Reviewed by: Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism by Taylor G. Petrey Jonathan S. Coley Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter, LDS Church) represents one of the fastest growing religions in the United States. Yet, scholars of gender, sexuality, and religion have often neglected the LDS Church in favor of a focus on Protestant and Catholic religious traditions. In this landmark work, Kalamazoo College associate professor of religion Taylor G. Petrey weaves together insights from an impressive array of primary sources to document LDS leaders’ teachings and political activism related to gender and sexuality. The result is one of the most fascinating scholarly books that I have read in some time. One of the book’s core arguments is that, during the post-World War II period, LDS leaders taught that God intended for there to be separate races, two distinct genders, and a single type of family (the heterosexual, nuclear family). However, LDS leaders urged members to take active steps to guard against the mixing of races, the erosion of gender differences, and the possibility of same-sex attraction precisely because they believed that race, gender, and sexuality are malleable and subject to change. For example, with regard to gender, some LDS leaders once taught that, prior to existing on earth, humans existed as “intelligences” (entities that have not yet taken any spiritual or fleshly form) in a pre-mortal realm. These intelligences [End Page 139] only received genders when they became “spirits” in this pre-mortal realm. Furthermore, according to one prominent theologian, God does not “coerce anyone in the moment of [spirit birth] to being male or female. Instead…pre-mortal agency and proclivities influenced which spirits became males and females” (41). In short, since humans freely “choose” their gender in their pre-mortal existence, they cannot rightly protest their gender roles while on earth. Although this theology was eventually rebutted, it serves as evidence for the fluidity of gender within LDS theology. Historically, some LDS leaders have also argued that gender difference does not necessarily persist in the afterlife. Instead, only people who reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom have the ability to retain their gender and remain married. Otherwise, “those who do not dwell in the highest kingdom will lose the power of procreation” and their “bodies will be marked and will function differently,” essentially becoming a third sex (44). In a similar fashion, LDS theology suggests that sexuality is subject to change. Church leaders have often taught, for example, that parents must perform appropriate gender roles in order for their children to develop attraction to a different sex. Ex-gay organizations like Evergreen were established for Mormons who were attracted to the same sex and wished to become straight. Even after the LDS Church largely abandoned ex-gay programs, acknowledging that people may not be able to change their sexual orientation on earth, church leaders began teaching that faithful members could essentially become straight and obtain a spouse when they enter the afterlife. In short, although LDS leaders do not share the normative views of academic queer theorists, LDS teachings are surprisingly “queer” in that they acknowledge the instability and fluidity of gender and sexuality. Perhaps the most fascinating material in the book (at least from my vantage point as a sociologist of religion and social movements) pertains to how LDS teachings about gender and sexuality have influenced political actions and how the LDS Church’s political engagement has, in turn, influenced its teachings about gender and sexuality. During the immediate post-World War II period, LDS leaders promoted what they called the patriarchal order of marriage in which men were expected to rule over their families and women were told to submit to their husbands’ authority. However, after the LDS Church joined the movement to defeat the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the US Constitution, church leaders were forced to defend their beliefs about gender in the public sphere and, in turn, shifted toward a more moderate position on gender and marriage. Instead...
Read full abstract