Ever since Adam and Eve “heard the voice of Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden,”(Genesis 3:8) humans have shown a natural propensity to vainly hide from God. Despite its futility, we somehow think that by remaining silent, God will somehow not notice what we have done.

Our first parents had no one but God from whom to hide–not so for their children. We can hide from each other by refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing on our parts. We know from modern revelation that God does not appreciate such hiding, his prophet having declared, “…but when we undertake to cover our sins…behold the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 121:37 (D&C))

This predilection we have for hiding is known as shame and it is nearly an immediate reaction not only to sin, but also other difficult problems that people face. People seek to cover their sins and hide those parts of their identities of which they are ashamed. Even though who and what a person is does not constitute a sin, the shame involved in the self-rejection of certain attributes is closely akin to the shame experienced following sinfulness.

Shame is that condition that leads us to invent a fantasy person that we present to the world, one who falls in line with accepted norms and mores. Even when we admit to ourselves that we are being dishonest by hiding who we are and what we have done, we often rationalize this as being better than what might possibly happen if we are truthful.

If shame is a condition of the heart, denial is it’s active expression. Denial exists on many levels. At its most basic, denial allows individuals to not only hide from the rest of the world, but to even hide from themselves. This rudimentary form of denial is that place where we also mistakenly believe we can hide from God, because if we refuse to allow ourselves to think about it, it does not exist and therefore God will not see it.

In Spirituality and Self-Esteem by Richard L. Bednar and Scott R. Peterson, denial is defined as “refusing to admit or accept what you know to be true about yourself.” (Richard L. Bednar and Scott R. Peterson, Spirituality and Self-Esteem, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1990), page 61) The theme of this book is the development of self-esteem and spirituality through methods of coping with difficult problems rather than avoiding them. Denial is listed under avoidance techniques.

At denial’s most general level, there is societal denial. Humankind refuses to acknowledge the existence of a problem, turns the collective back on the few who must struggle on their own and alone.

There are other levels of denial and different ways it is manifested. Somewhere between self-denial and societal denial is cultural and community denial.

In Secrets, by Blain Yorgason and Sonny Oaks, Frank, an elementary school teacher and bishop of his ward, is having a conversation with the school principal about a young boy at school who was recently removed from his parents custody when abuse was discovered in the home. Kent, the principal asks Frank about abuse issues in his ward.

“This article leads me to wonder–you must deal with abuse problems in your church.”

“We’re people like everyone else, so I’m sure of it. But, thankfully, we don’t have any in my ward, at least that I know of.”

“Ward?” Kent asked, puzzled.

“The term for a Latter-day Saint congregation, a ward being similar to a parish. The Church is divided into wards, then stakes, and the Church at large.”

Kent nodded his comprehension. “But you don’t have any abuse in your–ward?”

“I don’t think so. Oh, we have our share of problems, don’t get me wrong. But by and large my ward is filled with great people.” (Blaine Yorgason and Sunny Oaks, Secrets, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1992), p. 8-9)

From this conversation forward, this bishop slowly, but powerfully learns just how wrong he is. The issue of abuse not only affects his ward, but his own immediate family. This novel is powerful for two reasons. It directly addresses the trauma of abuse in families which is extant in Mormon families, despite an attitude of denial that is present in many communities. Even more importantly, Secrets is about the denial itself, the collective hiding of a difficult problem under a screen of confidentiality and concern.

Many will wonder, “what is so wrong about that?” Airing dirty laundry is uncouthe and usually unproductive. It is true for the most part that sins do not yet need to be “spoken upon the housetops and…secrets acts…be revealed.” (D&C 1:3) Though this be true on an individual basis, a community-wide confession that a problem exists is necessary before the problem can be solved.

Bednar and Robinson, in discussing various styles of avoidance, described what they called the “Walt Disney Productions style.”

Users of the Walt Disney Productions style of avoidance find something good in almost any situation, no matter how bad it really is. People who use this style of avoidance tend to be patient, long-suffering, and unrealistically optimistic. They almost always see the good in others and almost never respond to the bad. They often receive many kind words and compliments; however, closer examination shows a marked difference between individuals who are truly ‘the salt of the earth’ and the ones we are describing here. The telltale signs of real Walt Disney Productions people look like this:

They avoid conversations about the cocaine problem, world hunger, economic problems of the elderly, and growing concerns about social problems such as child abuse, crime, divorce, and violence. (Spirituality and Self-Esteem, page 96.)

Bednar and Robinson contrast this avoidance style to the corresponding method of coping.

The Walt Disney Productions style of avoidance presents an interesting paradox. By denying the problems that you fear, you support their very existence! As long as problems–personal or interpersonal–are avoided, they can never be resolved. Coping requires the understanding that acknowledging problems is the first step to overcoming them. (Spirituality and Self-Esteem, page 96.)

Mormon literature as a whole suffers from a Walt Disney Production style of avoidance where difficult social problems are not discussed or even acknowledged.

In individuals, shame is a condition that is temporary. One cannot hide forever. Discovery is inevitable. It is the process of finding oneself, but also of making oneself. It is the development of an identity.

Identity discovery happens in two different ways. The first and most undesirable way is what I call “hardness of heart,” wherein a person declares his deeds or newly made identity and affirms that there was no culpability in what he does as a result of who he is. In this case, a hardening of the heart involves militancy and a demand for respect or accomodation. The second way is to humbly confess the truth about one’s nature and admit fault. The other way is to admit weakness and humbly ask for help.

For communities and society in general, identity discovery happens through two avenues–political activism and artistic expression. The most modern and important example of this is in the sweeping away of societal denial concerning homosexuality. Through a combination of activism and literature, the entire world has had to admit that persons exist among us who are attracted to the same sex and express that attraction in all the ways that others do.

It is interesting to go back to newspapers and magazines of the 1960’s and read about the issue of homosexuality. Not only has the homosexual world community effectively changed the thinking of the rest of the world, but they have also redefined and refined their own identity through politics and art.

Off-Broadway producers have found that homosexuals will flock to plays about themselves. Yet most dramas about deviates are written for heterosexual audiences. The New York stage currently offers John Osborne’s A Patriot for Me, Mart Crowley’s The Boys in the Band and John Herbert’s Fortune and Men’s Eyes, a 1967 drama about prison life. Revived last week in a new production, it has been rewritten so that a scene of forcible sodomy that used to take place out of the audience’s sight is now grimly visible (though simulated). In movies, too, homosexuality is the vogue: Staircase, starring Rex Harrison and Richard Burton, Midnight Cowboy and Fellini’s forthcoming Satyricon. On the lesbian side there are The Fox, The’resa and Isabelle, and The Killing of Sister George.

The quality of these works ranges from excellent to nauseating. But it is a fact that treatment of the theme has changed. “Homosexuality used to be a sensational gimmick,” says Playwright Crowley. “The big revelation in the third act was that the guy was homosexual, and then he had to go off-stage and blow his brains out. It was associated with sin, and there had to be retribution.” These days, a movie or play can end, as Staircase does, with a homosexual couple still together or, as Boys in the Band winds up, with two squabbling male lovers trying desperately to save their relationship. Beyond that, the homosexual is a special kind of anti-hero; his emergence on center stage reflects the same sympathy for outsiders that has trasformed oddballs and criminals from enemies into heroic rebels against society in such films as Bonne and Clyde and Alice’s Restaurant. (Time Magazine, “Homosexuality In America”, October 31, 1969, page 61.)

Crowley’s comment above is interesting in that he turned that gimmick around on us in his play, The Boys in the Band. Michael, a homosexual, is hosting a birthday party for one of his homosexual friends. An old friend from college, presumably straight, crashes the party. The friend, Alan, was married with children, but had something on his mind he needed to tell his friend Michael. During the course of the evening, Michael assumes that Alan is there to “come out of the closet”. In the end, we see that Michael is wrong about Alan. Alan is straight and doesn’t blow his brains out, but reconciles with his wife. In the end, Michael and his occasional lover, Donald, are left contemplating their own state.

The Boys in the Band

is a good study in a sort of reverse denial, or perhaps counterdenial. As Michael and Donald wait for their guests including Alan who does not know that his friend Michael is gay, Donald chides Michael for wanting them all to hide their identity from Alan.

DONALD. Or are you suddenly ashamed of your friends?

MICHAEL. Donald, you are the only person I know of whom I am truly ashamed. Some people do have different standards from yours and mine, you know. And if we don’t acknowledge them, we’re just as narrow-minded and backward as we think they are. (Mart Crowley, The Boys in the Band, (New York City, New York: Samuel French, Inc., 1968), Act I, p. 16.)

The denial here comes from many directions. “Some people” are in denial about homosexuality. Donald is in denial about people who have different standards and Michael is contemplating denying his own identity to his friend, Alan.

Crowley’s characters even take a swipe at denial among Mormons. Donald and Michael are talking about the alcohol-saturated college lives they led years before. It was not uncommon for them to have relations with straight men after they were so intoxicated all judgement was gone. Michael comments on how the drunkenness served as a good “denial” excuse for those other men, who could conveniently claim to remember nothing about the night before.

MICHAEL. (Crosses to Left end coffee table.) That’s not true. The [expletive deleted]-Was-I-Drunk-Last-Night Syndrome knows no religion. It has to do with immaturity. Although I will admit there’s a high percentage of it among Mormons. (The Boys in the Band, Act I, p. 23.)

Finally, after the evening is over, Michael has one of his common anxiety attacks and Donald soothes him with a valium. Finally denial is set aside and both admit the truth. Through them, we come to understand that the discovery of their identity continues even after they have “accepted” themselves. So it is with the gay identity to this day.

MICHAEL. . . . If we . . . if we could just . . . learn, not to hate ourselves so much. That’s it, you know. if we could just not hate ourselves just quite so very very much.

DONALD. Yes, I know, I know. (A beat.) Inconceivable as it may be, you used to be worse than you are now. Maybe with a lot more work you can help yourself some more–if you try.

MICHAEL. Who was it that use to always say, “You show me a happy homosexual, and I’ll show you a gay corpse.”

DONALD. I don’t know. Who was it who always use to say that? (The Boys in the Band, Act II, p. 102.)

Through literature and art, the homosexual community of the sixties and seventies continued to assert and define their collective identity.

Discrimination aside, what about the more indirect propagation of homsexual points of view? Homosexual taste can fall into a particular kind of self-indulgence as the homosexual revenges himself on a hostile world by writing grotesque exaggerations of straight customs, concentrates on superficial stylistic furbelows or develops a ‘campy’ fetish for old movies. Somerset Maugham once said of the homosexual artist that “with his keen insight and quick sensibility, he can pierce the depths, but in his innate frivolity he fetches up from them not a priceless jewel but a tinsel ornament.”

In many cases, including Maugham’s own, that is an exaggeration. Indeed the talented homosexual’s role as an outsider, far from disqualifying him from commenting on life, may often sharpen his insight and esthetic sensibility. From Sappho to Colette to Oscar Wilde and James Baldwin, homosexual authors have memorably celebrated love–and not always in homosexual terms. For example, W. H. Auden’s Lullaby–“Lay your sleeping head, my love/Human on my faithless arm”–must rank as one of the 20th century’s most exquisite love lyrics. (Time Magazine, “Homosexuality In America”, October 31, 1969, page 61.)

Regardless of whether we agree with the thrust and direction of gay literature, we must surely recognize that the willingness of the world to accept the self-expression of homosexuals has significantly contributed to the place they now hold in the world.

From early in the gay artistic revolution and “coming into their own” of the homosexual community, there has been a more silent and unobtrusive element among them. These are the people that psychoanalyst Dr. Joseph Nicolosi calls the “non-gay homosexuals.” They are people who are attracted to the same sex, but because of many factors, religion being the foremost, choose not to be identified with the gay community.

Though virtually silent for the past few decades, these people exist in greater numbers than is generally known. Denial is the main reason for their continued silence. These people face the denial on many different levels and from many different directions. Many feel that to shake off their own personal denial and admit their identity to the world at large is a greater risk than the possible benefits warrant.

On the one hand, they fear rejection by the larger homosexual community. Whether the feared consequences are real or imagined, the denial on the part of the homosexual community that such people exist or that they are earnest keeps many of these same-sex attracted people quiet.

On the other hand, they fear rejection by their religious peers. We are not that far beyond the days when it was believed that merely having homosexual feelings was a sin. Many people still believe this and as long as that sentiment abounds, non-gay homosexuals will likely remain invisible.

Among Mormons, these people strive for faithfulness to the teachings of modern apostles and prophets. The task is far from easy, self and community denial being the main stumblingblocks. Shame drives many deeper into hiding and many languish there, hovering between both communities, but with a deeper and more abiding loyalty to the Church. What seems to be the defining and driving power behind the most successful of these people is the identity discovery through humble confession that is counter to the hard-hearted and militant identity discovery of the gay community.

In light of the current thinking about overcoming difficult problems, this is not surprising.

In their book, Willpower Is Not Enough, Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Dr. Mark Chamberlain explore the value of self-expression in coping.

Some of the most compelling reports we’ve heard about the power of honesty and openness have come from LDS men and women who have struggled with feelings of homosexual attraction. In our research, we interviewed a number of such individuals. Nearly every one of them talked about the great importance of sharing their struggle with others. But it wasn’t easy. Participants in our research described telling others as a great risk, a risk that was extremely difficult to take. (Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Dr. Mark Chamberlain, Willpower Is Not Enough, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1995), p. 105.)

In the spirit of self-expression, there are many support groups that operate all over the world, both by LDS Social Services and an organization called Evergreen International. Participants come to the meetings and find that they can reveal their identity to others who are not likely to judge or condemn. The simple act of a same-sex attracted struggler discovering his identity to a group has a satisfying effect on him. The relief reported in such simple self-expression is not trivial. Other avenues of self-expression are available on the internet through the Disciples mailing lists. It seems to be not so important what one says or writes as it is the simple ability to say something to someone.

In these settings, confidentiality and anonymity are more easily maintainable. They are, in essence, low-risk ways of allowing these people to express themselves and discover their identities to each other.

Byrd and Chamberlain continue by saying, “Working on issues of homosexuality will always involve some social risk, however, and participants in our research had to reach a point where it seemed worth it to take that risk.” (Ibid.)

Strong though the community denial may seem, Latter-Day Saints seem to be more willing to learn and accept same-sex attracted strugglers than the strugglers themselves may believe. Byrd and Chamberlain reported:

In spite of the risks and difficulties, disclosing one’s struggle brought numerous positive results as well. Those we interviewed were usually surprised to learn that others would still accept and love them, even after learning that they were dealing with feelings of homosexual attraction. Then they were more able to feel loved for their true selves, rather than for the facade they had tried to present. Paradoxically, that helped to give them the added courage and strength to change. (Ibid, p. 106.)

If, as these points seem to suggest, exercise of the right of self-expression is the saving grace for individuals who deal with difficult problems, then a broader community self-expression among non-gay homosexuals may go a long way to the establishment of a more positive identity for these people. If the world gay community discovered their identity and took their place in the world via art and literature, then it may well be that art and literature are the appropriate and effective vehicle for overcoming the societal denial that exists concerning non-gay homoexuals in the LDS Church.

There are lessons to be learned from the other successful movements of the past, such as feminism and many ethnic cultures. The key to all of them has been in their use of language and symbolism through literature, culture, and art, including their criticism of art and literature from their point of view.

As a member of that community of same-sex attracted people who have made the commitment to be obedient to the teachings of modern apostles and prophets, I have a few suggestions that I think will help my community to develop and discover a viable identity among the larger and more important community of Latter-Day Saints.

1. Adopt a terminology that is seperate and distinct from the mainstream of English usage and also different than the icons of traditional homosexual literature and usage. For example, “coming out of the closet” connotes the act of discovering a gay identity to family, friends, or the world. It also often means a first homosexual encounter. The non-gay, same-sex attracted community often uses “coming out” to mean a similar discovery of identity to friends, family, and priesthood leaders. I have recommended that rather than “coming out,” we adopt “coming forward” as the watchword for identity discovery, suggesting humble confession followed by positive action. A more difficult problem is the abandonment of the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual” as nouns as urged by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in his Ensign article, “Same Gender Attraction.” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, The Ensign, “Same Gender Attraction,” October 1995) I completely agree that “gay” is not accurate for a person like me as it connotes an individual involved in certain activities of which I do not partake. “Homosexual” also has its limitations in describing persons who are married and faithful to opposite-sex spouses but still admit to being primarily attracted to the same sex. “Same-sex attracted” as an adjective/noun combination has been my choice, as in “a same-sex attracted is anyone who is sexually attracted to the same sex.”
2. Foster an environment where artistic expression of same-sex attraction issues is encouraged with an emphasis on the rightness and desirability of following the inspired counsel of prophets of God. Allow success stories to be told and acknowledge the faith and faithfulness of those who find peace in their struggles. Those whose eyes are still on the goal, even though not yet achieved, also need to have an outlet. As in The Boys in the Band, the gay community had the foresight to encourage portrayal of a struggle to find identity and did not limit their art to just showing their own version of what is ideal in identity discovery. They allowed themselves to feel around for who they wanted to be.
3. Encourage other artists and commentators to represent our point of view. The assist that the gay community received from the larger community of artists greatly aided their cause and search for identity.
4. Where possible and appropriate, be outspoken and activist. We, who know the struggle the best, ought to be the ones to educate others.
5. We must not wait for “permission” from the greater community to claim our rights of self-expression.
6. Claim our right to critical evaluation of other art based on our own point of view and identity.
7. Be tolerant of those who criticize our point of view, but unflinching in our mutual support of each other in self-expression.
8. Never fail to express gratitude to the Father who created us, the Savior who redeemed us, and the inspired leaders who teach us.
9. Though our artistic expression may sometimes portray falling short of the mark for which we reach, we must always remember our ideals of faith and faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For too many years now, the non-gay same-sex attracted community has remained silent and has been left to eat of the crumbs that fall from the literary tables of our gay predecessors. In a way, we owe a debt of gratitude to their pioneering in self-expression, but it is time we took advantage of the right to express ourselves and our own unique point of view. It is my hope that in doing so, we can count on the support of the greater community of Mormon artists and find ourselves to merely be part of the whole, moving as one into that place we all belong together.

As we all come forward with those things that mean the most to us and express them through art, literature, theater, and most importantly, testimony, we will find ourselves to be a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy:

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2.)