The role of religiousness and beliefs about sexuality in well-being among sexual minority mormons.

Abstract

Sexual minorities raised in conservative religions often experience conflict between their sexual and religious identities that affects their well-being. Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) offer different explanations for when, why, and how this conflict may affect well-being. Using an intersectional lens (Crenshaw, 1989), we examined how religiousness and beliefs about sexuality relate to well-being among 1,128 lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer (LGBQ) and same-sex attracted (SSA) Mormons and former Mormons recruited from both politically conservative and liberal circles to explore the competing explanations offered by these theories. Supporting cognitive dissonance theory, we found that confused religious views and sporadic church attendance were negatively related to well-being and that individuals with moderate religious viewpoints and either frequent or no church attendance reported more well-being. Feeling resolved about conflicts between religion and sexuality was also positively related to well-being. Supporting minority stress theory, we found that authentic expression of sexuality, openness about experiences of same-sex attraction, and feeling positive about being LGBQ/SSA were positively related to well-being. We did not find a relationship between beliefs about the etiology of same-sex attraction and well-being. These findings further nuance literature guided by minority stress theory that has found a negative association between religiousness and well-being among sexual minorities. We encourage future research to examine cognitive dissonance between religious/sexual identities as a moderating variable when examining the effects of religiousness on well-being among sexual minorities.

Suicidal ideation among active and nonactive/former Latter‐day Saint sexual minorities

“…Of these, friend support emerged as the strongest resource and the only resource to emerge in regression models including multiple risks and resources. This coincides with a plethora of studies suggesting that social support is a powerful buffer of SI (Joiner, 2005;Van Orden et al, 2010) and other studies that link resolution of conflict between religion and sexuality to positive outcomes for LDS SMs and SMs generally (Dehlin et al, 2015;Lefevor, Blaber et al, 2019).…”

Preferences in Information Processing, Marginalized Identity, and Non-Monogamy: Understanding Factors in Suicide-Related Behavior among Members of the Alternative Sexuality Community

“…Such identities include a range of sexual orientation and gender diverse identities. A wealth of literature suggests the intersection of racial, sexual orientation, gender, and other multiple marginalized statuses is associated with a range of negative physical and mental health [28,39,40] and resilience [41][42][43] outcomes. Likewise, literature suggests that marginalized identities of sexual orientation minority (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) and gender minority (e.g., transgender and gender non-conforming) are at higher risk for SRB compared to heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, respectively [44][45][46].…”

Research on sexual orientation change efforts: A summary.

“…A growing body of clinical studies provides more information on individuals with strong faith beliefs who go through a process of identity development and integration (Bradshaw et al, 2015;Lefevor et al, 2020;Levy & Reeves, 2011;Pietkiewicz & Kołodziejczyk-Skrzypek, 2016;Rosenkrantz et al, 2016;Weiss et al, 2010;Yarhouse & Beckstead, 2011). These studies provide support that those who have conflicts between their religious identity and sexual orientation identity can develop satisfying, self-directed lives.…”

“…Reducing minority stress and cognitive dissonance with respect to multiple identities can assist the client in resolving overt conflicts between faith and sexual orientation. The client's ultimate identity should be self-determined without a provider-imposed outcome (APA Task Force, 2009, p. 55;Bozard & Sanders, 2011;Haldeman, 2004;Lefevor et al, 2020;Pitt, 2010;Weiss et al, 2010).…”