| OCR Text |
Show 210 Thus, while some LDS intellectuals dissented from the church's more rigid strictures against sexuality, their middle ground excluded homosexuality, which they could only see as rebellious and destructive. As Kath Weston argues in her studies of gay family relations, defining homosexuality as rebellion implies that overzealous parents (or church leaders) provoked it and, conversely, could reverse it.32 Viewing the sexual revolution and gay liberation as reactions to repressive morality proved serviceable when arguing for moderation, but Mormon moderates continued to see homosexuality in any form as an extreme response to extreme authority. While calling for freer discussion, they retained the prerogative to define homosexual identity as negative and reactive. Nevertheless, Mormon intellectuals' critique of authoritarian leadership resonated with gays. Harold Christensen described discontent among Mormon women and youth: Two powerful movements are shaking the family structure of American society today: woman's liberation and youth's rebellion. If the upheavals have been less in our Mormon communities, the differences are in degree only; for we too have those who feel abused by the system." In a 1967 Dialogue article Veon Smith urged restraint in exercising "responsibility for one's fellow man" which too often led to "management and force instead of free choice." Significantly, he believed free agency required alternatives and active participation in the choices made." While a "liberated" gay lifestyle did not suit everyone, choosing or not choosing "the life" without fear of retribution marked the 32Weston, Families We Choose, 70. 33Christensen, "Stress Points in Mormon Family Culture," 32-3. "Veon G. Smith, "Free Agency and Conformity in Family Life," Dialogue 2, no. 3 ' (Autumn 1967): 64,66. |
