Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet

[smac97]

From Jana Riess: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet

Quote

So far in Tyler Lefevor’s longitudinal psychology study, religion has been a net positive for the mental health of some LGBTQ Mormons. As a queer former Latter-day Saint, he’s surprised by this too.

(RNS) — Most sociology research shows religion as a positive force for people’s mental and even physical health. But that’s not necessarily the case for LGBTQ people, who are more likely to be harmed by toxic messages emanating from some religions, particularly conservative ones. For them, the research is mixed.

So Tyler Lefevor, an assistant professor of psychology at Utah State University, set out to learn more. Focusing his lens on LGBTQ Latter-day Saints, he wanted to know whether they were happier and healthier if they were “active Mormons” (the term for those who attend church regularly) or if they’d found more happiness after putting some distance between themselves and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The study, conducted by Lefevor and three co-authors, has continued following 132 of 370 original respondents from 2020, charting their experiences for two more years. Some of the results were just published in The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion and are not quite what Lefevor expected to see. — JKR

I am glad to see this topic being investigated via academic/clinical methods.

Quote

What was your main finding?

We were interested in looking at how religiousness changes over time and what impact that has on health. And in the sample of sexual minority Mormons, we found religiousness went down over time across all indicators of religiousness, including attending services, religious commitment and orthodoxy. That feels like a substantial finding in its own. And then when we also looked at how changes in religiousness impacted health, we found that as people became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression.

"{A}s people {LGBTQ Latter-day Saints} became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression."

Huh.

Quote

There are some really natural forces that push sexual minority Mormons away from religiousness. So the forces in the church plus national things push them away, but the leaving is also painful. There’s a cognitive cost as they are trying to find other ways to make meaning in life and build community.

Were you surprised by your findings?

Yeah. I always think that as people become less religious, they’re going to be happier. That’s just what I expect to see every single time. And I shouldn’t expect that anymore because it’s been several years that I’ve been not finding that. This data goes well with other data that I’ve gathered in the last few years that really highlight religiousness as both a good and bad thing for sexual minorities.

I admire his candor: "I always think that as people become less religious, they’re going to be happier."

That's the narrative we are told.  All the time.  This study makes me wonder how accurate it is.

Quote

Tell me more about both of those. How does religion help LGBTQ people, and how might it be harmful?

Really consistently, you find that religiousness promotes meaning-making, even for people who experience a lot of pain from their faith. They still seem to benefit from the worldview it provides and the sense of structure. We also sometimes find that religiousness promotes community even for people who are marginalized and ostracized. That’s a benefit that still comes through, that they’re connected with others. They have more people in their life, more social support and connection.

I have, for some time now, wondered just how cohesive and meaningful of a "community" exists for LGBT folks (that is, a community that coheres around being LGBT).  I've suspected that the "community"  created in the Church, though at times challenging and difficult (for all of us), nevertheless creates a sense of cohesion and connectedness ("more people in their life, more social support and connection").  Is this replicated in the LGBT community?  Can anyone with an informed assessment weigh in on that?

Quote

And then on the flip side, for sexual and gender minorities specifically, we find that religiousness leads to less family support and more religious struggles or strain. Some very observable stressors, like exclusion and rejection based on sexuality or gender, are more likely to happen in religious spaces than in other spaces.

All of these different variables I’ve talked about, like the strain and the meaning-making, are related in the ways you would expect to depression: Variables like connectedness to religious communities and meaning-making buffer depression, and variables like interpersonal religious struggles increase it. It’s interesting to see it more as risks and resources, as trade-offs — you get these things, and you incur these stresses. But overall, religion seems to help a little bit.

Fair points, these.

Belonging to a religious community ain't a free ride.  It comes at some cost, actually.  The further removed from its beliefs / practices / behaviors, the less cohesion with the community there will be, and hence less benefit.

So we, as Latter-day Saints, have some work to do, I think.  All of us, including those in the "sexual minority" category.

Quote

It does feel surprising that Mormonism seems to help with LGBTQ members’ mental health, when some of the church’s messages about them are so damaging.

First, I think a lot about a survivorship bias in the data — religion helps the people who have been able to stay engaged with religion. What we see in national data about sexual and gender minorities is that they’re a lot less religious than cisgender and heterosexual folks. And so I always add that grain of salt that when sexual and gender minorities continue to remain religious, it seems to benefit them. But a good chunk already left because it didn’t work for them.

I am curious how, or if, he addresses "survivorship bias" in his study.  It did not seem geared that way.

Quote

Another thing is that although religion seems positive for the mental health of sexual and gender minorities, it’s not as positive as it is for cisgender, heterosexual Mormons.

I wonder if he is correct here, and if he is conflating correlation with causation.

Quote

And a third thing to remember is that this may change. I’m really interested to follow up with these same people in two, four and six more years and see if they’re still hurting from stepping away from faith. My expectation is they won’t be — that they’re like this right now because it hurts to step away. And that once you’re away, it starts to feel better because you reconfigure your life. We’re shooting to follow these people for at least 10 years.

That makes sense.  With time, memories and recollections fade.  What made being a Latter-day Saint valuable to the individual will be harder to remember.  The comparative frame of reference will be harder to retain.

Quote

What are some warning signs for people who are sexual minorities and are involved with Mormonism?

The best way to answer the question is actually to think about what it looks like for a sexual and gender minority to flourish in a religious context. Because some do. They don’t hide it, and they don’t have a high degree of internalized stigma.

So the flip side, the warning side, would be when people feel pressure to conceal or not acknowledge their internal experience of their sexuality or gender because of family pressure and religious doctrine or rhetoric. In that case religion can be a more harmful place for someone who’s trying to understand themselves.

I have a friend who is an active and observant, and "openly gay" Latter-day Saint.  He doesn't broadcast his sexual orientation, but he doesn't really hide it either.  He seems to be doing quite well (I attended a Gospel Doctrine class he taught last week, and it was one of the best I've ever seen).  I sense that he has been able to make this work because he does not seem to view his sexual orientation as an "identity."  It's part of him, but it's not who he is.  In a Latter-day Saint context, I think prioritizing the "I am a Child of God" identity helps, and becomes stronger when covenants and obligations are maintained.

Quote

Could you speak about your personal experiences as someone who grew up LDS and queer? Where do you fit into this research?

I was a really active Latter-day Saint until I was 25. I loved the church, and it worked for me because it provided meaning and belonging and a framework. I was 13 when I knew I was different and I didn’t have good language for it, so I told my dad I liked men’s bodies, and it was really kind of embarrassing and shameful.

And then I took that back for the next decade, really. I didn’t identify as gay. I saw it as a thing that happened to me sometimes, but not as a consistent internal experience. I think that let me do a mission and engage in the church in a nonharmful way.

And then in my early to mid-20s I hit a place where I needed to do these relational milestones expected in the faith and it didn’t work so well. At that point the church became a source of stress. And it remained a source of stress until I resigned after maybe six years. I resigned because I determined that marrying a man was going to be the most happiness-promoting path for me.

Now I experience the church as harmful. If I sit through a church service at an LDS church, I feel defensive, like I am harmed or attacked by it in a way that I didn’t when I was in the church. My thinking has shifted so much.

That is an interesting perspective.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have, for some time now, wondered just how cohesive and meaningful of a "community" exists for LGBT folks (that is, a community that coheres around being LGBT).  I've suspected that the "community"  created in the Church, though at times challenging and difficult (for all of us), nevertheless creates a sense of cohesion and connectedness ("more people in their life, more social support and connection").  Is this replicated in the LGBT community?  Can anyone with an informed assessment weigh in on that?

Not really. There are no meetings. Those involved in political activism often cohere around it as a shared goal. LGBT specific hobby groups sometimes have a similar effect. It is hard to cohere just around sexuality. There is a feeling of relief though in being an environment where you don’t have to “pass” or worry about some straight person making a scene over rainbow colored clothing or whatever.

There are the stereotypes and there is a bit of truth around them. You can’t have a lesbian friend group without at least one person being someone’s ex. Gay male hookups are easy to find but friendships take more. Bisexuals/Pansexuals who have a long-term relationship are usually in a hetero one (the demographics make this more likely) and are often not a part of a community unless they actively seek it out. If their partner isn’t queer or supportive being part of the community can cause friction. This can be comparable to a part-member family dynamic I suppose. Transgender people often feel left out and too often end up fetishized by people in and out of the community. Everyone else fits in as they can.

There can be a sense of connection but it is not a religious one. Some people also just don’t like the community. A lot also depends on area. If you have a local “gayborhood” or something along those lines it lets you feel free.

 

I really wonder about this study. It seems like it would favor being in touch with those who are still active in the church and those who are still connected to it in some way whether they want to be or not. 

 

[california boy]

 

Quote

 

Could you speak about your personal experiences as someone who grew up LDS and queer? Where do you fit into this research?

I was a really active Latter-day Saint until I was 25. I loved the church, and it worked for me because it provided meaning and belonging and a framework. I was 13 when I knew I was different and I didn’t have good language for it, so I told my dad I liked men’s bodies, and it was really kind of embarrassing and shameful.

And then I took that back for the next decade, really. I didn’t identify as gay. I saw it as a thing that happened to me sometimes, but not as a consistent internal experience. I think that let me do a mission and engage in the church in a nonharmful way.

And then in my early to mid-20s I hit a place where I needed to do these relational milestones expected in the faith and it didn’t work so well. At that point the church became a source of stress. And it remained a source of stress until I resigned after maybe six years. I resigned because I determined that marrying a man was going to be the most happiness-promoting path for me.

Now I experience the church as harmful. If I sit through a church service at an LDS church, I feel defensive, like I am harmed or attacked by it in a way that I didn’t when I was in the church. My thinking has shifted so much.

 

 

This is pretty much my experience as well as really every gay out former member that I have ever met.  I don't know anyone who is gay and active in the Church.  They have all left the Church and have no desire to return under current Church attitudes and policies towards LGBT.  Most would probably never return even if policies changed.

Can the Church work for someone who is gay?  Possibly.  And if it does, then great.  I don't see how it works for most LGBT people however.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have, for some time now, wondered just how cohesive and meaningful of a "community" exists for LGBT folks (that is, a community that coheres around being LGBT).  I've suspected that the "community"  created in the Church, though at times challenging and difficult (for all of us), nevertheless creates a sense of cohesion and connectedness ("more people in their life, more social support and connection").  Is this replicated in the LGBT community?  Can anyone with an informed assessment weigh in on that?

I don't think any community outside of religion who coheres purely around being LGBT could replicate what religion offers.   I do think that there are other gay-affirming religions (Unitarian Universalists for example) that can replicate the benefits of community, cohesion, and connectedness that what we offer without the known side effects that non-affirming religions have on LGBTQ individuals.

We have known for quite a while that religion has general positive psychological effects, even on LGBTQ individuals, so these results are not surprising.  But we have also known about the side-effects of non-affirming faiths:

Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals - PMC (nih.gov)

[Pyreaux]

Always fulfilling our every desire doesn't always mean you are more fulfilled.

[Jaydes]

As an LGBT Mormon, I can agree that religion has helped my mental health. But that being the pure religion of Christ, rather than the organizations and philosophies of man, which tend to not be nearly as conducive. 

[The Nehor]

Is it just me or is the thread title grossly misleading?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is it just me or is the thread title grossly misleading?

 I just used the name of the posting by Jana.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I just used the name of the posting by Jana.

Wasn’t blaming you. Just seems like an odd title for the article since what is in it is a mixed bag.

I have also seen religion turn too many LGBTQ teens and adults to self-hatred to believe that religion is good for their mental health.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Always fulfilling our every desire doesn't always mean you are more fulfilled.

That is kinda a snide remark.  Just because you are gay and want to find someone to share your life with doesn't mean you are fulfilling every desire.  It means you are human.

[Buckwheat]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Jana Riess: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet

I am glad to see this topic being investigated via academic/clinical methods.

"{A}s people {LGBTQ Latter-day Saints} became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression."

Huh.

I admire his candor: "I always think that as people become less religious, they’re going to be happier."

That's the narrative we are told.  All the time.  This study makes me wonder how accurate it is.

I have, for some time now, wondered just how cohesive and meaningful of a "community" exists for LGBT folks (that is, a community that coheres around being LGBT).  I've suspected that the "community"  created in the Church, though at times challenging and difficult (for all of us), nevertheless creates a sense of cohesion and connectedness ("more people in their life, more social support and connection").  Is this replicated in the LGBT community?  Can anyone with an informed assessment weigh in on that?

Fair points, these.

Belonging to a religious community ain't a free ride.  It comes at some cost, actually.  The further removed from its beliefs / practices / behaviors, the less cohesion with the community there will be, and hence less benefit.

So we, as Latter-day Saints, have some work to do, I think.  All of us, including those in the "sexual minority" category.

I am curious how, or if, he addresses "survivorship bias" in his study.  It did not seem geared that way.

I wonder if he is correct here, and if he is conflating correlation with causation.

That makes sense.  With time, memories and recollections fade.  What made being a Latter-day Saint valuable to the individual will be harder to remember.  The comparative frame of reference will be harder to retain.

I have a friend who is an active and observant, and "openly gay" Latter-day Saint.  He doesn't broadcast his sexual orientation, but he doesn't really hide it either.  He seems to be doing quite well (I attended a Gospel Doctrine class he taught last week, and it was one of the best I've ever seen).  I sense that he has been able to make this work because he does not seem to view his sexual orientation as an "identity."  It's part of him, but it's not who he is.  In a Latter-day Saint context, I think prioritizing the "I am a Child of God" identity helps, and becomes stronger when covenants and obligations are maintained.

That is an interesting perspective.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The title of this thread is funny! Many religions can help LGBT mormons, more specifically other churches that are more accepting of members in LGBT community. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

The title of this thread is funny!

The findings of the study seem to contravene commonly-held assumptions.  "Sexual minority" Latter-day Saints seem to fare worse when they leave activity/participation in the Church.  "{A}s people {LGBTQ Latter-day Saints} became less religious, they reported less meaning in life and more depression."

The reasons for this seem to be mixed.  The author of the study posits that this is due to a loss of a sense of "meaning in life," of "the worldview {religious participation/observance} provides" and its "sense of structure," and the loss of "community" (this last of which, it seems, is not really replaced or replaceable by the "LGBT" community).

I also note here the term "sexual minority."  It is a fairly common term these days, but its origins are of fairly recent vintage:

Quote

The term sexual minority most likely was coined in the late 1960s under the influence of Lars Ullerstam's book The Erotic Minorities: A Swedish View, which is strongly in favor of tolerance and empathy to paraphilias such as pedophilia and uncommon sexualities in which people were labeled "sex criminals".^[16] The term was used as analogous to ethnic minority.^[17][18]

Scientists such as Ritch Savin-Williams support using the term in order to accurately describe adolescent youths who may not identify as any common culturally defined sexual identity label (lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc.) but who still have attractions towards those of the same anatomical sex as themselves.^[19]
...

16. Lattimer, Julia. "GSM acronym better than LGBT alphabet soup". Collegiate Times. Archived from the original on 11 July 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2015.
17. ^ DeGagne, Alexa (6 October 2011). "Queering the language of 'sexual minorities' in Canada". University of Alberta. Archived from the original on 12 June 2015. Retrieved 11 June 2015.
18. ^ Ullerstam, Lars (1967). The Erotic Minorities: A Swedish View. Archived from the original on 23 March 2023. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
19. ^ Jump up to:^a b Savin-Williams, Ritch C. "A critique of research on sexual-minority youths." Journal of adolescence 24.1 (2001): 5-13.

I wonder if this term is useful as a synonym for LGBT, as it muddies the waters a bit.  The study isn't about "paraphilias such as pedophilia," and its proposed use by Savin-Williams seems to call for a rejection of "culturally defined sexual identity label (lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc.)."

I think the author is using it for its connotations of "identity," which may be part of the issue.  Perhaps folks with same-sex attraction can "make it work" (re: activity in the Church) by A) resisting categorizing sexual orientation/attraction as his/her "identity," B) focusing instead on the "identity" that is the central premise of the Primary song "I Am a Child of God," and C) resolving to keep the covenants and obligations attendant to activity and participation in the Latter-day Saint community.

The study's author notes that "{w}e also sometimes find that religiousness promotes community even for people who are marginalized and ostracized."  I think the Church is doing better and better at overcoming "ostracism."  Contrary to the popular narrative, the Church doesn't restrict participation by, or penalize anyone for, their "being" gay (which, again, connotes "identity").  Rather, the Church encourages and requires behaviors which are congruent with the doctrines of the Church, including the Law of Chastity. 

I realize this may be cold comfort for folks who want to have an outlet for sexual desires (which notably includes the huge numbers of divorced, not-yet-married and never-married heterosexual Latter-day Saints).  However, it is the very constraints and regulations of our behaviors that, I submit, are necessary to create the moral framework and stability and social cohesion that the Church provides.  As the study's author correctly observes, a big part of the "community" created by and in the Church is "the worldview it provides and the sense of structure."  I think we often don't like to think about it, but in the end most of us want constraints.  We want boundaries.  This is, I think, becoming increasingly clear in matters of sexual behaviors.  

3 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

Many religions can help LGBT mormons,

First, I don't think that was addressed in the study. 

Second, the data seem to indicate that liberalization of teachings about sexuality weakens religious communities.  See, e.g., here (emphases added) :

Quote

Whether or not the seven mainline denominations of American Protestant Christianity (the United Methodist Church (USA), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Baptist Churches (USA), and the United Church of Christ) are truly still “mainline” is up for debate. Some argue they still represent typical American Protestantism; others counter with the prevalence of evangelicalism, broadly speaking (contrasting the usually more liberal view of these mainline churches). What is not up for debate is the rapid shrinking of these once robust seven denominations. Each posts yearly decline, and, over the decades, the bloodletting has become undeniable.

...
Presbyterian Church (USA)

Still the largest denomination among its fellow Presbyterian churches, the PCUSA also holds the distinction for losing the most Presbyterian members per year. At this rate, more historically orthodox denominations, like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), will overtake the PC(USA) as the largest Presbyterian denomination within a couple of decades. In 1982, the final year before the merging of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, both denominations had a peak total membership of 3,157,372 (814,831 and 2,342,441, respectively). Last year, membership decreased from 1,415,053 to 1,352,678, or a 4.4% net loss. At its peak, the PCUSA was comprised of 3,788,009 members. Meanwhile, the PCA has posted regular growth for at least the previous five years in every single category (except per capita giving). The PCA baptized 400 people in the year 2018. The PCUSA, three and a half times larger than the PCA, baptized just over twice as many in 2018. Another conservative Presbyterian church lost members, though. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church lost 3,945 members from 2016-2017 (a loss of 2.5%).

A number of Presbyterian groups and denominations have broken off or cut ties with the PC(USA) since they liberalized sexual teaching. For instance, the Presbyterian Church of India, with its membership of 1.4 million, cut off its partnership with the PC(USA). Presbyterian churches in Africa also disagreed with the 2011 removal of the sexual fidelity and chastity clause from clergy ordination vows.

...
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The ELCA is the second-largest denomination in mainline Protestantism. The modern church came into existence in 1987, when three denominations combined: Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, Lutheran Church in America, and American Lutheran Church. As they finished merging, they had a combined membership of 5,318,844 (respectively, 103,263; 2,896,138; 2,319,443). According to the report from 2018, 2.8% (95,558) of its members left the roll, leaving 3,458,839 members behind, but attendance declined by just under 4% (36,583). Among baptized members, attendance dropped a full percent. Baptism may have a stronger hold on members than simple membership, but that bond is not strong enough to staunch the wound.

In 2010, a significant schism occurred within the ELCA, due to the change in belief away from biblical sexual ethics. The North American Lutheran Church formed out of the Lutheran CORE group, announcing that it would be the “theological center of Lutheranism in North America.” Its beliefs fall between the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the ELCA. It has a membership of 142,000 with 424 congregations, and describes itself as a “fast-growing” denomination. The ELCA itself has made clear it is on the path to collapse: by 2041, denominational officials project a Sunday morning attendance of only 16,000 worshippers. Even more noteworthy: they entertain the idea that the reason may be due to a lack of “what’s distinctive about being Christian.”

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

There’s a pervasive narrative today of conservative Christian demographic decline. This narrative is partly based on reality and partly based on wishful thinking by some. But this narrative typically ignores the far more dramatic implosion of liberal white Mainline Protestantism.

The popular conventional narrative asserts that young people in droves are quitting evangelical Christianity because it’s too socially and politically conservative. Of course, the implication is that if only Evangelicalism would liberalize, especially on sexuality, then it might become more appealing.

But all the available evidence as to what happens to liberalizing churches strongly indicates the opposite. Mainline Protestantism is in many ways what critics of Evangelicalism wish it would become. And yet the Mainline, comprised primarily of the “Seven Sister” historic denominations, has been in continuous free-fall since the early to mid-1960s. Its implosion accelerated after most of these denominations specifically liberalized their sexuality teachings over the last 20 years.
...

During the Mainline implosion the percentage of Americans belonging to the Seven Sister denominations declined from one of every six Americans to one of every 22. If the Mainline had simply retained its share of population it would stand today at about 55 million instead of about 16 million.

Nearly all the Mainline denominations have liberalized their sexuality standards over the last 15 years, precipitating accelerated membership loss. For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) overturned its disapproval of homosexual practice in 2011 and declined from 1.9 million to 1.4 million in 2017, losing half a million members, or 25% in just 6 years. The Episcopal Church elected its first openly homosexual bishop in 2003 and declined from 2.3 million to 1.7 million, or 26%. The two Mainline denominations that have not officially liberalized on sexuality, United Methodism and American Baptists, have declined the least.

So the proposal from some that conservative stances on sexuality precipitate church decline is not of itself supported, as the fastest declining denominations in America, and throughout the West, have liberalized on sexuality. Some conservative denominations are declining, but all growing denominations in America and the world are conservative theologically and on sexuality.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

Over time, the data showed, attitudes on moral issues proved to be strong predictors of religious engagement. In particular, the more liberal one was on homosexuality, the less likely one was to claim religious affiliation. It’s not that younger Americans were becoming atheists. Rather, most of them identify as “spiritual, but not religious.” Combined with atheists and agnostics, these “Nones”—the term is Putnam’s and Campbell’s—comprise the nation’s fastest-growing faith demographic.

Indeed, according to a 2012 Pew Research Center study, the Nones comprise one out of three Americans under 30. This is not simply a matter of young people doing what young people tend to do: keep church at arm’s length until they settle down. Pew’s Greg Smith told NPR that this generation is more religiously unaffiliated than any on record. Putnam—the Harvard scholar best known for his best-selling civic culture study Bowling Alone—has said that there’s no reason to think they will return to church in significant numbers as they age.

Putnam and Campbell were careful to say in American Grace that correlation is not causation, but they did point out that as gay activism moved toward center stage in American political life—around the time of The Nation’s cover story—the vivid public role many Christian leaders took in opposing gay rights alienated young Americans from organized religion.

In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations. This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.

It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.

This raises a critically important question: is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave—Christianity its power as a social force?
...
Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force. In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct. That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People. Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure. Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.” The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms. In Christianity, what people do with their sexuality cannot be separated from what the human person is.

It would be absurd to claim that Christian civilization ever achieved a golden age of social harmony and sexual bliss. It is easy to find eras in Christian history when church authorities were obsessed with sexual purity. But as Rieff recognizes, Christianity did establish a way to harness the sexual instinct, embed it within a community, and direct it in positive ways.

What makes our own era different from the past, says Rieff, is that we have ceased to believe in the Christian cultural framework, yet we have made it impossible to believe in any other that does what culture must do: restrain individual passions and channel them creatively toward communal purposes.
...
Gradually the West lost the sense that Christianity had much to do with civilizational order, Taylor writes. In the 20th century, casting off restrictive Christian ideals about sexuality became increasingly identified with health. By the 1960s, the conviction that sexual expression was healthy and good—the more of it, the better—and that sexual desire was intrinsic to one’s personal identity culminated in the sexual revolution, the animating spirit of which held that freedom and authenticity were to be found not in sexual withholding (the Christian view) but in sexual expression and assertion. That is how the modern American claims his freedom.
...

Our post-Christian culture, then, is an “anti-culture.” We are compelled by the logic of modernity and the myth of individual freedom to continue tearing away the last vestiges of the old order, convinced that true happiness and harmony will be ours once all limits have been nullified.

Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity. Whether we can keep them in the post-Christian epoch remains to be seen.

It also remains to be seen whether we can keep Christianity without accepting Christian chastity. Sociologist Christian Smith’s research on what he has termed “moralistic therapeutic deism”—the feelgood, pseudo-Christianity that has supplanted the normative version of the faith in contemporary America—suggests that the task will be extremely difficult.

Conservative Christians have lost the fight over gay marriage and, as we have seen, did so decades before anyone even thought same-sex marriage was a possibility. Gay-marriage proponents succeeded so quickly because they showed the public that what they were fighting for was consonant with what most post-1960s Americans already believed about the meaning of sex and marriage. The question Western Christians face now is whether or not they are going to lose Christianity altogether in this new dispensation.

Sobering stuff, this.

3 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

more specifically other churches that are more accepting of members in LGBT community. 

Could you point to "other churches" or religious groups/communities which have managed to

• A) maintain / grow / strengthen their cohesion as a community, and
• B) provide the same or comparable framework for a "worldview" and "sense of structure" as provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which framework seems to be what is missed when people leave the Church), all after having
• C) liberalized their teachings on sexuality?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps folks with same-sex attraction can "make it work" (re: activity in the Church) by A) resisting categorizing sexual orientation/attraction as his/her "identity," B) focusing instead on the "identity" that is the central premise of the Primary song "I Am a Child of God," and C) resolving to keep the covenants and obligations attendant to activity and participation in the Latter-day Saint community.

Resisting to identify as gay is a manifestation of internalized homophobia.  I don't think that is the best means to "make it work".    

Quote

 

Internalized homophobia refers to the LGB person’s internalization of society’s negative attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality and directing these attitudes toward one’s self. Because most antigay attitudes are learned through normal socialization in our society, internalized homophobia can be a particularly insidious stressor. It originates in the socialization process but once it is internalized, it can be enacted even in contexts where immediate social opprobrium is not explicit (Meyer & Dean, 1998). When enacted, internalized homophobia’s targets of devaluation are homosexuality in general, other LGBs, and one’s own LGB identity (Shidlo, 1994). Indeed, overcoming internalized homophobia is an important developmental task in the coming out process that LGB individuals undergo and is seen by clinicians as a necessary step toward achieving good mental health and well-being (Eliason & Schope, 2007). Internalized homophobia has been linked to a host of negative outcomes, including anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, sexual risk-taking, problems in intimacy, and lower well-being and overall self-esteem (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009; Herek & Glunt, 1995; Meyer, 1995; Meyer & Dean, 1998; Rowen & Malcolm, 2002; Williamson, 2000).

Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals - PMC (nih.gov)

 

 

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The study's author notes that "{w}e also sometimes find that religiousness promotes community even for people who are marginalized and ostracized."  I think the Church is doing better and better at overcoming "ostracism."  Contrary to the popular narrative, the Church doesn't restrict participation by, or penalize anyone for, their "being" gay (which, again, connotes "identity").  Rather, the Church encourages behaviors which are congruent with the doctrines of the Church, including the Law of Chastity. 

You suggest that the church doesn't penalize anyone for "being" gay, yet you suggest that the best way for a gay person to make it work is to devalue their gay identity and in fact completely disassociate themselves from "being" gay.  You can be gay, just don't identify as gay???  That sounds healthy to you? 

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, as the study's author correctly observes, a big part of the "community" created by and in the Church is "the worldview it provides and the sense of structure."  I think we often don't like to think about it, but in the end most of us want constraints.  We want boundaries.  This is, I think, becoming increasingly clear in matters of sexual behaviors.  

I think this is largely why LGBT folk generally have better psychological outcomes in communities of structure.   Sexual restraints are good.  Committed faithful relationships are good.  Absolute life-long sexual disassociation and repression are not good.  Sexual promiscuity is bad.  Sexual fidelity in marriage is good.  Perhaps the LGBT community wouldn't have the stigma of being sexually promiscuous if they had historically been embraced by the larger religious community and society where marriage was legal and committed relationships encouraged and where sexual restraint and fidelity are moral backbones. 

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That may be so, but I don't think that was addressed in the study.  The data seem to indicate that liberalization of teachings about sexuality weaken religious communities. 

They can still have strong communities with social support with overall shrinking numbers.  Most religions are shrinking in number, that doesn't mean their community support is not valuable.  

It is not about the numbers, it is about the kind of support that one receives in a community.  The kind of support that affirming faiths offer LGBT people is beneficial to them.  

Edited June 9, 2023 by pogi

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

That is kinda a snide remark.  Just because you are gay and want to find someone to share your life with doesn't mean you are fulfilling every desire.  It means you are human.

Yes, but why else would someone mistakenly and automatically assume less religion would make gays less depressed?  Duh, it's not about who you spend your life with, they think without a religion judging someone's sex habits, gay or not, and to feel unrestrained to engage in any debauchery religion may prohibit should lead to more fulfillment than less. That using sex for a dose of dopamine to mask symptoms of depression will not address the cause of depression. The more it goes unaddressed, the more extreme/unnatural sexual desires can become. They are missing the meaning that can sustain them in life, and sex can't fulfill. Perhaps fulfillment is the Lord's joy, or even Eternal Families, in that cases the cause of depression is sex, and if sex is what they turn towards to medicate it, they'll only become more depressed, not less.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes, but why else would someone mistakenly and automatically assume less religion would make gays less depressed?  Duh, it's not about who you spend your life with, they think without a religion judging someone's sex habits, gay or not, and to feel unrestrained to engage in any debauchery religion may prohibit should lead to more fulfillment than less. That using sex for a dose of dopamine to mask symptoms of depression will not address the cause of depression. The more it goes unaddressed, the more extreme/unnatural sexual desires can become. They are missing the meaning that can sustain them in life, and sex can't fulfill. Perhaps fulfillment is the Lord's joy, or even Eternal Families, in that cases the cause of depression is sex, and if sex is what they turn towards to medicate it, they'll only become more depressed, not less.

You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy of choosing religion and life-long complete abstinence vs no-religion and "unrestrained debauchery".   There are other options for gay people.  Not all non-religious gay people use sex as a drug and engage in unrestrained debauchery.  There are committed married gay couples who believe in the same values of fidelity that we believe in.    Same with religion, it is not either anti gay sex, or pro-unrestrained sexual debauchery.  I don't know any religion that promotes the later, but there are gay-affirming religions that promote sexual fidelity in a committed monogamous relationship. 

 

[Pyreaux]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy of choosing religion and life-long complete abstinence vs no-religion and "unrestrained debauchery".   There are other options for gay people.  Not all non-religious gay people use sex as a drug and engage in unrestrained debauchery.  There are committed married gay couples who believe in the same values of fidelity that we believe in.    Same with religion, it is not either anti gay sex, or pro-unrestrained sexual debauchery.  I don't know any religion that promotes the later, but there are gay-affirming religions that promote sexual fidelity in a committed monogamous relationship. 

Yet Mormonism is not such a religion that affirm their sexual relationships, but they can be happier just by staying connected to it. Just by aspiring for something better, whether or not they are currently able to. The church isn't standing in the way of happiness, rather it could be the source of happiness for many gay Latter-day Saints.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Resisting to identify as gay is a manifestation of internalized homophobia.  I don't think that is the best means to "make it work".   

I don't think he means not acknowledging it at all. I think he means something more along the lines of not making that particular identity of primary importance in your life.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes, but why else would someone mistakenly and automatically assume less religion would make gays less depressed?  Duh, it's not about who you spend your life with, they think without a religion judging someone's sex habits, gay or not, and to feel unrestrained to engage in any debauchery religion may prohibit should lead to more fulfillment than less. That using sex for a dose of dopamine to mask symptoms of depression will not address the cause of depression. The more it goes unaddressed, the more extreme/unnatural sexual desires can become. They are missing the meaning that can sustain them in life, and sex can't fulfill. Perhaps fulfillment is the Lord's joy, or even Eternal Families, in that cases the cause of depression is sex, and if sex is what they turn towards to medicate it, they'll only become more depressed, not less.

This post is exactly why staying in the Church is a horrible idea.  This kind of toxic messaging to. gay people is still present in the Church as you have shown.  Why would a gay person purposefully put themselves in such a toxic enviornment.

You give me all the reasons to stay away and never come back.  You assume the worst about every single gay person.  It is like saying Mormons like to murder people because some have like the Lafferty"s.  

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Yet Mormonism is not such a religion that affirm their sexual relationships, but they can be happier just by staying connected to it. Just by aspiring for something better, whether or not they are currently able to. The church isn't standing in the way of happiness, rather it could be the source of happiness for many gay Latter-day Saints.

I don't disagree at all that the church provides well-being and happiness for gay people.  But it doesn't provide holistic happiness, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health.  Non-affirming religions have shown to be detrimental in certain areas of mental health for gay people.  Read the study I linked to above.  Religions which are gay affirming and provide all of the other community/social constructs and provides meaning/purpose may avoid the negative side-effects that non-affirming religions can have. 

[Pyreaux]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

This post is exactly why staying in the Church is a horrible idea.  This kind of toxic messaging to. gay people is still present in the Church as you have shown.  Why would a gay person purposefully put themselves in such a toxic enviornment.

You give me all the reasons to stay away and never come back.  You assume the worst about every single gay person.  It is like saying Mormons like to murder people because some have like the Lafferty"s.  

You are the one stereotyping gays. Gays can and have been happy in the church without your disapproval of their opinions. Your immature fit contains very weak reasoning. I don't believe for a second you ever seriously thought about returning until I suggested the church can make people happy.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't think he means not acknowledging it at all. I think he means something more along the lines of not making that particular identity of primary importance in your life.

I didn't know that making it a "primary importance" was a thing.   

I think there is a false perception by many who think that their sexual identity is more important than it is to heterosexuals, because of the pride movement.   On the contrary, the pride movement and being socially open with their sexual identity is only in response to the centuries of oppression and ostracism.  It is not that it is more important to them, it is that they are fighting simply to be seen and accepted in society for who they are - just like heterosexuals.   If religion and society would stop ostracizing them and igniting the fire with their cultural wars, I guarantee the gay pride movement wouldn't be a thing.  We would enter a post-gay era.  That will never happen though because the more that the LGBT movement tries to normalize and make being gay normal and mainstream, the social conservatives are going to resist and try to push them back under the rug where they belong.   

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by pogi

[Pyreaux]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree at all that the church provides well-being and happiness for gay people.  But it doesn't provide holistic happiness, or happiness/well-being in all aspects of mental health.  Non-affirming religions have shown to be detrimental in certain areas of mental health for gay people.  Read the study I linked to above.  Religions which are gay affirming and provide all of the other community/social constructs and provides meaning/purpose may avoid the negative side-effects that non-affirming religions can have. 

I'm sure it could cause a type of stress that is different than the stress over not knowing the meaning of life. The joy of meaning/purpose could outweigh complete affirmation, if a church is neither an affirming nor a gay bashing sort.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You are the one stereotyping gays. Gays can and have been happy in the church without your disapproval of their opinions. Your immature fit contains very weak reasoning. I don't believe for a second you ever seriously thought about returning until I suggested the church can make people happy.

Attacking me is not going to help your toxic views you yourself expressed and the environment that still persists in the Church.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm sure it could cause a type of stress that is different than the stress over not knowing the meaning of life. The joy of meaning/purpose could outweigh complete affirmation, if a church is neither an affirming nor a gay bashing sort.

You don't think some Church members don't gay bash?  Reread your statement above.

Quote

 

they think without a religion judging someone's sex habits, gay or not, and to feel unrestrained to engage in any debauchery religion may prohibit should lead to more fulfillment than less. That using sex for a dose of dopamine to mask symptoms of depression will not address the cause of depression. The more it goes unaddressed, the more extreme/unnatural sexual desires can become.

 

How is this not gay bashing?  Your characterization of gay people is disgusting and not true. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Resisting to identify as gay is a manifestation of internalized homophobia. 

You'll have to do more than just assert that, I'm afraid.  It's far from being self-evident.

Candidly, I think more and more gay people don't want their sexual preferences to be their defining category or "identity," perhaps not unlike these sentiments recently expressed by Idris Elba:

Quote

“As humans, we are obsessed with race and that obsession can really hinder people’s aspirations and growth. Racism should be a topic for discussion, sure. Racism is very real. But from my perspective, it’s only as powerful as you allow it to be. I stopped describing myself as a black actor when I realised it put me in a box. We’ve got to grow. Our skin is no more than that - it’s just skin. Rant over,” said Elba.

As Elba speaks of some being "obsessed with race" (as an identity), I think that some quarters of our society are "obsessed with" sexual orientation as an identity.  And if Elba can go from "a black actor" to something like "an actor (who happens to be black)," I think other folks can likewise choose how they "identify," going from "a gay person" to "a person (who happens to be gay / have same-sex attraction)," or - better yet - "I am a child of God." 

And without more, in neither instance would imputing onto them accusations of "self-hatred" or the like be justified.  That's just mindreading and speculation.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that is the best means to "make it work".

Well, you're not fairly or accurately representing what I said.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You suggest that the church doesn't penalize anyone for "being" gay,

Yes.  Do you dispute this?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

yet you suggest that the best way for a gay person to make it work is to devalue their gay identity

Before I proceed further with responding to your substantial re-wording - to the point of distortion and caricature - of what I said, let's re-visit . . . what I said:

Quote

I have a friend who is an active and observant, and "openly gay" Latter-day Saint.  He doesn't broadcast his sexual orientation, but he doesn't really hide it either.  He seems to be doing quite well (I attended a Gospel Doctrine class he taught last week, and it was one of the best I've ever seen).  I sense that he has been able to make this work because he does not seem to view his sexual orientation as an "identity."  It's part of him, but it's not who he is.  In a Latter-day Saint context, I think prioritizing the "I am a Child of God" identity helps, and becomes stronger when covenants and obligations are maintained.
...
Perhaps folks with same-sex attraction can "make it work" (re: activity in the Church) by A) resisting categorizing sexual orientation/attraction as his/her "identity," B) focusing instead on the "identity" that is the central premise of the Primary song "I Am a Child of God," and C) resolving to keep the covenants and obligations attendant to activity and participation in the Latter-day Saint community.

I would prefer that you address what I have said, rather than swatting at a strawman of it.

If you think there is a better "way" for person with SSA to continue in discipleship in the Church of Jesus Christ (better than what I propose above), I would like to hear it.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

and in fact completely disassociate themselves from "being" gay. 

I did not say that.  You are substantially distorting and caricaturing what I did say.

I really doubt Idris Elba is intending to "completely disassociate" himself from being black.  He is choosing an identity that suits him.  It would, I think, be problematic for a stranger or lookyloo to come along and, without a scintilla of evidence or reasoning, look at his choice and, based on it, blithely accuse him of "internalized" hatred of black people (including, of course, himself).

I will clarify my position by emphasizing a word in my prior statement, and also by interpolating into it:

Quote

I have a friend who is an active and observant, and "openly gay" Latter-day Saint.  He doesn't broadcast his sexual orientation, but he doesn't really hide it either.  He seems to be doing quite well (I attended a Gospel Doctrine class he taught last week, and it was one of the best I've ever seen).  I sense that he has been able to make this work because he does not seem to view his sexual orientation as an "identity."  It's part of him, but it's not who he is.  In a Latter-day Saint context, I think prioritizing the "I am a Child of God" identity helps, and becomes stronger when covenants and obligations are maintained.
...
Perhaps folks with same-sex attraction can "make it work" (re: activity in the Church) by A) resisting categorizing sexual orientation/attraction as his/her {primary and predominating} "identity," B) focusing instead on the "identity" that is the central premise of the Primary song "I Am a Child of God," and C) resolving to keep the covenants and obligations attendant to activity and participation in the Latter-day Saint community.

See, I don't think Idris Elba denies his "identity" as a black person.  Rather, it looks like he sees racial categorizations as putting him "in a box," and that in order "to grow," he wants to choose a self-categorization that is not contingent or primarily/predominantly about race.

Perhaps, then, some faithful Latter-day Saints have found it helpful to allow the doctrines of the Church which articulate each of us as having an "identity" as a "child of God" to be more foundational and predominant than their skin color, or the sexual preference (or their nationality, or their profession, etc.).

I hope that helps.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You can be gay, just don't identify as gay???  That sounds healthy to you? 

That sounds like you are not wanting to address what I actually said, so you entirely re-word it, stuff words and phrases into my mouth, and then attack your own caricature as if it came from me.

I would like you to stop doing that.

I think we can each choose for ourselves which "identity" we want to make our foundational and predominant state of "being."  There are endless ways to slice and dice us into different categories. 

I am of mostly Scottish extraction, but I have only visited Scotland once, and I am far more attuned to my "identity" as an American.  I am "proud" of my Scottish heritage and ancestry, but I prioritize my nationality over that of my ethnic origins in terms of my "identity."

I don't really invest any time or attention on my skin color (or, for that matter, my eye color, hair color, etc.).  I take no particular pride in being Caucasian, nor do I infuse it with any particular value or significance as an "identity."

For mostly practical reasons, I put some attention and effort toward my "identity" as a lawyer.  It is an important part of how I contribute to society, how I provide for my family, how I think and reason, etc.  

I do repose some significance and meaning in my "identity" as an adult (my chronological age), and as a male (my biological sex), but nothing in the way of superiority (or inferiority).  These identities affect my health, my role in society, how I interact with others, etc., but they do not invest in me any added moral value.  

I find much significance and meaning in my "identity" as a husband, father, son and brother.  

The greatest significance and meaning, though, is in "I am a child of God" (from which my "identity" as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an outgrowth).  Every other "identity" I have is subordinate to that.  And because of that identity, I choose to strengthen my relationship with our Heavenly Father through obedience to His commandments.  I mess up on a regular basis, but that's what repentance is for.  As long as I keep this "identity" paramount, I think I'll be on the right path.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

That may be so, but I don't think that was addressed in the study.  The data seem to indicate that liberalization of teachings about sexuality weaken religious communities. 

They can still have strong communities with social support with overall shrinking numbers. 

Well, give me an example.  The question I previously posed to Buckwheat I now pose to you:

Could you point to "other churches" or religious groups/communities which have managed to

• A) maintain / grow / strengthen their cohesion as a community, and
• B) provide the same or comparable framework for a "worldview" and "sense of structure" as provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which framework seems to be what is missed when people leave the Church), all after having
• C) liberalized their teachings on sexuality?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Most religions are shrinking in number, that doesn't mean their community support is not valuable.  

Yet another strawman.  I did not suggest or imply that religions with shrinking numbers do not or cannot provide "valuable" community support.

What I will say, though, is that as religious communities shrink, so does their sphere of influence, and hence the net amount of "community support" they can provide.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not about the numbers, it is about the kind of support that one receives in a community.  The kind of support that affirming faiths offer LGBT people is beneficial to them.  

That sounds nice in theory.  Can you point to any practical examples answering to the three bullet points above?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2023 by smac97