Conservative Christian Identity & Same-Sex Orientation: The Case Of Gay Mormons
Phillips, Rick. 2004. Conservative Christian Identity & Same-Sex Orientation: The Case Of Gay Mormons. Peter Lang Publishing.
Rating:
10
Review:
Rick Phillips’s recently published book on gay Mormons brings together novel research, trend analysis, and changes in LDS Church policy to present a concise but comprehensive picture of the lives and conflicts of individuals who find themselves torn between their identities as Mormons and homosexuals. The book complements an insider’s understanding of Mormonism (see page 15) and interviews with Mormon leaders with seventy-one interviews with male homosexual Mormons gathered using snowball sampling (pp. 13-14). Phillips also attended various homosexual Mormon support groups and meetings, including a week-long visit to the “gay underground” at BYU (p. 13).
Framing his discussion in the labeling perspective of social psychology (see page 3), Phillips explains that, “Homosexuality is an archetypal master status. This does not, of course, mean that the process of labeling causes homosexuality, but rather that once the accouterments of the label “homosexual” have been successfully applied, the social interactions of homosexual people revolve around this essentializing label” (p. 7). This leads Phillips to argue that the LDS Church is, like the gay rights movement, a moral entrepreneur with a stake in defining the label “homosexual”. While Phillips is not entirely clear in what he means by “moral entrepreneur”, it is implied that these are groups with a vested interest in engaging in public debate over morality in society. According to Phillips, the LDS Church, like other conservative political and religious groups, “seek[s] to convince the public that homosexuality is unnatural, sinful and a threat to American values” (p. 5).
Phillips then details the changing policies of the LDS Church since it first began to address the issue of homosexuality in the late 1950s. The official position of the LDS Church – that homosexuality is “a sexual perversion and an abuse of the sacred power to create life” (p. 20) – has remained relatively unchanged since the 1960s. However, how often homosexuality is discussed as being sinful by the leadership of the church has increased (p. 20), while the policies in place to deal with homosexuals have changed. Initially the LDS Church took a firm position that homosexuality was a choice and that homosexuals not only could but should change. LDS leaders, with the help of LDS psychologists and mental health clinicians, developed the first formal treatments, which included counseling and aversion (shock) therapy (pp. 32-33).
The aversion therapy program was not successful. As a result, LDS Church policy changed its emphasis in dealing with homosexual members. According to Phillips’s informants, “the church has, in recent years, become more realistic in helping gay members cope with their problems” (pp. 37-38). The new approach combines greater understanding of the problem with alternative solutions. Rather than attempting to “cure” homosexuals, the LDS church is willing to accept “earnest effort to live within the church’s guidelines” and celibacy for homosexuals. Granted, those who openly and unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior are still excommunicated, but there is a general consensus now “that being gay is not a sin, but acting gay is” (p. 40).
In addition to a change in policy, local leaders appear to be both more open about homosexuality and are better educated about ways to address it. Some of Phillips’s older informants talk about how their local leaders often gave misguided advice, like encouraging them to spend more time around men – e.g., playing church basketball – and wearing boxers instead of briefs. One informant likened this advice to telling a heterosexual male who is struggling with intimacy problems with women to solve it by spending time with them in the shower; obviously it was not good advice for dealing with the “problem” of homosexuality. Younger informants note that they are often referred to LDS Social Services for therapy once it is revealed they are homosexual. Their local bishop remains involved, but primarily as the arbiter of worthiness and not as a therapist.
The last chapters of the book explore the lives of homosexuals who fall into Phillips’s typology of homosexual Mormons. The typology is based on whether they accept: (1) the LDS Church’s definition of homosexuality, and (2) the LDS Church’s prescribed behaviors for homosexuals. Included in the discussion are: former-Mormon homosexuals, married/divorced homosexuals who are either still Mormons or who have left the LDS Church, celibate and non-celibate singles, closet and open homosexuals, and members of some of the more well-known homosexual groups, including Affirmation. Phillips explores how homosexuals who fall into these categories were treated by their leaders and how they have dealt with that treatment.
Several noteworthy points are made in these chapters. First, Phillips notes it is usually “the gay man himself who eventually gives up on the church, and not the other way around” (p. 73). The implication here is that while the LDS Church does excommunicate non-repentant and sexually active homosexuals, it is willing to work with homosexuals who are trying to curb their sexual desires and adhere to Church policies. Another point I found particularly interesting was that abstaining gay Mormons “are admonished to divulge their sexual orientation to others on a “need to know” basis” (p. 79). The reason for this is to prevent their mistreatment by members of their local congregation. While the intent may be worthy, the outcome is often that abstaining gay Mormons are lonely and feel isolated. Finally, Phillips notes that even among the excommunicated Mormons, many would be interested in returning to the LDS Church if its policies on homosexuality changed in the future (p. 105). Apparently the affinity toward Mormonism is substantial, but the master identity of homosexuality is too powerful to be subservient to the religious identity.
Phillips laid out his goal for the book early on, “This book attempts to show how people who hold these two incongruent statuses [homosexual and Mormon] struggle to reconcile the contradictions in their lives. It also examines how the church’s stand on the issue of homosexuality has evolved through contact with its gay members and through interfacing with the larger society (pp. 1-2). I believe Phillips has admirably accomplished his aim. The book is well-written and brings data to bear on an issue many scholars of Mormonism have been considering for quite some time.
That said, there are a few minor problems with the book. First, while the book is initially presented within a labeling theory framework, this framework is seldom employed explicitly to help the reader understand the situations of the informants in the book. Employed to its fullest, this book would likely have included discussions of how the master status of “homosexual” overwhelms the lesser label “Mormon”, leading to apostasy or excommunication, or how the master status of “homosexual” is toppled by the competing master status of “Mormon”, leading to abstaining gay Mormons. These notions are implied in relating the stories of informants in different categories of the typology, but are never stated explicitly. In short, I believe the theoretical framework could have played a larger role in the book and added to our understanding of how identities and labels are negotiated for people with competing master statuses.
While I generally agreed with the conclusions of the book, there was one instance where the book drew a conclusion that didn’t seem to fit. Phillips argues that “Homosexuality threatens personal exaltation and, by implication, family exaltation… Thus, excommunicating homosexual members has ramifications on the worthy members of the gay person’s family. This, more than anything else, has led to the church’s decision not to excommunicate homosexuals and, more importantly, to accept those living a celibate lifestyle rather than demanding a change in sexual orientation” (p. 69). While there is reason to argue that Mormon theology does not claim family exaltation is threatened by the loss of exaltation of one member of the family (either through homosexuality or apostasy), the more serious criticism is that there is no way of knowing whether the threat to familial exaltation was the primary motivation of the change in policy. And, according to Phillips’s earlier argument, it was likely the lack of effectiveness of the LDS Church’s early therapeutic approach that led to the change in policy rather than the concern for family members of homosexual Mormons. Perhaps this issue has played a role in the change of policy, but it is not clear it is the primary motivation in changing the LDS Church’s approach to homosexual members.
My only other criticisms of the book are extremely minor. First, who decided to use the inverted question marks? While I appreciate novelty in presentation, it bothered me throughout the book. Second, given the price, I was expecting a much lengthier work. And, in fact, I think the book could easily have been extended by thirty to fifty pages to include a chapter or two detailing the experiences of some of Phillips’s informants. Not only would that information be engaging, but it would provide a closer look at the life and struggles of homosexual Mormons as they negotiate their identities. And, finally, a purely external critique: Phillips notes he funded the research himself, which precluded him from spending the time and resources necessary to investigate the experiences of lesbian Mormons. While this book is an excellent study of gay Mormons, there is obviously a need for a companion volume on lesbian Mormons. Who is going to write that book?
Criticisms aside, Phillips provides some compelling insights. For instance, in his brief discussion of suicide among homosexual Mormons, Phillips ties together homosexual identity and Mormon theology, “Suicidal thoughts were quite common among informants, and several admitted to an attempt. Moreover, the prevalence of suicidal thinking among these men seemed to be linked to Mormonism’s unique doctrine of repentance. The church teaches that part of the process of repentance is never committing the sinful act again. In order to be forgiven, immoral deeds must be forsaken and abandoned for good” (p. 53). The implication here, of course, is that because homosexuality is a defining and unchanging characteristic of these men, the only way they believe they can truly repent of their sins is to end the very thought of sinning; and the only way to accomplish that for gay Mormon men is to end all thought… or commit suicide. I had not made this profound connection between Mormon teachings concerning repentance and the conflict it can lead to when one’s very identity is, in some views, a sin. The one element here left unaddressed is how these same gay Mormons reconciled the LDS Church’s teachings on suicide – also a sin – with their desire to end their sinning, but that is a minor point.
Another insightful contribution of this book involves Phillips’s analysis of the stagnant membership in Affirmation, “One of the leadership’s biggest woes is the inability of the organization to retain members. A full 40 percent of Affirmation’s members choose not to renew every year, and the group’s core membership is largely comprised of long-term members with little new blood. The reason for this… is not that the organization is necessarily being mishandled or that the polarization of members is the harbinger of inevitable extinction. It may be, rather, that Affirmation is most effective as a “halfway-house” for gay Mormons who are deciding whether to place their faith in the church’s definition and prescription for homosexuality and homosexual behavior, or to part with the church once and for all and assume a more mainstream gay identity” (pp. 110-111). While Affirmation may want to maintain its membership, I believe Phillips is right in noting that many homosexual Mormons find the conflict between their identities too profound to live with for any length of time. While Phillips could have introduced another social psychological theory to address this conflict (i.e., cognitive dissonance), his insight here is compelling.
Overall, I believe Phillips’s book is a valuable contribution to the social scientific literature on Mormonism. While Phillips is modest in claiming that his findings should not be generalized beyond the small communities he studies, I think his careful methodology and insightful analysis are one more block in a growing foundation of Mormon studies and an invaluable summary and extension of the information previously available on homosexual Mormons.