Here’s the video report from KUTV 2News (tip o’ the hat to Faith-Promoting Rumor for the heads up):
Excerpts from KUTV’s report:
“I am a LDS mother, a wife and I struggle from same sex attraction, said Misty, whose name has been changed to protect her kids.
…
Evergreen International, a group whose mission is to help Mormons overcome same-sex attraction, reports that there are 4 or 5 members in each ward that are attracted to people of the same sex. It says about half of those people are married with children.
“I fully believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, Misty said. I don’t think that people are born gay. I think that they are born with the tendencies to be gay. It’s like drinking or smoking.”
Misty says she has been attracted to women since middle school and she has been unfaithful in marriage.
“I actually did have a homosexual relationship, she said.
…
After much contemplation, she turned to her LDS church leaders for help.“The church was one of the largest advocates for me in trying to decide or figure out who I was and what I wanted in life.”
I don’t doubt that I will never overcome the fact that I am more comfortable with a woman, she said. “I will always struggle with that, with wanting to be with a woman.”
“Everyone has struggles, and everyone has feelings that aren’t in accordance with the church, but we’re human and you’re able to come to peace with it.”
This has been a Paid Service Announcement for Evergreen International, Boyd K. Packer, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Here’s to hoping Part Two is not.
P.S. By the way, if Evergreen’s statistic is accurate, and if there are approx. 20,000 Mormon congregations around the world, doesn’t that mean there are around 80-100,000 members in similar circumstances?
P.P.S. And btw, has my gay Canadian Facebook friend got it right when he quips:
“She sounds ‘Bi’ to me!” ??
Because if the below table is an accurate reflection of how human sexual orientation works, couldn’t that be a big part of why outfits like Evergreen continue to attract clients?
She definitely sounds bi-sexual to me, if not fully lesbian. What continues to boggle me is why they would continue to torture themselves in such a way. I guess I can wrap my mind around their thinking since I used to be Mormon, but not being true to yourself is the worst form of delusion and unfulfilled living. I feel sorry for her. She should at least hook up with many of the Mormon swingers out there who also often have bi-sexual wives. Lol!
She sounds like a 4 or 5 (or even a 6, depending on how she really feels about her husband) to me.
I don’t see what the distinction is supposed to be. Is it that you’re only gay if you have gay sex?
But she wasn’t born gay, she was born with “gay tendencies”? Seriously, what is that even supposed to mean?
I don’t think it matters at all if she’s bi–that indicates that “she has a choice.” Which, I do contend that bisexual members have a better shot at happiness in the church, but only those who are truly equally attracted to both sexes. Like someone said, she sounds more like a 5-6 to me. But this doesn’t mean that 3s will be happy if they choose to chase down a heterosexual relationship. It’s not about the gender of the person, but about who they’re attracted to. If it happens to be a woman, she should be with a woman. Period. If it happens to be a man, she should be with the man. This should not be a matter of compromise to satisfy church doctrine. I hate that people believe they should give up happiness in order to please god. Life is too short for that. I personally refuse to live for death in this manner. But I’m not her, I don’t believe anymore. I do remember what it is like to think that’s the way to go.
She’s more comfortable with women–great! My question is how comfortable she is with men, and I think that’s the most important part. For her, her husband, and any kids they have. She’s so much more comfortable with women that she had an affair. Is that fair for anyone?
What’s the message here? I know one of them is “you do anything for the church” but c’mon!
This stuff just pisses me off. It’s not at all like having a propensity to drink. It’s everything like people who are more comfortable and more attracted to the opposite sex.
It saddens and angers me that anyone is convinced by any means that its something that it’s not. It’s unfair and harmful to everyone involved.
I agree with what Lisa wrote, above. This isn’t so much about who has a choice and who doesn’t. Its about accepting and normalizing same-sex relationships so that adults can love who they love. So that people aren’t bullied or constrained in terms of intimacy to someone else’s paradigm of right and wrong.
I really think that the choose vs. not choose argument just gives more power to the Church to push people to try to change. Same- and opposite-sex relationships should be socially equivalent. There should not be pressure on anyone to confine themselves to dating members of the same or opposite sex, just because a group or religion tells them to.
Like drinking or smoking!?
Yeah because so many people automatically develop intense, permanent desires to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol without even having tried them.
Well, I’m glad to see KUTV is getting some worthy responses in comments under their story. I think the time is coming where even in Utah most people are going to realize how ridiculous it is to run a story about someone’s sexual orientation using all the production gimmicks that are normally reserved for deep cover whistleblowers.
Sadly, she may come to have such a disillusioned view of sexuality that she’ll have an X score: asexual/nonsexual.
Not that those who start out as X’s are disillusioned. I’m just saying being turned into an X is unfortunate.
The second installment from KUTV is now up here. Where’s George Lakoff when you need him?
Oh dear. So many problems with this (not least of which is the news-bots’ inane “both sides of this issue” smugness).
Re: #6
Carson, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that. My TBM DW has never smoked a cigarette in her life, but she dreams about it a lot.
Oops, my previous comment meant to refer to #5