their wives.  The first borrower, incidentally, had a past of acting out with anonymous men in adult bookstores, or dangerous neighborhoods,  more times than he could count.

 And recovery has also been closely studied since the 1930s, and is a valuable tool.  There are several 12 Step recovery groups that allow committed same sex behavior in their sobriety definitions (SLAA and SAA, for example).

If addiction is present, the addict's interests are not served by telling them that there is no such thing as either addiction or recovery. Quite the opposite.  In hearing the possibility, they then must choose for themselves what to do with the diagnosis, for better, as I have personally seen in many cases, or for worse, as it happens, I have also seen. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 23, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
missing word

[Calm]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Edit:  Sorry for the big type.  Does anyone know how to change font size.  The old program used to do it automatically.  

Remove formatting when pasting, a prompt willappear below the paste, sometimes far enough it is offscreen so you have to scroll down.

[kllindley]

 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I do not see the presence of addiction as an explanation for an entire group of people if you mean that group to be the gay and lesbian community. However sex addicts are also a group of people, some of whom direct their acting out towards the same sex, some both, and others the opposite.

Thank you for clarifying that you are not suggesting that all LGBT are simply addicts.  From the context of you first several posts, that is what I understood as well.  

Even with the additional context and clarification, I am left wondering about the connection you see between sexual addiction and the discussion here about a divide between LDS members who believe same-sex (sexual/romantic) relationships are sinful and those who do not believe in any divine restriction on gender of partners.  

The best that I can come up with is that you have heard people insist that LGBT people <cannot> reasonably be expected to refrain from same-sex relationships.  As evidence someone may cite the fact that individuals such as you cite report feeling powerless to resist.  Knowing how sex addiction impacts behavior and the subjective experience of control, you tend to believe that most/many/some people who claim that they cannot live the gospel due to conflicting same-sex desire are responding more to the addiction than the same-sex nature of the desire.  Is that correct?  

If it is not, would you help me understand better?

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

Thank you for clarifying that you are not suggesting that all LGBT are simply addicts.  From the context of you first several posts, that is what I understood as well.  

Even with the additional context and clarification, I am left wondering about the connection you see between sexual addiction and the discussion here about a divide between LDS members who believe same-sex (sexual/romantic) relationships are sinful and those who do not believe in any divine restriction on gender of partners.  

The best that I can come up with is that you have heard people insist that LGBT people <cannot> reasonably be expected to refrain from same-sex relationships.  As evidence someone may cite the fact that individuals such as you cite report feeling powerless to resist.  Knowing how sex addiction impacts behavior and the subjective experience of control, you tend to believe that most/many/some people who claim that they cannot live the gospel due to conflicting same-sex desire are responding more to the addiction than the same-sex nature of the desire.  Is that correct?  

If it is not, would you help me understand better?

Yes.  I am not suggesting that all LGBT people are addicts.  But I know what addiction is, both from personal experience, and from over a decade of personal observation of a wide range of other people working recovery and telling their very personal stories.  And reading the expert literature from the most important and productive experts.

And I also know from personal experience that it's not a matter of pelting compulsive behavior with either disapproval or indulgence, but of actual healing.  What used to feel like trying to hold a beach ball underwater while it was being pumped full of air is now, for me, and for others I know, quite easy in consequence of 12 Step recovery, which does directly address the root of the problem. If you actually do the work required.  "If we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to the principle upon which is is predicated."  Cause and effect directed at the real cause of the effects.

Daniel reports that Steven Fales is out of fashion and criticized in certain circles.  (Nothing so official and unloving as excommunication of course.)  In the Sunstone in which his play was published he reported that everywhere he performed his one man play, people from a range of faith traditions would approach him and say, "You've told my story."  I've heard the same kind of story in on several occasions myself.   Steven's patterns of behavior are not unique, nor restricted to or aimed at particular genders or forms of acting out.  They may not be ideal, or totally representative, but not unique.  I heard the man who wrote the SA white book describe how, on the way home from his brother's funeral, whose death occurred after he had picked up a male hitch hiker for sex, and things got out of hand, he stopped on the way home to pick up a male hitchhiker for sex (something he had done a lot, just not after burying a sibling).  That, he recognizes, was a clear demonstration of craving combined with impaired judgement.  Addiction, he now realizes, regardless of orientation.  In the car right behind him, watching him do this was his wife.  He claimed it was a student of his... At this point, he has over 30 years sexual sobriety.   So change in relation to addiction can happen.   And as I explicitly stated and repeated, addiction recovery addresses compulsiveness, not orientation. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

[rodheadlee]

On 6/21/2016 at 7:02 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

So you're admitting here that you'd reject an equality revelation?  Isn't that what Warren Jeff and his ilk do pick and choose?

Equality? I guess that's the PC way to describe it. If the church allowed SSM in the temple it would be in apostasy. It has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with eternal truths that have already been revealed. I have had personal revelation that confirms this so I have to live my life the best as I can with what I know. i don't know why you compare me to Warren Jeffs. I'm not familiar with what he does or how he lives his life. I certainly wouldn't start my own church. I would just stop going to church. Everyone should live their life according to the knowledge they have. I notice you didn't comment on my other post with a quote from Matthew and Daniel. Perhaps you should study it out,  pray and get your own revelation regarding ssm. It's ironic that you are the one currently rejecting revelation by the Apostles and you accuse me of picking and choosing.

Edited June 23, 2016 by rodheadlee

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Square Two is not my blog. It's an online journal with Richard Bushman as one of the organizers and Valerie Hudson as the editor.  They accepted and published one of essays.  

I don't want to project the diagnosis of addiction on an entire group of people.  I have been around long enough to know something about the dangers of over-generalization from a limited sample.  I personally don't believe there is a "one size fits" all explanation of homosexual behavior.  But in the cases of Gerald and Steven, based on my reading of two books, and a play, plus my own experience well over a decade of addiction recovery, and meeting closely with scores of other men whose addictions had been manifested in a wide variety of ways and watching them over that time, and reading and working with the expert literature on the topic, it did seem overwhelmingly obvious that the presence and influence of sex addiction is a legitimate question and valid response in these specific cases.  And my examination in these cases is intended to bring the significance of the question. and therefore, the potential benefit of the solution to similar cases.  There is therefore, a real potential for life-changing benefits to other people.  And sharing that kind of information goes along with Step 12, having had a spiritual awakening, you see.

I've mentioned my experience several decades ago in the mid-70s, in Salt Lake in the basement of the Cosmic Areoplane bookstore, when a young man approached me while I browsing back issues of Dialogue, put his hand on my crotch, and said, "Excuse me."   In response, I said, "I certainly hope so."  At the time, I was rather bewildered, but after working recovery, and hearing lots of stories and reading lots of books, I've concluded that his action was probably addiction related.  He certainly wasn't looking for a soul-mate, wanting to discuss life and literature, politics, activism, or spirituality.  Addiction always involves a combination of increased craving and impeded judgment.  Don't you think that publicly groping a taller stranger displays an unhealthy craving and poor judgment?   He could have, back then, gone to the Sun Tavern.

 So, I dispute the applicability of the metaphor about over-generalizing regarding Clinton and Kennedy to all candidates for public office.  And I've also written a great deal on the importance of paying attention to the metaphors we use.  

From my essay:

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Later on in my Mormon Rashomon essay, I have this:

I do not see the presence of addiction as an explanation for an entire group of people if you mean that group to be the gay and lesbian community. However sex addicts are also a group of people, some of whom direct their acting out towards the same sex, some both, and others the opposite.  I personally know all sorts, having heard the life stories of all sorts.  And sex addiction is not rare, but is all too common and enabled far more than it is diagnosed.  It has been closely studied for several decades, with Patrick Carnes publishing much important work, based on wide ranging studies, the first book, Don't Call It Love, looking at about a thousand people.  He has been followed by others such as Marsha Means and Barbara Stephans, John Bradshaw and Milton Magness, among others.  This essay is particularly informative on the brain chemistry and physiology:

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly Articles/HiltonDL_UnderstandingTheAddictiveNatureOfPornography.html

And this is a good resource on the physiology of addiction:

https://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Unwoven-Explanation-Disease-Addiction/dp/B003AC98V2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466633055&sr=8-1&keywords=pleasure+unwoven+by+kevin+mccauley

I showed it to a group of men in a recovery group, and by the end they were all wanting to borrow it to take home and show their wives.  The first borrower, incidentally, had a past of acting out with anonymous men in adult bookstores, or dangerous neighborhoods,  more times than he could count.

 And recovery has also been closely studied since the 1930s, and is a valuable tool.  There are several 12 Step recovery groups that allow committed same sex behavior in their sobriety definitions (SLAA and SAA, for example).

If addiction is present, the addict's interests are not served by telling them that there is no such thing as either addiction or recovery. Quite the opposite.  In hearing the possibility, they then must choose for themselves what to do with the diagnosis, for better, as I have personally seen in many cases, or for worse, as it happens, I have also seen. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I don't know if Gerald and Steven are sex addicts based on the few lines you have put together from the three books.  You sound more qualified to make that assessment than I do.  But so what?  I don't think anyone would disagree that you can be gay and be a sex addict any more than someone can be straight and be a sex addict.  In either case, I am sure therapy would help to overcome that addiction.  

I still don't understand what the point of your post was.  What does that have to do with bridging the gap?  While we do know that a 12 step program may very well be helpful in overcoming their sex addiction, we also know that there is no 12 step program to make someone straight.  They are still gay.  Maybe you could explain why you inserted this into the discussion multiple times.  Obviously it is an important point for you.  I am just unclear what that point was.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Remove formatting when pasting, a prompt willappear below the paste, sometimes far enough it is offscreen so you have to scroll down.

Thanks.  I will try that.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The gap that is too wide is the age difference between me and the girls that like me in my single's ward. I'm in a 18-31 year old ward and the 18 and 19 year olds like me, but I'm 30. I went on a date today with a really cute 21 year old RM girl. She's old enough at least.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The gap that is too wide is the age difference between me and the girls that like me in my single's ward. I'm in a 18-31 year old ward and the 18 and 19 year olds like me, but I'm 30. I went on a date today with a really cute 21 year old RM girl. She's old enough at least.

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 10:11 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

I've have thought the questions were obvious.  Addiction as a presence, and what should be our response when recognized?  Is misdirection, silence and denial best?  Or recognition and intelligent response?

I met Carol Lynn a couple of times, once in California after my Sunstone presentation on NDEs and the Book of Mormon, and once in SLC around 1999 after one of her talks.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Apologies for not responding sooner... I was otherwise occupied in RL off-board for the last couple days.  In response to your post:

I appreciate you clarifying a bit more what topics you were hoping to generate discussion on; namely, whether or not we can recognize if addiction may have been a factor in the Pearson/Fales dynamic, and if so, what is the best response.

I think it's helpful, first and foremost, to understand what we're talking about, when we say "sexual addiction."  A recent online article summarizes some of the complexity surrounding the topic, and addresses a few points I think are worth highlighting, given that they resonate with my personal life experience as applicable:

Quote

You've probably heard of sex addiction, but you might be surprised to know that there's debate about whether it's truly an addiction, and that it's not even all about sex.

"That's a common misconception," says Rory Reid, PhD, LCSW, a research psychologist at UCLA's Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior. "It is no more about sex than an eating disorder is about food or pathological gambling is about money."

Sex addicts, in other words, are not simply people who crave lots of sex. Instead, they have underlying problems -- stress, anxiety, depression, shame -- that drive their often risky sexual behavior.

"Those are some of the core issues that you start to see when you treat someone with sex addiction," says John O'Neill, LCSW, LCDC, CAS, CART, a certified addiction counselor at the Menninger Clinic in Houston. "You can't miss those pieces."

What Is Sex Addiction?

Sex addiction won't be in the upcoming edition of the DSM-5, which is used to diagnose mental disorders.

 

That doesn't mean that it's not a very real problem.

 

"People are going to seek help, and there doesn't need to be diagnosable condition for them to get help," Reid says. "If they are suffering, we want to help them." 

 

Reid and many other experts prefer the term "hypersexual disorder," rather than "sex addiction."

 

By either name, it's about people who keep engaging in sexual behaviors that are damaging them and/or their families.

 

As examples, Reid cites men who spend half their income on prostitutes, and office workers who surf the web for porn despite warnings that they'll lose their job if they keep it up.

 

"Who does that? Somebody with a problem," Reid says.

 

That problem puts so much at risk: their personal lives, their social lives, their jobs, and, with the threat of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, their health.

 

Despite the danger, they return to the same behaviors over and over, whether it's Internet porn, soliciting sex workers, ceaselessly seeking affairs, masturbating or exposing themselves in public, or any number of other acts.

 

"I see in them an inability to stop what they're doing," O'Neill says. "They're preoccupied; their brain just keeps going back to it. It often leads to loneliness and isolation. There's such intense shame and pain."

 

Frequently, a crisis convinces them to seek treatment, Reid says. They're caught in the act by a spouse, fired from their job, or arrested for soliciting sex from prostitutes. For some people, the crisis brings relief from distress caused by their behavior and constant fear of being discovered. "The world comes crashing down," says Reid, "and some say, 'I'm glad that I got caught.'"

Addiction or Not?

There are no reliable estimates of how many people have the disorder.  Some studies suggest that it's more common in men, and gay men in particular, than women. 

 

The causes are also unknown, or how similar it is to other addictions. That's one reason that Reid prefers the term hypersexual disorder (HD).

 

"We don't know if the [brain] mechanisms associated with HD behavior operate the same ways as a substance disorder or pathological gambling," Reid says.

 

Reid says HD behavior can appear similar to those associated with obsessive compulsive disorder. It also could be tied to abnormal levels of the brain chemical dopamine or serotonin. Or, problems related to attention, impulse control, or emotional regulation could also be involved.

 

"There are so many models or theories that we can look at to help us understand HD," Reid says. "An addiction model is just one of them."

 

Treating Hypersexual Disorder

 

There isn't much research on what treatments work best. Reid encourages his patients to challenge the thoughts that lead to their risky behavior.

 

"If a patient says he has a craving and he can't control it, I confront the 'can't,'" Reid says. "I ask, 'What's going to happen if you don't satisfy that craving? Is your penis going to fall off? No.' I try to get the patient to see things more realistically."

 

One-on-one counseling, support groups, and having a plan are key.

 

"You want to make connections with other people who are also struggling, and you have to know who you are going to call, what you are going to do, and how you are going to attend to your feelings," O'Neill says. "If they're willing to really follow through, work with their families and their support networks, in my experience, people can get significantly better and stay in recovery."

 

In some cases, medications used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder or impulse control disorders may be used to curb the compulsive nature of the sex addiction.

 

I believe that the portions that resonate most in the above article to our discussion--and that part which dovetails with the Pearson/Fales dynamic--are the following:

• "That's a common misconception," says Rory Reid, PhD, LCSW, a research psychologist at UCLA's Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior. " It is no more about  sex than an eating disorder is about food or pathological gambling is about money."
• Sex addicts, in other words, are not simply people who crave lots of sex. Instead, they have underlying problems -- stress, anxiety, depression, shame -- that drive their often risky sexual behavior.
• "Those are some of the core issues that you start to see when you treat someone with sex addiction," says John O'Neill, LCSW, LCDC, CAS, CART, a certified addiction counselor at the Menninger Clinic in Houston. "You can't miss those pieces."

In my experience, young gay men (especially those of us from highly religious backgrounds) grappling with our sexual orientation as it relates to our identity often face high levels stress, anxiety, depression, and shame, so it's no surprise to me that gay men face higher levels of the above types of behavior than our straight counterparts. 

In fact, these exact themes are addressed in the book that I've repeatedly advocated here, called The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man's World, by Alan Downs, Ph.D., who is a clinical psychologist in private practice located in Beverly Hills, California.  His biography describes him this way:

Quote

He is the author of seven previous books and continues to write and hold workshops across the United States. He is actively involved in dialectical behavior therapy and is a member of the Beverly Hills DBT Team. Dr. Downs is the former CEO of Michael's House Treatment Center where he currently holds weekend workshops for families of those struggling with addictions. His current book, THE VELVET RAGE, has been acclaimed as "groundbreaking" for the gay male community.

The jacket-summary of his book, which I've shared before here on the site numerous times, is as follows:

Quote

Today’s gay man enjoys unprecedented, hard-won social acceptance. Despite this victory, however, serious problems still exist. Substance abuse, depression, suicide, and sex addiction among gay men are at an all-time high, causing many to ask, “Are we really better off?” Drawing on contemporary research, psychologist Alan Downs’s own struggle with shame and anger, and stories from his patients,The Velvet Rage passionately describes the stages of a gay man’s journey out of shame and offers practical and inspired strategies to stop the cycle of avoidance and self-defeating behavior. Updated to reflect the effects of the many recent social, cultural, and political changes, The Velvet Rage is an empowering book that has already changed the public discourse on gay culture and helped shape the identity of an entire generation of gay men. [Bold added by me, to demonstrate the applicability to this current discussion].

As I have repeatedly and continually done, I HIGHLY recommend anyone who knows or has a gay loved one familiarize themselves with the above book... It's available through Amazon at the link on the title above.

Beyond the above, however, as a former member of The Connecticut Gay Father's Association, and one of the founders of The Utah Gay Father's Association, I heard many, many, many similar stories to those described by Pearson and Fales about gay men who repressed/denied their same-sex desires, almost always out of a sense of religious obligation and social pressure, and with the best and 'truest' of intentions, entered into heterosexual marriages with women, trying to claim a heterosexual identity in conjunction with their claims to a specific religiously-proscribed mandate to be straight, instead of gay. 

In speaking with literally hundreds of men through these organizations, the outcomes they've described are always very similar...

1. A 'Honeymoon' periods where such gay men were highly motivated and initially elated to be able to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle for a few-to-several years, often times fathering a few young children and being emotionally-rewarded from the fulfillment received from fatherhood (in my case, this lasted for 4- to 5 years)...
2. Followed by a period of realization that their same-sex desires hadn't diminished or changed, slipping into despair, depression, isolation, and loneliness...
3. Leading to gradual, covert/secretive adulterous same-gender sexual experimentation, almost innocent at first, following by increasing attempts to connect and explore and understand...
4. Falling into increasingly unhealthy, dark, and dangerous cyclical patterns of:   'acting out' sexually...depression and despair... self-loathing... marital recommitment and attempts at personal righteousness... loneliness and isolation... a desire to connect and be understood... 'acting out' sexually... depression and despair... rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat...

By this point, all of these married gay men (including myself, back in the early 2000's) get stuck in that horrifically-destructive sexually-acting-out "feedback loop"... It's like riding a sadistic Merry-Go-Round-of-Hell.  And, to your point, Kevin, YES--that is when it becomes 'sexual addiction.'  That is, patterns of sexual behavior that become so repetitive and routine that it's incredibly difficult to break out of, even though the behaviors themselves are very destructive--both personally, and to one's family.

And to answer your question: NO, misdirection, silence and denial are clearly not best.

And it is MUCH better and more healthy to recognize the destructive patterns and have an intelligent response...

I imagine you and I may disagree on what the intelligent response might be... but we both might agree with the previous comments I quoted by Rory Reid, PhD, LCSW and John O'Neill, LCSW, LCDC, CAS, CART:

• "Sex Addiction" is no more about sex than an eating disorder is about food or pathological gambling is about money.
• Sex addicts are not simply people who crave lots of sex.
• They have underlying problems -- stress, anxiety, depression, shame -- that drive their often risky sexual behavior.
• Therapists must start with the underlying core issues when they treat someone with sex addiction, and cannot miss those pieces if they are to be effective.

In my case, when I finally found myself on that same self-destructive (not to mention familial-destructive) path of the cycle of sexually-dangerous behaviors I described above, and after coming close to suicide on several occasions, I realized that one way or the other the end result would likely be death, I decided to proactively make a change and chose life. 

For me, that meant coming clean with my wife, family, and church about my past--including efforts at reparative therapy through Evergreen while at BYU, my decision to follow the promises I'd been given by two former bishops who'd promised that my same-sex attraction would go away if I got married, and my subsequent decent into depression and adultery following years of living in an absolute denial of my craving same-sex affection, validation, and connection. 

After a year's time of religious and marriage counseling together with my wife through LDS Social Services, a return to meeting with a private-practice LDS reparative therapist, and weekly ecclesiastical meetings with my new LDS bishop, it became clear to me that the answers being proposed by the church weren't resonating as valuable to me, and I parted ways both with the LDS paradigm, the church, my wife, and my marriage. 

I began counseling with a new, non-LDS (in fact, he was Jewish) straight therapist who helped me address those core issues that have been described in the article above that were the driving force behind so much of my own negative, sexually-addictive behaviors.  As we addressed

I finally found self-acceptance and self-affirmation and love encompassing all of who I am, including positive validation of my innate sexual orientation.  Because of addressing the inner shame, self-loathing, and depression that had been ruling my life, the false validation that I had been seeking through furtive sexual encounters vanished, and I was able to find wholeness on my own.   Which, ironically, finally allowed me to be healed and free and open enough to be present for a relationship with someone who I now share an incredible life with--the man I love and cherish as my husband, and to whom I am fully happy, committed, and monogamous.

Thankfully, I am not alone, and organizations like The Utah Gay Father's Association, which I helped co-found, exist to help men break the destructive cycle of self-loathing, shame, and addiction.

For what it's worth: while obviously, these findings won't have any affect on Gerald and others like him that lost their lives (in his and so many others' cases, due to terminal illnesses contracted through promiscuity; and so many others through depression ending in suicide), I do know from personal experience that Steven Fales has since gone through programs to help him overcome his addictions.

I'm happy to discuss any other aspects of your article.  Please feel free to raise any other issues, topics, themes, or responses to the above, and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able.

Best regards,

Daniel

Edited June 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe you could explain why you inserted this into the discussion multiple times.  Obviously it is an important point for you.  I am just unclear what that point was.

Like you, CB, I've been puzzling over Kevin's repeated reposting of the article, seemingly always accompanied by several statements inferring that it's being ignored.

Hopefully, now that it's been acknowledged and addressed in some detail here, Kevin can help clarify what his point is and if else he feels there are any that we aren't addressing...?

D

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, kllindley said:

If it is not true that "Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God," I can think of no compelling reason to assume that a contradictory revelation through the same authority would be any more true.  Thus to accept such a revelation would require additional personal revelation that helps me make sense of how my current degree of certainty in my relationship with God could be completely wrong.  

It seems to me that the answer is actually quite simple and there isn't any contradiction at all.

Consider that ALL of the following can be true, simultaneously, without any inherent conflict between the two:

• "Marriage between people of the same race is ordained of God."
• "Marriage between people of different races is ordained of God."

For a LOOOOONG time, according to the LDS church,

• the first statement above was true,
• church leaders taught that the second was an abomination before God and (including that it would cause death on the spot), and it was prohibited by the church, and
• people assumed (or even received personal revelation) that the second couldn't possibly be true, because they all assumed it must contradict the first sentence.

But, so far as Mormons are concerned, the second ALSO ended up being true, and didn't contradict the first at all. 

And no apology was ever offered for the former prohibition.

Regarding marriage, it seems there's already been some wiggle room about what's been approved by God, and what isn't... Both of the above are true, within the LDS paradigm:

• Marriage between a man and several women is ordained of God.
• Marriage between one man and one woman is ordained of God.

Keep in mind, the modern LDS church has never disavowed the doctrinal practice of polygamy--only suspended it--so technically, the above statements are still both simultaneously true.  In the same fashion, a future LDS prophet could someday reveal that while both of the above continue to be true, the following are ALSO true:

• Marriage between two women is ordained of God.
• Marriage between two men is ordained of God.

None of them inherently conflict with the other, especially since the LDS understanding of God encompasses' the idea that God has and can ordain multiple and seemingly-conflicting versions of the marital covenant.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The gap that is too wide is the age difference between me and the girls that like me in my single's ward. I'm in a 18-31 year old ward and the 18 and 19 year olds like me, but I'm 30. I went on a date today with a really cute 21 year old RM girl. She's old enough at least.

Why? Why is the gap too wide? Does 2 or 3 years really make a difference?

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Apologies for not responding sooner... I was otherwise occupied in RL off-board for the last couple days.  In response to your post:

I appreciate you clarifying a bit more what topics you were hoping to generate discussion on; namely, whether or not we can recognize if addiction may have been a factor in the Pearson/Fales dynamic, and if so, what is the best response.

I think it's helpful, first and foremost, to understand what we're talking about, when we say "sexual addiction."  A recent online article summarizes some of the complexity surrounding the topic, and addresses a few points I think are worth highlighting, given that they resonate with my personal life experience as applicable:

 

 

Excellent post Daniel.  I learned a lot about sexual addiction.  Thanks.  I identify with much of what you wrote.  I vividly remember those first couple of years of marriage were I foolish thought that if I just had more sex with my wife, then maybe the promise given to me by my church leaders would happen.  The more I tried, the more I realized that the promise was a lie.  It was unfair to me and to my wife.  She deserved to have sexual relations with someone out of love and not out of a desire to become straight.  No matter how much sex I had with my wife, it was never going to make me straight.  The chain of events put in motion by those church leaders has caused a lot of unhappiness in my families lives.  

Thankfully, like you, I have been made whole.  I too have a wonderful and productive life with someone I love and cherish.  In the end, the blessings came.  I just had to trust in God and not church leaders.  

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 5:33 PM, JLHPROF said:

Because the members as a whole didn't want to.
The Church operates on common consent.

Did "Common Consent" apply to the priesthood/temple ban for blacks?  If so, when/how...?

Did "Common Consent" apply to the baptism/priesthood/temple ban for gays and lesbians and any their children?  If so, when/how...?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

It seems to me that the answer is actually quite simple and there isn't any contradiction at all.

Consider that ALL of the following can be true, simultaneously, without any inherent conflict between the two:

• "Marriage between people of the same race is ordained of God."
• "Marriage between people of different races is ordained of God."

For a LOOOOONG time, according to the LDS church,

• the first statement above was true,
• church leaders taught that the second was an abomination before God and (including that it would cause death on the spot), and it was prohibited by the church, and
• people assumed (or even received personal revelation) that the second couldn't possibly be true, because they all assumed it must contradict the first sentence.

But, so far as Mormons are concerned, the second ALSO ended up being true, and didn't contradict the first at all.  And no apology was ever given otherwise.

And no apology was ever offered for the former prohibition.

Regarding marriage, it seems there's already been some wiggle room about what's been approved by God, and what isn't... Both of the above are true, within the LDS paradigm:

• Marriage between a man and several women is ordained of God.
• Marriage between one man and one woman is ordained of God.

Keep in mind, the modern LDS church has never disavowed the doctrinal practice of polygamy--only suspended it--so technically, the above statements are still both simultaneously true.  In the same fashion, a future LDS prophet could someday reveal that while both of the above continue to be true, the following are ALSO true:

• Marriage between two women is ordained of God.
• Marriage between two men is ordained of God.

None of them inherently conflict with the other, especially since the LDS understanding of God encompasses' the idea that God has and can ordain multiple and seemingly-conflicting versions of the marital covenant.

Daniel, I can totally understand and accept that there are ways to think about the issue that don't create the inconsistency or doctrinal conflict like you describe.  I have said since 2007 that the "reasons" Church members come up with to argue against same-sex marriage (and many, many other things) are flat out stupid--not to mention totally unconvincing.  

In attempting to explain my personal position, the equation is significantly altered by my personal experience, which I interpret to be revelation from God.  I have acknowledged that I might be misunderstanding that experience.  The problem is that if I accept that I misunderstand revelation on this issue, which is so central and essential to my faith, I have to ask why I would believe the other witnesses and testimonies that I have received.  If I was wrong about this, why wouldn't I be wrong about the Book of Mormon, Restored Authority, The divinity of Christ, the Existence of God.  I believe all of these things based on the same evidence: spiritual revelation.  

This is why I have a hard time imagining myself remaining a member of the Church after some such revelation.  As I said, the only way I can see that happening is receiving some profound apology or revelation (personal, not institutional) that would justify maintaining belief in some of my testimony, while abandoning the most central components.   

[Daniel2]

30 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Daniel, I can totally understand and accept that there are ways to think about the issue that don't create the inconsistency or doctrinal conflict like you describe.  I have said since 2007 that the "reasons" Church members come up with to argue against same-sex marriage (and many, many other things) are flat out stupid--not to mention totally unconvincing.  

In attempting to explain my personal position, the equation is significantly altered by my personal experience, which I interpret to be revelation from God.  I have acknowledged that I might be misunderstanding that experience.  The problem is that if I accept that I misunderstand revelation on this issue, which is so central and essential to my faith, I have to ask why I would believe the other witnesses and testimonies that I have received.  If I was wrong about this, why wouldn't I be wrong about the Book of Mormon, Restored Authority, The divinity of Christ, the Existence of God.  I believe all of these things based on the same evidence: spiritual revelation.  

This is why I have a hard time imagining myself remaining a member of the Church after some such revelation.  As I said, the only way I can see that happening is receiving some profound apology or revelation (personal, not institutional) that would justify maintaining belief in some of my testimony, while abandoning the most central components.   

I appreciate the acknowledgment that the statements can be understood as entirely doctrinally consistent.

I can also appreciate that you feel you've received personal revelation otherwise.  I don't think you're alone in that feeling, as many others have said something along similar lines.

Problematically, other people have had personal revelations to the opposite effect.

I imagine this is always the push-and-pull that occurs whenever new revelation refuting previously-held beliefs occurs.  The church lost many people when polygamy was discontinued; it lost many when the priesthood ban was dismissed; I imagine it may have lost many when the gospel blessings were extended to the uncircumcised in eons passed...

From what I've experienced, many members find comfort that God may have actually been behind a certain prohibition, at the time, until external times mandated a different and new approach.  I'm not sure that would qualify for your personal circumstances... but I can also understand if you felt the need to leave, if you felt the church violated your own internal sense of right vs. wrong.  That is what motivated me to leave...

Out of curiosity... Could you clarify: are you a woman legally married to a woman...?  Raising children in the LDS church...?  Or are you a man married to a woman...?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Did "Common Consent" apply to the priesthood/temple ban for blacks?  If so, when/how...?

When the membership losses/potential member decreases became potentially huge the ban was ended.

Common consent is about more than the "vote".
When members were refusing to wear the original garment, altering them, or not attending the temple altogether, the original garment was changed.
When members were expressing dislike for elements of the temple endowment the endowment ceremony was altered.

And despite what some TBMs here may say, if enough members support SSM and/or leave over objections to the Church policy on SSM, that common consent (or lack thereof) will lead to another change.

God gives us the Church we are willing to accept, while keeping his principles inviolate.  It is Moses and Mt. Sinai all over again.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When the membership losses/potential member decreases became potentially huge the ban was ended.

Common consent is about more than the "vote".
When members were refusing to wear the original garment, altering them, or not attending the temple altogether, the original garment was changed.
When members were expressing dislike for elements of the temple endowment the endowment ceremony was altered.

And despite what some TBMs here may say, if enough members support SSM and/or leave over objections to the Church policy on SSM, that common consent (or lack thereof) will lead to another change.

God gives us the Church we are willing to accept, while keeping his principles inviolate.  It is Moses and Mt. Sinai all over again.

I think you're definitely on to something.  It speaks to a bottom up approach that seems to conflict with the Church's top down approach to all of this.  I think that's why it seems so reasonable that SSM will be supported by the Church someday.  Just take a look at the youth today.  Sure there are plenty of SSM opposers amongst the youth of the Church, but it's hardly unanimous or near unanimous as it once was.  My son's like "what's wrong with the Church" when it comes to SS issues, but, granted, that may be in part because of me.  But he's not alone. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're definitely on to something.  It speaks to a bottom up approach that seems to conflict with the Church's top down approach to all of this.  I think that's why it seems so reasonable that SSM will be supported by the Church someday.  Just take a look at the youth today.  Sure there are plenty of SSM opposers amongst the youth of the Church, but it's hardly unanimous or near unanimous as it once was.  My son's like "what's wrong with the Church" when it comes to SS issues, but, granted, that may be in part because of me.  But he's not alone.

That's because God's will is top down.  Man's will is bottom up.

It's where we draw the dividing line in the Church that decides whether we are in order or out of order.
The misconception is that man can change God's will.  Man can change the Church but not God's will.

Every change made by man outside of God's will puts us more out of order.  Every change made by God outside of man's will creates discomfort for the membership.
Drawing that line is difficult.

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because God's will is top down.  Man's will is bottom up.

It's where we draw the dividing line in the Church that decides whether we are in order or out of order.
The misconception is that man can change God's will.  Man can change the Church but not God's will.

Every change made by man outside of God's will puts us more out of order.  Every change made by God outside of man's will creates discomfort for the membership.
Drawing that line is difficult.

 

Nature works from the bottom up. Evolution and star formation are completely bottom up rather than top down. Why would God be different?