Introduction--"The Shadow"

Carl Jung once said: "I would rather be whole than good". Perhaps this is not at all different from Jesus' invitation to be perfect, or complete. I present in the following ideas the thesis that within the collective shadow of Mormonism lies a tremendous reservoir of shame surrounding sexuality. I believe this institutional shame is in part a product of the church's inability to honestly face its own history of sexual eccentricity that was a consequent and perhaps integral component of plural marriage. The progeny of this collective shame and the unwillingness to honestly face it, is that it continues to adversely influence church ideology, theology, policy, and subsequent behaviors in the area of sexuality. Facing that shame, by facing the truth, may be foundational to the ability to move past it to a place of greater "wholeness".

Former church president Spencer W. Kimball once conceded that sexual issues were the number one etiological factor he found in divorcing couples:

If you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorney, but that is the reason...[1]

Absent in his concession is any ownership or responsibility of the church institution for the sexual problems its members might experience.

Jung articulated that:

The inner voice brings to consciousness whatever the whole--whether the nation to which we belong or humanity of which we are a part--suffers from. But it presents this evil in individual form, so that at first we would suppose all this evil to be only a trait of individual character".[2]

The church institution projects the "evil" of sexual excess onto individual "perpetrators" or members, yet fails to acknowledge its own complicity in the sexual misbehaviors or dysfunctions of its members. Such dysfunctions may in part emerge as a result of not sufficiently reckoning with the sexual shame that resides within the collective shadow of the institution. The dysfunctions are subsequently passed on to individual members. By dysfunctions I am referring to a condition of sexual shame and consequent behaviors (or lack thereof) that cause distress, are unhealthy, or may involve harming others. Such feelings and behaviors range from sexual shame, inhibition, dysfunction, addictions, and paraphilias.

Prominent hurtful sexual issues like many of the paraphilias (e.g. pedophillia, exhibitionism), and addictive behaviors (e.g. pornography abuse, promiscuous sexual behaviors, etc.) are obvious examples of problems that occur in part due to unresolved conflict. Less obvious sexual conflict issues, like many of the inhibitory sexual response dysfunctions, can in a less traumatic but equally disturbing way disrupt the happiness of relationships and lives. Relationships can develop extreme conflict/resentment problems due to one or both partners who experience shame/guilt surrounding normal sexual response feelings--especially as this shame causes inhibition in normal sexual behaviors. The mechanism of normal sexual response begins in one's mind. When the ability to think and feel sexually has been undermined with shame, it can be foundational to sexual conflict problems in relationships. Such relationship problems often lead to infidelity and divorce. The etiological factors in the development and manifestation of sexual dysfunctions is normally very complex and multi-causal. I believe that the shame that resides in the collective shadow of Mormonism may simply be a contributing factor--albeit at times a significant contributor.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of a "shadow" a brief explanation may be useful. As individuals develop, they learn that certain behaviors, sights, sounds, words, feelings, etc. are bad or unacceptable. Consequently, they daily participate in a process of resigning such elements into a part of their psyches they believe is bad or unacceptable. For example, I may be taught that looking at nude pictures is bad, yet find delight in doing so. My delight in this behavior is ultimately relegated to my personal shadow. Eventually, I may adopt a position of outward disdain for viewing nudity --and inward delight. A split occurs in my psyche concerning the thoughts and feelings I have regarding viewing nudity. The unacknowledged inward delight that I have resigned to my shadow, if not reckoned with, acts as an unconscious force which will ultimately exert its force in some usually negative way. Each person has a shadow component they stuff with various types of unacceptable material. Confronting or reckoning with those parts of ourselves that we have relegated to our personal shadows is the only way to be complete--and free.

Plural Marriage: Contributing to the Shadow

From its inception Joseph Smith's plural marriage was formulated and instituted in a haze of secrecy, concealment, and public lies.[3] Indeed, the practice of plural marriage was not publicly acknowledged until 1852, perhaps some 21 years after it was first advocated by Smith. Determining the facts about the practice of plural marriage is therefore especially difficult in early Mormon history. Public denial and private practice among a select few seemed to be the unwritten policy of early plural marriages as instituted by Joseph Smith.[4] A rather brutal example of the secrecy surrounding plural marriage in its early practice by Smith is found in the apparent case of his secretly marrying his wife's (Emma's) counselor and her secretary in the Nauvoo Relief Society of which Emma was president.[5] This was apparently done without Emma's knowledge or consent. Joseph was therefore secretly married to nearly all of Emma's Relief Society Presidency without her awareness! Perhaps the contradictory and self-nullifying rule revealed as the "Law of Sarah" was used as justification for the seemingly audacious behavior of Smith. As revealed in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Law of Sarah decreed that the first wife was to give her consent for subsequent wives, unless the first wife was unbelieving or unwilling. In that case the male was exempt from the Law of Sarah, and the first wife was found in contempt, labeled a transgressor, and even threatened with destruction![6] I am only grateful that such "laws" are not efficacious in my behalf!

In my teaching experience in various settings in the church I've discovered many contemporary members of the church are surprised to learn that Joseph Smith was married to anyone other than Emma! I believe this demonstrates the obscuring of history that has occurred within the church. Obviously it is a big shock when lifelong members, after graduating from seminary and sitting through hundreds of hours of church instruction, discover that not only did Joseph take other wives, but many of them were married when he took them! Further, many of Smith's wives were considerably younger than himself--with at least one as young as fourteen![7] Some members, at this point, feel anger or disillusionment towards the church institution that chose to keep such information veiled in secrecy. However, in view of the apparent realities concerning plural marriage it becomes somewhat evident why there may be motive to keep such information safely in the church institution's secret closet!

Many members of the Mormon church are familiar with an oft quoted statement made by Joseph Smith that begins: "Happiness is the object and design of our existence: and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it..."[8] Many church members might be surprised to discover that this statement has been extracted from a letter Joseph Smith had written Nancy Rigdon (First Presidency counselor Sydney Rigdon's daughter) attempting to entice her into marrying him.[9] The statement that appears in all official church references (including Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) has been sterilized of all context relating to the married prophet attempting to secretly entice a young woman into a polygamous relationship with him.

Plural marriage, the secrecy of its early practice, and the ensuing social and political circumstances that emerged from its practice are probably the greatest factors leading to the murders of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, and the subsequent upheaval of this era of Mormon history.[10] Indeed, a careful analysis of the later Nauvoo era of the Mormon Church presents itself as a perfect example of the workings of the shadow within a culture or institution. The church attempted to present a pristine public appearance, but was having considerable conflict with the underworld of secrecy and private behaviors.[11] Most likely empowered by the energy inherent in the sexual drive, the underworld of Nauvoo was a veritable shadow land of wonder! Accusations, denials, conspiracies, secret societies and practices, conflicts, and violent behaviors danced their way out of the shadow lands of the Mormon institution, colliding and conflicting with the Victorian outward appearance of the pristine church and its people.

Division within the highest ranking quorum of the church (First Presidency) would produce the circumstances that would ultimately allow the powderkeg to explode. When First Presidency counselor William Law could no longer condone the secret practices and peculiar doctrines Smith was advocating, he publicly split with the prophet and along with others determined to expose the truth. In an aptly titled publication, The Nauvoo Expositor, Law and his group produced a paper that brought some of Nauvoo's secret practices into public awareness and promised to reveal more of the truth in subsequent editions. However, before further editions could be produced, Smith and the city council had the press destroyed. This clearly unconstitutional action provided the legal justification that would eventuate in Smith's incarceration. With Smith and others secure in jail, the explosive political climate erupted in mob violence and he and his brother were murdered. To many, Smith was hailed as a martyr. Others knew him as an obvious fraud and scoundrel exploiting his position of power to gain control over others and the sexual favor of many.

The practice of plural marriage within Mormonism would eventually be flushed from its seeming security in the closet. And although its practice became publicly acknowledged and nationally publicized, an obvious air of embarrassment would continue to surround the issue for many Mormons. Attempts by early and contemporary proponents of the practice to minimize the sexual aspects of plural marriages indicates to me the ongoing nature of shadow compartmentalization.[12]

Subsequent litigation and national disenfranchisement would force (or heavily induce) the church to abandon the practice of plural marriage. Complete abandonment of the practice proved to be a formidable task.[13] This is most likely due to the fact that plural marriage was initially presented as essential and foundational in early Mormon theology.[14] An era of purging those who refused to abandon the once believed essential practice ensued. Again, the emergence of conflicts, secret societies and practices ventilated the ongoing repressed shadow material in early 20th century Mormonism. Mormon fundamentalism had its birth in this era.[15]

The stage was set for the split that would occur in the 20th century individual and collective Mormon psyche. The church would eventually adopt a position of public disdain for the practice of plural marriage, but maintain somewhat of a repressed awareness of its eternal prominence. Further compounding this psychic split would be the repression of awareness of the sexual connotations inherent in plural marriage. To access this awareness, one only need bring up a serious discussion of plural marriage in a Gospel Doctrine Sunday school class and watch the repressed material begin to emerge! Contemporary Mormons generally demonstrate an unwillingness to face or confront the realities of the previous era of secret and eccentric marital and sexual behaviors. A position of "sweeping under the carpet" seems to be a common way of dealing with thoughts and feelings relative to the whole business of the earlier practice of plural marriage. This is true of the church's public and official dealings with the difficult topic as well. Richard Van Wagoner postulates in his excellent research on plural marriage that Utah Mormons may be the most anti-polygamous group of all![16] It appears evident that the contemporary Mormon is socialized to resign much thought and feeling in this area to the shadow lands. Openly, a pristine attitude concerning marriage and sexuality is embraced. Resigned to the shadow is a lurking awareness of this strange and eccentric practice previously embraced, and bound to re-emerge somewhere in the eternities

Potential Shadow Effects

How might this common repression which takes place on both an institutional and subsequent individual basis effect individuals today? I posit the idea that developing Mormon attitudes, policies and practices concerning sexuality have been powerfully influenced by the repression of this material into our collective and individual shadows. And while I don't believe the church's impact on the development of sexuality is exclusive, I do believe it may be one of the most significant influences for many members.

Romel Mackelprang summarized the Mormon Church's evolving philosophy concerning sexuality by examining official statements and policies of the church on the subject. He summarized that while more articles and statements affirming the positive aspects of sexuality are gradually appearing, the preponderance of official church statements and policies simply overwhelmingly emphasize restraint and chastity.[17] Historically, official statements from the church have consistently failed to validate or recognize the positive aspects of sexuality. Overall, this is exactly the official (and subsequent individual) attitude concerning sexuality one might expect considering the repression of so much information and feeling on the topic.

Perhaps most relevant to members of the Mormon Church are the influences on developing sexual attitudes shaped from interaction with the church culture. The sexual climates of home environments, parents' attitudes about sexuality, lessons heard in church settings, ecclesiastical interviews and admonitions, and even that which goes unmentioned are more powerful influences on developing views of sexuality within individuals. It is probable that such influences are the direct offspring of official church pronouncements, attitudes and policies about sexuality. Documenting such influences requires one to rely on individual accounts that are probably as idiosyncratic as the individual. However, as one might expect, general themes and experiences do surface as one discusses the topic of development of sexual attitudes with individuals raised in Mormon environments and families. The following summary of developing sexual attitudes within the average Mormon individual is a result of my interactions with church members as a seminary and institute instructor for the church, bishop of a singles ward, and clinical social worker with specialty in treating sexual disorders practicing in northern Utah.

Overall, my perceptions about individuals' attitudes about sexuality (which as stated is greatly influenced by interaction with the total church experience), has been the observation of a pervasive attitude within church members about sexuality that is beset with guilt and shame. I believe that the church's overemphasis on chastity combined with failure to validate the positive aspects of sexuality have contributed to this pervasive attitude. By overemphasis on chastity I am referring to a bombardment (especially towards the youth) on the topic that emphasizes the seriousness and consequences of the "sin", and an overall presentation that leaves an impression of guilt. The negative is further accentuated by the absence of the positive messages that should be addressed concerning the joy and celebration of our sexuality!

Elder Jeffery Holland's recent treatment of the topic in the October 1998 General Conference of the church is an excellent example.[18] While Elder Holland could have used the time to teach the youth of the church the positive reasons why an expression of sexuality with healthy boundaries is favorable, instead he turned to the shame motive. Shockingly, his message to those who have been sexual outside of church defined boundaries is that they "desecrate the atonement of Christ", they "mock the Son of Righteousness", they "crucify Christ afresh" through their behaviors! It would be difficult to create a message more infused with Godly shame. Shame inflicted from a Godly perspective is potentially most disabling and distorting to an individual. The message that is internalized is that not only am I unacceptable to others or myself--but to God! Incidentally, victims of sexual offenses who feel a natural guilt for being victimized, usually hear such messages as one who has chosen the behaviors. Their shame, along with those who have chosen their behaviors, is now infused with a message about crucifying the Savior through their actions!

In my experience, shame, or applied guilt is a very poor motivator to change behavior. Sometimes, applied guilt can help control others for a period of time, but I don't believe it ultimately fosters long term resolution, or growth. As a matter of fact, in the area of sexuality and other addictions, shame is a greater fuel to the problem behavior-- akin to treating the problem with its very cause.

Tracing the development of sexual awareness and activity allows one to see the church's potential and frequent opportunity for negative influence. While it is normal to begin to experience sexual thoughts and feelings, the young church member has been taught that such things are wrong and need to be eliminated. Lust is bad. Because almost everyone will naturally experience these feeling states, the almost automatic conditioning has great potential negative influence on the individual. An "if it is bad to lust, then I must be bad" conditioning ensues.

The pervasiveness of masturbatory activities has been resigned to the shadow lands of Mormonism. Some research has suggested that virtually 100 % of males and 85% of females will masturbate.[19] If this topic is dealt with at all in any church or family settings, it is probably almost always surrounded by deep shame. The evasive or non-existent treatment of masturbation in a church or ecclesiastical context, in view of the pervasiveness of the behavior, probably also contributes to the residue of shame that eventuates from the behavior. The inherent shaming quality of the behavior, in part due to the very private practice of it, is intensified by the God-infused feelings of guilt that are applied. Again, if anything, this probably promotes or feeds the repetitiveness of the behavior. One young woman in discussion with me concerning a repetitive masturbation issue was told by a previous bishop that she was mocking God through her repeated "offenses." This had a short term cessation influence, and a longer term intensification effect for her. She eventually returned to the behavior to medicate herself, in part due to the shame she felt. This demonstrates the addictive and self-feeding nature of the behavior.

I received a call from a bishop who was referring a young man to my singles ward. I was shocked by this bishop's intention to have the young man brought up before the high council for a disciplinary hearing due to the fact that he masturbated. Out of dismay I had to ask him to repeat to me that the young man's "offense" was masturbation! I informed the bishop that I would handle the situation. Months of de-shaming this young man ensued.

Many young people have discussed and written (most are too shamed to openly discuss the topic) to me concerning the crippling effect the shame they feel about masturbation has had on them. In my opinion, for many, the severe shame they experience due to this behavior, intensified by the God-infused guilt, can severely distort their self-image, healthy development and consequent healthy behaviors/choices.

A young woman wrote me a private note indicating how much she was hurting, but couldn't tell me why. After several notes she worked up the courage to tell me the following:

...I hope you don't mind me writing this, but I know it'd be really hard for me to tell you. This isn't anything I'd brag about.
I've done terrible things in my life, but this goes way past bad. I can't go back and change, but everyday I wish I can. Masturbate, that's the thing that's ruined my life. I can't deal with this guilt, it's taken over all my actions. I feel I have to be perfect, so to cover it up sometimes I hurt my body, by not eating as much, and making myself throw up. I think one day it'll (sic) will get rid of all the shame, but so far, nothing. Nothing has changed. Every night I have bad dreams of what I may turn into, and it really scares me.
I try so much to pray, but I don't feel welcome to the Lord...
Right now, I'm really scared, since I'm telling you this. I've never told anyone but God. I carry this big burden and it's carrying me down, but I feel I may never get back up.[20]

Another young man wrote and expressed:

I really haven't pinpointed exactly what is wrong in my life, but I usually feel good
to a extent I go to church every week & I participate in church activities and have fun while doing them. I know that my outside personality and expression seem to look as though I am fine. My friends know how I feel, but that is it. I haven't any problems in my family really I feel I am loved and treated well. I just hear about how good all of these feeling people experience by being in tune to the spirit. I want to experience it. I had problems in my early years hanging with the wrong friends and started to get involved with pornogphy (sic) magazines. Then I started watch porno movies. They have cramped my mind very deeply. I haven't any problems with immorality, because thier (sic) is no way I do that to any girl, but all the thoughts are there and are pondered. I have strugled (sic) with it I started masterbatting (sic) about 2 to 3 years ago since I watch the films... I try hard to quit and be clean. I won't say anything to my bishop or father. A few friends know, but that's all I want [to be] clean and happier. I feel you could [help] me, but I am asamed (sic). I hope I can succed (sic) and stop. P.S. I would talk, but would need a sign of help or confidence that it would be good.[21]

A final example from a young woman writing me an anonymous letter emphasizes the deep shame she feels and her attempts to compensate for the shame with perfect behavior:

...Since I know that this is completely secret I will tell what I've never told anyone before. Since I was about 10 years old I have been masturbating. I don't know how I learned how to do it, but every time I think about it I usually do it. I try to resist, but since I've been doing it for so long I can't stop I've repented, but then I just would do it again. I will never tell anyone what I do because I'm very ashamed about it. If I ever told anyone I know they would be surprised because in my group of friends I'm known as a major "goody-goody" because I leave the party if they watch an "R" rated movie and if they swear around me they always apologize. I'm a good student at school, I go to church, I do almost everything I'm supposed to. I know if I could stop doing that one thing I would be happier, because it's such a heavy burden on me. I kind of feel like it's almost to (sic) late to stop, but I know that is just Satan tempting me to think that.[22]

These notes give poignant examples of the deep Godly shame experienced by individuals who masturbate and the indication that disclosure to anyone would most likely never happen. These silent burdens are carried by many. The message these individuals internalize from an ecclesiastical or church context is that they are bad due to their behavior. The irony is that in each of the preceding three examples the young people writing these notes were magnificent human beings, seemingly only bound by the shame and distortion they were experiencing concerning themselves.

I personally believe I have had better success dealing with this difficult issue through openness, honesty, and using positive influences that recognize the worth of each individual, and the pervasiveness of the behavior. Further, by validating the extent of sexual stimulants that exist in society and acknowledging the difficulty that we as a people are having in defining and maintaining healthy sexual boundaries, a safer environment exists where individuals can disclose and explore their own sexual attitudes and feelings. This ultimately leads to a better and healthier position to define and choose appropriate sexual behaviors--outside of a shame motive or response. I believe this is generally something that is not happening in the church context, and may be a direction for how to better address the issue from an ecclesiastical position.

As already alluded to, the bombardment of negative messages to the youth about sexuality does much to influence their developing attitudes on the subject. Early experimentation with powerful sexual feelings and behaviors can leave young individuals with poignant dualistic feelings. Such feelings can either be dealt with, or relegated to the shadow. Bishops' interviews with individuals often have a significant influence--both positive and negative. It seems that sexuality is the main thing such interviews focus on when it comes to transgression. Voyeuristic, probing bishop's interviews, rather than helping to relieve shame, often profoundly increase it. One young individual was coerced into telling her bishop the number of thrusts encountered during her sexual behavior.[23] Amazingly, the bishop related the seriousness of her offenses to such detail! Interestingly, the General Handbook of Instructions gives no directive for such disclosure or probing. Indeed, it might surprise many members of the church to discover that the Bishop's handbook doesn't even prescribe that any disclosure of such sexual behavior is necessary for repentance! Why then do some bishops believe it is their duty to extract such lurid details? I believe that some bishops may innocently believe they are maintaining and upholding an ecclesiastical tradition and mandate. Others are obviously deeply influenced by their own shadow material and are voyeuristically exploiting and consequently shaming those whom they have agreed to "watch over". In the case of the above individual who was so thoroughly interrogated by her bishop, she related to me that she sensed at the time of this probing interview that the Bishop was "getting off" on her disclosure. This awareness seemed to only deepen her already powerful shame.

Mormons who participate in temple rites (taught as essential to one's eternal salvation) are required to wear a holy garment (underwear). During yearly interviews such members are required to report whether they are wearing the prescribed garment as they covenanted to do. A specific question in the yearly temple worthiness interview inquires specifically if the individual is wearing the garment both day and night. A natural question arises: why the need to wear the holy garment during sleep time? Mormons are taught that the garment is a protection to them. It seems obvious that a deduction many members consciously or unconsciously make is that the garment worn at night may protect them from sexual thoughts or behaviors. This contributes significantly to the undermining of sexual thought necessary for normal sexual response. I believe this extreme controlling mechanism is a further evidence of repressed sexual shame that resides in the collective shadow of Mormonism. Controlling mechanisms that limit the ability for even married couples to feel spontaneous and unbounded towards each other are the shadow of an institution that has a need to compensate for a history that is replete with sexual eccentricity and excess.

I believe that envy is often a shadow emotion that is repressed, but ends up surfacing when some respond to other's sexual behaviors. I remember listening to a fellow seminary teacher discuss how some of the young people of the church were being sexually promiscuous and "getting away with it." At the time I was aware that latent envy was dripping from his words. This individual's shadow envy surfaced later that year and he began a sexual relationship with one of his students.

When sexual feelings can be dealt with openly and positively, the potential for negative shadow influences is greatly decreased. The opposite is conversely true. The shadow influences can either be a compelling influence into indiscriminate sexual behavior, or have a shaming/inhibitory effect--and sometimes combinations of both.

Facing the Shadow

On June 11, 1988 the Philadelphia Inquirer reported the following in reference to the Soviet government temporarily canceling all history examinations in the country:

The Soviet Union, saying history textbooks had taught generations of Soviet children lies that poisoned their "minds and souls: announced yesterday that it had canceled final history exams for more than 53 million students.

Reporting the cancellation, the government newspaper Isvestai said the extraordinary decision was intended to end the passing of lies from generation to generation, a process that has consolidated the Stalinist political and economic system that the current leadership wants to end.

..."The guilt of those who deluded one generation after another... is immeasurable," the paper said in a front-page commentary. "Today we are reaping the bitter fruits of our own moral laxity. We are paying for succumbing to conformity and thus to giving silent approval of everything that now brings the blush of shame to our faces and about which we do not know how to answer our children honestly."[24]

This amazing example of a nation's willingness to confront their previous attempts to control the awareness of history among its people offers an example to modern Mormonism of the value in collectively facing the "truth" of its past. I believe that Mormonism is likewise suffering some "bitter fruit" today from an acquiescence to conformity, and settling for a history that excludes the whole truth.

Responding to the emergence of what might be labeled "the new Mormon History," Elder Boyd K. Packer in a seminal address to seminary and institute instructors admonished them to teach "faithful history".[25] The implication is clear: Teach that which will cause the student to increase their belief in the institution and leave out those parts that may challenge it. This address set the tone for church history instruction and curriculum which is still influential today. On the surface Elder Packer's instructions seem admirable. " Lying for the Lord", or "the ends justify the means" can always be used as rationalization for dishonesty and concealment--especially when one knows their agenda is right. However, there seems little difference in the motives of the Soviet Union's attempt to conceal the truth of its past and contemporary Mormonism's. With such a philosophy, United States history could be taught leaving the whole problem of slavery out in order to advance strong nationalistic feelings. Jesus' injunction that the "truth will set you free" seems in opposition to Elder Packer's ideology, and offers an ideal by which to deal with our shadows--both institutionally and individually. We must deal truthfully and openly with the totality of our thoughts and feelings. Only then can we be wholly free.

Indicating some of the negative sequelae that can eventuate from a restricted presentation of history, Lawrence Foster argues:

The writing of misleading yet supposedly "positive" accounts of the Mormon past will be neither faith promoting nor good history. Of course it all depends on what kind of faith one is trying to promote. If one wishes to promote uninformed, unthinking acquiescence to the church as an institution that can do no wrong, then clearly the propagandistic approach is most suitable. But if one wishes to promote a mature faith tested by a responsible exercise of free agency, then such an approach can only be destructive and self-defeating...It is indeed sad that for some Saints the horror of having any doubt is so great that they do not see the even greater horror of having a faith so small that they are afraid ever to doubt or test it for fear the whole structure would crumble. Realistic faith, it seems to me, must grow out of confidence rather than fear and defensiveness.[26]

I present my belief that not only does a limited faith result from a less than honest and open exchange with our past, but potentially serious limitations in our ability to respond in a healthy way to the powerful sexual feelings inherent in the human experience. The following are suggestions I believe the Mormon Church could begin to implement towards a more healthy approach to sexuality:

1.The church must deal with its past in an honest way. Hiding from the past is a sure sign that shadow material, with its inherent negative consequences, is bound to eventuate. The church must honestly acknowledge the behavioral, social, sexual and doctrinal eccentricities that are a part of its past. It must attempt to understand the emergence of such eccentricities from within an historical, but complete perspective. Historical explanations that omit critical components of the situations/behaviors need to be enlarged or replaced. If such an approach were undertaken, the repressed shadow material would be flushed from the recesses of the collective institutional psyche and individuals would then be confronted with the "whole" truth. Confusion and conflict would undoubtedly eventuate. However, in the process of facing the whole truth, individuals could respond to current sexual complexities based on conscious realities, rather than repressed shadow forces. Facing the truth would have a consequential de-shaming effect on sexual attitudes as shadow material becomes conscious.

2. The church must approach sexuality in an open and honest way. It must recognize that shame is a propellent for unhealthy sexual behavior (and other destructive behaviors). Church gatherings, rather than being places of displaying our false images, could be places of refuge and healing--places to deal openly with the complexities of modern society with its innate difficulties. Church classes, meetings, and confessionals could become places of dialogue, confrontation, ventilation and relief from the sexual complexities we face. These issues could be discussed, addressed, and at times even resolved in a community of support and collective faith.

Harold Kushner, a Jewish author and Rabbi gives this valuable insight:

My experience as a clergyman and a counselor has taught me that much of the unhappiness people feel burdened by, much of the guilt, much of the sense of having been cheated by life, stems from one of two related causes: either somewhere along the way, somebody--a parent, teacher, a religious leader--gave them the message that they were not good enough, and they believed it. Or else they came to expect and need more from the people around them--their parents, children, husbands, or wives--than those people could realistically deliver. It is the notion that we were supposed to be perfect, and that we could expect others to be perfect because we needed them to be that leaves us feeling constantly guilty and perpetually disappointed....But the more I, as a clergyman, dealt with people's problems and the more I, as a husband, son, father, brother, and friend, learned to look at my own life honestly, the more convinced I became that a lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion: we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the conviction that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us.As one who believes in a loving, cleansing, forgiving God and as one who advocates religion as a cure for the afflictions of the soul, I am embarrassed by the use of religion to induce guilt rather than to cure it, and by the number of people I meet, of all faiths, who tell me that they are constantly burdened by feelings of guilt and inadequacy because they "made the mistake of taking religion seriously" when they were children. It is so sad to meet people who think of themselves as deeply religious and to discover that what they think of as religion is in fact a childish fear of losing God's love if they ever do anything against His will.[27]

3. Finally, the church must teach its members to celebrate sexuality. A recent alteration to the General Handbook of Instructions which affirms that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved even if procreation isn't the aim is a positive--yet incomplete step.[28]

Mormonism, with its distinctly eternal perspective of sexuality should of all religions teach the eternal Godliness of sexuality. Indeed, Mormon theology, which emphasizes the importance and eternal significance of the body of flesh would seemingly be in the forefront of leading others to a healthy and positive view of sexuality. I believe this could obviously be the case if we were not encumbered by such extensive shadow material. With shadow influences eliminated, the fear of encouraging unboundried sexual behaviors would no longer limit us from celebrating this wondrous and moving part of ourselves. Passion could be promoted and sought for rather than feared and branded as some great evil. Passion and intimacy potentials could be enhanced, ultimately building stronger relationships and families. Unhealthy sexual addictions, behaviors and deviations could be addressed, minimized and replaced with individual's increased abilities to more effectively meet their real needs--that of finding spirit, intimacy and passion in their everyday lives.

Matthew Fox, describing the disintegration of sexual celebration of the Western churches gives some insight and an invitation:

When religion is anthropocentric and lacks a cosmology, it has very little to tell us that is good news about sexuality, which is so special a gift of the cosmos. When this happens, culture secularizes sexuality and misuses it. Pornography substitutes for mysticism. When I listen to what religion in the West teaches us about sexuality, I hear two things. The first, paradoxically, is silence... A second response to sexuality from our religions is moralizing. Telling us all the sins we are capable of performing with our sexual organs does not enlighten us about our sexuality. French philosopher Gabriel Marcel has said that those who reduce a mystery to a problem are guilty of "intellectual perversion."...in the name of moralizing, the mystery of sexuality has been so often reduced to problems of morality. ...I believe that the Western church, following in the spirit of St. Augustine, basically regrets the fact that we are sexual, sensual creatures. ...It is time that the voice of the churches joined the voices of the other creatures to praise the Creator for the surprising and imaginative gift of our sexuality.... Let religion and the churches abandon their efforts to be 'houses of sublimation.' Instead, reenter the cosmic mystery that sexuality is and teach your people, young and old, to do the same, remembering justice, remembering responsibility as intrinsic to the mystical experience. All lovemaking (as distinct from 'having sex') is Christ meeting Christ.

...I believe there is a need to recover the sense of both lust and chastity as powers and therefore virtues within all people.[29]

Sam Keen, in addressing the topic of how to capture spirit in our everyday lives, includes some valuable insight into the relationship of sexuality and spirit, and ultimately enhancing a healthy spirited orientation towards sexuality:

Sacred lovemaking brings people together in a way that enhances the singularity of each person and their ability to surrender individuality both to the relationship and to something beyond the relationship. Sexual union should be a microcosmic act that recapitulates our basic spiritual relation to Being. Inspired sexuality makes the burden of individuality bearable, and increases each person's momentum toward consciousness, compassion, and communion
A sexual meeting may become an epiphany when two people experience each other and themselves as mysterious, awesome, and fascinating. This happens only when two I's who are Thous to each other become We.
In practical terms this means: I do not turn you into an object. You are not a "piece," a conquest, a body for the fulfillment of my desire. We remain ends, not means, to each other, irreplaceable persons, not mere sense organs, genitals, or interchangeable bodies. We come to each other with respect, recognizing that we are inviolable beings with complex and unique histories. Anything that pulls us apart from the totality of the lives to which we have committed ourselves desecrates us.
...When lovers meet with respect for the mystery of their separateness, they may, in coming together, suddenly experience lovemaking as a sacramental dance, an outward and visible sign of the invisible grace that unites the single self to the communion of Being. Only then does sexuality become a path to wisdom and compassion.
...It is not uncommon for even casual romantic partners to experience a momentary mystical union when egos are shattered in the moment of ecstasy. It is much rarer for two people to devote themselves over the years to the ordeal of cultivating unconditional love and transforming shared sensuality into sacramental sexuality. There is an infinite distance between romantic fun and games and the soul-mating of marriage.
...Since spirit and flesh are indivisible, there is no difference between the devotions necessary to enhance our spirituality and our sexuality.[30]

These lengthy citations give a flavor for an attitude and perspective about sexuality that is far different from the one I grew up with as an active Mormon. As mentioned, it appears this type of attitude, characterized by a healthy, positive perspective of sexuality, is still not being transmitted to individuals through the church institution. Fear of change, failure to risk, breaking tradition, facing the whole truth, complacency, and fearing an ultimate loss of control are the barriers that I believe inhibit the church hierarchy from taking these positive steps that would eventuate in an opportunity for greater wholeness for its members .

In view of the almost complete saturation of sexual stimulants in modern society, I believe there is an urgency for the church institution to initiate the type of transitions I outline above. As one who daily listens to the havoc of lives up-heaved through negative expressions of sexuality, I feel a personal urgency as well. Individuals, couples, families, communities and the entire church institution would be the benefactors of instituting such changes.


[1] Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, eds. Edward L. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 312.

[2] As quoted in Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, "Introduction: The Shadow Side of Everyday Life" in Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, eds., Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature (New York: Tarcher/Putnam Book, 1991), xxiv.

[3] Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 1-12; Linda King Newell & Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith Prophet's Wife, "Elect Lady", Polygamy's Foe (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1984), 95-101, 108-110, 134-135, 147.

[4] See Van Wagoner, 1-40, 50-62; Danel W. Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith" (M.A. Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 73-90, 189- 203; Newell & Avery, Mormon Enigma, 95-102; Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Succession Question" (M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 17-30, 46-75.

[5] Joseph secretly married Sarah Cleveland and Eliza Snow. See Newell & Avery, Mormon Enigma , 119.
See Doctrine and Covenants 132:61,64-65.

[7] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 1-23.

[8] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 255.

[9] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 31-33.

[10] Ibid., 63-70; Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1977), 335-418; John E. Hallwas & Roger D. Launius, eds. Cultures In Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1995), 109-237.

[11] Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965), 242-277; Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 17-40.

[12] See for example Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987), 49-52.

[13] See D. Michael Quinn, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985): 9-105.

[14] William Clayton quoting Joseph Smith clearly validated this doctrine. See Historical Record 6 (July 1887), 226. Quoted from Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, 345.

[15] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 177-217

[16] Ibid., ix.

[17] Romel W. Mackelprang, "They Shall Be One Flesh: Sexuality and Contemporary Mormonism," Brent Corcoran ed. Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays on Sex and Family, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 63.

[18] See Jeffery R. Holland, "Personal Purity" Ensign, Vol. 28 #11(November 1998), 76. (This address is most likely very revealing of Elder Holland's own repressed shadow material concerning his feelings about sexuality.)

[19] Joseph LoPiccolo, Handbook of Sex Therapy, (New York, Plenum Press: 1978), 188.

[20] Private note from a seminary student in my possession. (Emphasis mine)

[21] Private note from a seminary student in my possession.

[22] Private note from a seminary student in my possession.

[23] My private conversation with an individual. After hearing the story I questioned the individual further to be certain there was no embellishment or context that might alter the relevance of the disclosure.

[24] Quoted from Zweig and Abrams, Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature, xxiii-xxiv.

[25] Boyd K. Packer in his address to Church Educators "The Mantle is Far Far Greater than the Intellect". Published in Brigham Young University Studies 21 (Summer 1981): 259-278. In an amazing declaration Michael Quinn reports that Elder Packer told him when he was being interviewed for his position at Brigham Young University that he has a hard time with historians "because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting: it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." (This is a telling statement of Elder Packers repressed shadow material!) In D. Michael Quinn "On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath), ed. George D. Smith, Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 103.

[26] Lawrence Foster "New Perspectives on the Mormon Past: Reflections of a Non-Mormon Historian" ed. George D. Smith, Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 119.

[27] Harold S. Kushner, How Good Do We Have to Be? A New Understanding of Guilt and Forgiveness, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1996), 8-9.

[28] See the Ogden Standard Examiner, "LDS book revises stance on family size", December 5, 1998, 1A.

[29] Matthew Fox, The Coming Of The Cosmic Christ (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1988), 163-64, 177-78.

[30] Sam Keen, Hymns to an Unknown God: Awakening The Spirit In Everyday Life, (New York: Bantam Books, 1994), 177-182.