The Burden of Proof | Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes, eds., Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-sex Orientation, and AMCAP Journal, Volume 19

View PDF

Having sold out its two cloth printings, Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-sex Orientation is now available in paperback. First published in 1991 by Signature Books and edited by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes, it is a landmark book dealing with homosexuality in our Mormon culture. It is a book that should be read by all bishops, stake presidents, regional representatives, and general authorities, as well as anyone who is struggling with homosexuality on a personal or family level. 

The book is divided into four major sections including (1) a foreword by Lowell Bennion and an editors’ intro duction, (2) personal perspectives of gays, lesbians, spouses, and family members, (3) professional and Christian perspectives, and (4) an annotated bibliography, appendices, and published statements of professional and religious organizations regarding homosexuality. 

The editors’ introduction provides an excellent overview of the problems faced by individuals and their families dealing with homosexuality in the Mormon community and society at large. The editors’ perspectives are identified up front and provide some understanding regarding their selection criteria. They basically agree that (1) homosexuality touches far more lives, directly and indirectly, than is generally recognized, (2) that condemnation of homosexuality by church and society leaves most Mormons ill-prepared, emotionally and intellectually, to con front this fact of life, (3) that Latter-day Saints who encounter this issue face many practical problems, and (4) that much of the suffering by gays and lesbians is a result of an inadequate Christian response on the part of many in the heterosexual majority. Terminology, misconceptions, and the concept of “sealed premises” are discussed and a short historical overview of homosexuality and the Mormon response is documented. 

Since this is a compilation of many authors, the writing is occasionally uneven and repetitive. The seven personal perspectives by gays and lesbians all follow a similar pattern. Most of the individuals became aware of their same sex orientation in their teenage years. The unwanted feelings were initially considered repugnant and assumed to be temporary. Unsuccessful attempts were made to change or eliminate the feelings through fasting, prayer, dedicated church service, counseling, and/or attempts at reparative therapy. All failed in his or her efforts to eradicate these feelings, and most subsequently expressed bitterness and disillusionment with church attitudes and responses. Absent are any perspectives from individuals who have changed or claim to have changed or significantly diminished their homosexual feelings. This is an unfortunate omission and exposes the editors to criticism of bias in selecting which essays to include. 

Statements such as the following are sprinkled throughout the personal perspectives: “In a lifetime of church activity I have yet to hear a single word of compassion or understanding for homosexuals from the pulpit”; “church policy showed an utter lack of aware ness of the challenges that faced me”; “I couldn’t believe the church was so un enlightened on this subject yet judged so harshly”; “I am convinced, based on my own experience, that the church is ignorant of homosexuality and wrong in its treatment of the homosexual”; “I love the church, but in all honesty it was not there in this time of crisis”; “I feel rejected by the church”; and “There are simply not words to describe the feeling of being let down by my church at the most critical time of my life.” These statements stand as an indictment of current LDS policy and suggest a need for re-evaluation. All of the writers anticipated a more loving, more informed, and more Christlike response rather than disenfranchisement. The intransigence of the church in the face of these testimonials is difficult to understand and/or defend. 

The writers from among the partners, families, and friends generally follow the same theme. Wayne Schow’s “Homosexuality, Mormon Doctrine, and Christianity: A Father’s Perspective” is the most eloquent and persuasive essay I have read on this subject. Excerpts from Carol Lynn Pearson’s Goodbye, I Love You should be read in conjunction with Karen Brown’s “One View of a Troubled Relationship.” They are examples of different responses to similar trials. Both authors deal with the extraordinarily difficult situation of a female spouse who discovers that her husband is homosexual and the sub sequent impact it has on their relationship and family. 

The essay by an anonymous author entitled “New Friends” troubled me somewhat. The author reinforces some of the myths about the causes of homosexuality and makes several statements which made me wonder how secure he is with his own sexuality. Do straight people really fear that “sub-consciously homosexuals may entice them into homosexuality?” Do straight people really fear “that maybe, just maybe, there is some of it [homosexuality] in all of us?” I think not. He concludes his essay with the statement that “the most powerful tool I have found to help them is still the idea that change is possible, gradual as it may be.” The author does not suggest that accepting one’s sexual orientation and learning to live with it is an accept able alternative. 

Several contributions from the “Professional and Christian Perspectives” section are extremely worthwhile. Jan Stout’s “Sin and Sexuality: Psycho biology and the Development of Homo sexuality” should be read by every Latter-day Saint. His perspective as a psychiatrist and his evolution to the beliefs he held up until his untimely death last year are invaluable. 

“Homosexuality: A Part of Life, Not a Curse/’ by the Episcopalian bishop John S. Spong, is an outstanding contribution and deserves attention. He points out that the church’s suggestion to “love the sinner but hate the sin” is patronizing, judgmental, and represents “rhetoric piety.” He observes that “none of those defined as sinners experienced that love . . . and most learned not to trust the church. Since the evidence points to the conclusion that homosexual persons do not choose their sexual orientation, cannot change it, and constitute a quite normal but minority expression of human sexuality, it is clear that heterosexual prejudice against homosexuals must take its place alongside witchcraft, slavery, and other ignorant beliefs and oppressive institutions that we have abandoned.” I personally find his logic compelling. 

United Methodist bishop Melvin E. Wheatley, Jr., has written a one-page masterpiece entitled “I Do Not Believe Homosexuality a Sin.” He rightly equates morality with behavior, not sexual orientation. He expresses the view that homosexual and heterosexual behavior may be beautiful or sinful de pending on the actions and the intent of the individual. He suggests that straights and gays should be held to the same standards. 

Gay and lesbian youth and trusted family friends who are considering counseling should read Marybeth Raynes’s “Alternatives in Therapy Approaches.” The choice of a therapist or counselor during the “coming out” process is extremely important for the individual and his or her family, and Ms. Rayne’s views of various therapy options are excellent. 

George Weinberg, a psychotherapist in private practice in New York City who corned the term “homophobia,” authors an essay entitled “Homophobia—Do I Have It?” His essay helped me understand why one of my close friends has such a hard time accepting homosexuals. Weinberg makes the observation that men who emphasize power, conquest, and “masculinity” regard homosexuals as lowering the “male standard” and therefore tend to hold homosexuals in low esteem. 

Adonna Schow’s short essay entitled “Sexuality as Spiritual” offers some interesting perspectives about the aspects of maleness and femaleness possessed by everyone. She equates expressive behavior as predominately male and receptive behavior as predominately female. She suggests that we cannot achieve wholeness in a spiritual sense without the presence of both. She observes that “in the sanctity in which the Godhead creates diversity, the ratio of maleness to femaleness in each per son varies widely. Each person has one’s own appropriate divinely given and developing union of both aspects.” 

Somewhat buried in the fourth section but not to be missed are the two appendices which give a useful over view of the sexuality continuum and define Alfred Kinsey’s “Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale” which I think is a key to understanding why it may be possible for some with same-sex attraction to adapt to a successful heterosexual lifestyle while others fail. LDS leaders who are making recommendations to individuals with same-sex at tractions without being aware of Kinsey’s scale are in danger of doing a real disservice to those so counseled. In addition to providing insight into the sexuality continuum, the statistical information on the incidence of homo erotic experiences is very interesting. The Kinsey data indicate that at least 18 percent of men and 9 percent of women have had homosexual activity leading to orgasm at some time in their life. 

In summary, this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. The minor criticisms including the uneven quality of some of the writings and the apparent bias of the editors in the mate rial selected for inclusion are dwarfed by the wealth of information supplied. This book belongs in the library of every Latter-day Saint who is involved personally or ecclesiastically with the issue of homosexuality. 

The recent annual journal of the As sociation of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists deals entirely with homosexuality and reparative therapy. It contains an editorial, four essays, two interviews, and five reviews. The journal makes for interesting reading and will stimulate controversy. It suggests that homosexuality is a psychosocial condition, is not immutable, and is best treated in the majority of cases by reparative therapy. 

William Byne, a practicing psychiatrist and Ph.D. research associate in the Department of Pathology at Albert Ein stein College of Medicine, is virtually “canonized” by the journal’s editors for his essay on “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reap praised.” He is the subject of an interview; his paper is reviewed by Erin Bigler, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University; and his pa per is referenced by four contributors to the journal. I find Byne’s interview more interesting for the questions not asked. Noticeably absent are direct questions about the immutability of sexual orientation, whether choice is a factor, and his attitude about reparative therapy. 

After reading the interview, I tele phoned Dr. Byne to ask his opinions on causation, immutability, and therapy, because I couldn’t glean them from the published interview. He indicated that he believes the causes of homosexuality are complex but are a combination of biologic, hormonal, and psychosocial conditions; are ingrained no later than four years of age; are not chosen; and are in the vast majority of cases immutable. He has had little experience with reparative therapy but acknowledges it is in consistent with his strong belief that sexual orientation is generally immutable. 

As I read the journal, I was impressed that the reparative therapists represented throughout its pages apparently feel threatened. Scott Richards, the editor, acknowledges that the jour nal is not balanced but defends this position by stating, “The professional literature is not balanced. Only one perspective gets published right now—the gay affirmative one. Someone needs to present alternative perspectives” (xi). 

The interview with Dean Byrd, assistant commissioner of LDS Social Services, shows his views to diverge from Byne’s and mainstream psychiatry and psychology. He is “convinced from both a spiritual and clinical perspective that homosexuality is not an immutable condition .. . and supports the right of those individuals who are unhappy (egodystonic) with their same-sex at traction to diminish/eliminate those at tractions and to make changes in their lives” (91). If one accepts the Kinsey scale where 0 is strictly heterosexual and 6 is strictly homosexual, it seems to me that some individuals in the 2-5 range may be amenable to some change. Herein lies the difficulty: determining and agreeing who should avail them selves of this type of therapy. 

Byrd’s paper, co-authored by Mark D. Chamberlain, a doctoral student in clinical psychology, and his interview detailing his own experience with reparative therapy may be an attempt to answer the assertion of Mel vin Sabshun, medical director of the American Psychiatric Association, that 

there is no published scientific evidence to support the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation . . . There is little, if any, evidence that these methods can change a homosexual person’s deep-seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex … Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so (May 1992 press release). 

The executive director for Professional Practice of the American Psycho logical Association has also stated that “efforts to ‘repair’ homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments” (statement by Bryant L. Welch, 26 Jan. 1990). 

It is regrettable that such divisiveness exists and that both camps feel a need to disparage the other view. Since this is such a controversial area, it is unfortunate that Byrd’s “meticulous” notes reporting the cases of more than 200 patients do not provide some objective data about the efficacy he claims for reparative therapy. Until researchers such as Byrd are willing to subject their claims to scientific inquiry and corroboration in a longitudinal study they will remain vulnerable to criticism. Byrd needs to design a study in collaboration with someone without an agenda which will provide a scientific basis for his claims. 

The three books reviewed, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach; Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People; and Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-sex Orientation, are praised or castigated de pending on whether they support or question psychological etiology, choice, and/or reparability. BYU psychologist Reed Payne’s review of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality reveals his own bias. Payne supports the author’s conclusions that “the homosexual condition often has developmental and dynamic underpinnings involving male-identity failure; and, clinical evidence clearly demonstrates optimism by confirming the change process.” This approach is geared to the “ego dystonic” homosexual (those homosexuals with internalized homophobia) despite the fact that “ego-dystonic” homosexuality was removed from the Di agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) in 1987. 

Payne divides homosexuals into the “non-gay homosexual” and those in the “gay lifestyle.” He finds it ironic that those who are most vocal about gay rights tend to be hostile towards homosexuals who desire treatment and those who offer them help. Yet he makes no reference to the equally obvious irony that societal and religious homophobia forces homosexuals into a state of self loathing or of sexual promiscuity in an attempt to validate their being. 

Kevin M. Marett’s review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud acknowledges that the book is “moralistic in tone” and con cedes that the authors “use the same facts and sources over and over to make the same arguments .. . to the point of becoming wearisome and laborious.” Nevertheless, he recommends it “for those who do not accept the current sexual mores that run counter to the pre vailing arguments for sexual license.” The book is not based on substantive facts and information but is a sensationalist smear of Kinsey’s work which the authors believe has been a major factor in the erosion of social mores since its publication in 1948. 

Peculiar People comes in for criticism for its “grossly disproportionate . . . over-representation of those who have embraced their homosexuality versus those that have chosen to make the transition out of gay lifestyles and behaviors.” The reviewer, Scott R. Peterson, of BYU’s Comprehensive Clinic, suggests that many of the book’s contributors “have chosen to reject the fundamental values of the LDS church. Rather than adjusting their behavior to accommodate the values of their religion, they adjust their own religious values to accommodate their behavior.” Peterson complains that many of the stories in Peculiar People “fall into the trap of tautological reasoning wherein the validity of an opinion is self determined and therefore cannot be wrong.” 

Peterson wants everyone with same-sex attraction to resolve their conflicts in church-sanctioned ways and has difficulty in accepting alternative solutions. He fails to mention or address the obvious conclusion that these individuals are expressing their own belief that the church in many cases has failed them and is now a source of pain rather than comfort. Peterson does show consider able empathy, however, for those with same-sex attraction and commends the editors of Peculiar People for attempting to educate and enlighten their readers. His most prescient comment is in the last paragraph: “And where social conditioning, theological belief, and the inexactitude of science converge to create opinions that are potentially damaging to any member of human kind, there is no greater need for open-mindedness, tolerance, and the representation of in formation simply for the sake of enlightenment.” In my opinion, Peculiar People is a milestone in understanding homo sexuality in the Mormon culture and belongs in the library of every Mormon family dealing with or interested in the issue. 

Erin Bigler’s review of Byne’s “Hu man Sexual Orientation” is refreshing. Bigler, a professor of psychology at BYU, gives a balanced review, avoids dogmatic extremes, and shares some information about the incidence of homosexuality as well as the limbic circuitry in the brain. He supports Byne’s “inter actionist model” and points out that it does not exclude biologic factors which many in LDS Social Services have tried to imply. He is correct, in my opinion, in suggesting that “exclusivity should be avoided in our attempts to understand homosexuality and homosexual behavior.” 

Richard Bickerton’s review of Robert Rees’s pamphlet, No More Strangers and Foreigners, saddened me. I can’t help wondering how two former LDS bishops arrive at such dramatically different conclusions? Does Bickerton really mean, as he suggests, that “all” who are invited to come unto Jesus Christ excludes those involved in homosexual behavior? I have had a copy of Rees’s pamphlet for several months and have loaned it to many of my friends. I think his views are consistent with true Christian values and can’t understand how anyone could so denigrate his contribution. 

In summary, the 1993 AMCAP journal fairly depicts the current posture of some LDS counselors and psychotherapists who deplore their inability to get their views published in professional literature and continue to support a psychosocial causation and attempts to “repair” men and women with same sex orientation. While the journal pro vides some credibility for reparative therapy in selected cases, it is clear that the burden of proof as to who, if anyone, may benefit is on the reparatists. So far their data are not persuasive. Indeed, it is held in such low esteem by most professionals that the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Gay, Les bian, and Bisexual Issues in conjunction with the Committee on Abuse and Mis use of Psychiatry in the United States labels reparative therapy as unethical and an abuse and misuse of psychiatry. 

Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-sex Orientation. Edited by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991). 

AMCAP Journal, Volume 19 (Salt Lake City: Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists, 1993).