Youtube Vid: It Gets Better With Mormon Family And Friends

[smac97]

Here's the vid:

I admire the empathy and love shown by these people.

However, I wonder if the vid will be construed as a call for Latter-day Saints to go beyond loving those with SSA and to actually embrace same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior itself. Some of the negative comments to the vid on the YouTube website seem to bear this out.

Additionally, I wonder if LDS kids with SSA will look at this video and be confused by the ambiguity of the message. How does life "get better" for Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? By resisting SSA, obeying the commandments as taught by the Church, and hoping that the membership of the Church will love and support you in such an effort? Or by accepting it as "who you are," beginning to act in ways which break the commandments, and hoping that the Church will change its doctrines by embracing and endorsing same-sex behavior?

Are these people trying to convey a message like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, but know that we love you, and God loves you. Obeying the precepts of the Church, particularly as regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity, will be difficult for you. Know that we will be here to love and support you as you cope with this difficulty."

Or is the message something like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, including leaders who refuse to alter the doctrines of the Church to endorse and embrace the full ambit of same-sex attraction, including allowing Latter-day Saints to engage in same-sex behavior. We hope the Church will make this change. Meanwhile, know that we love you, and God loves you, even if other church members don't."

I find the Church's stance toward people with same-sex attraction to be manifestly compassionate and Christ-like. So it seems a bit odd that these folks appear to be putting themselves out as lone voices of love and compassion in the Church. That just ain't so. The subtext of this vid, then, appears to be "ignore the prophets and listen to us instead." If so, I find such a stance problematic. Church members should not set themselves up as voices of moral authority at odds with the priesthood leaders of the Church.

One last thought: One of the participants of the vid claims to presently be a bishop in the Church. I think it's quite inappropriate for him to appear in this vid and trade on his ecclesiastical calling to boost his credentials. It's tantamount to a businessman saying "Trust me about this investment because I am in my ward's bishopric," or "You should take my advice about voting for this political candidate because I am on the stake high council."

Thoughts?

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Love the sinner, and not the sin.

[theplains]

I admire the empathy and love shown by these people.

I echo that sentiment. They really show that we should love the people.

But I had a few questions on some segments.

1:40 - the lady seems to indicate she changed her position that homosexuality is a sin. Is it not a sin?

2:12 - lady says that homosexuality is not a choice. Is it not a choice?

2:20 - "nobody in their right mind would choose this". Is homosexuality viewed as a mental disease then?

5:45 - the person says you should see your divinity (present tense). Are they divine as God is divine?

Thanks,

Jim

[Deborah]

I actually know women who have chosen this lifestyle because they had such bad experiences with men. On the other hand I've known gay people for whom this is the way they are, whether from genetic factors or enviromental or a combination of both. I have a daughter who is gay and is a most wonderful person but who has tried not living the lifestyle and keeps going back to it. It is very hard and I know that Heavenly Father has such compassion for these difficult decisions. I can't imagine anyone who understands the church and the gospel would think that somehow this lifestyle will be accepted in the Celestial Kingdom, given the covenants made to get there. My daughter certainly understands it and wishes she could feel differently. But that is what the Atonement is for, to help a person heal from all the imperfections of this life, and some things cannot be healed in this life but need the next.

[Damien the Leper]

I echo that sentiment. They really show that we should love the people.

But I had a few questions on some segments.

1:40 - the lady seems to indicate she changed her position that homosexuality is a sin. Is it not a sin?

2:12 - lady says that homosexuality is not a choice. Is it not a choice?

2:20 - "nobody in their right mind would choose this". Is homosexuality viewed as a mental disease then?

5:45 - the person says you should see your divinity (present tense). Are they divine as God is divine?

Thanks,

Jim

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

[epiginosko]

I served in a Bishopric in an area of Seattle with a large gay community. There were probably about a half dozen openly gay members who would attend church regularly, some of whom even held callings. I counseled regularly with these members, mostly as it pertained to their callings if they were under my stewardship. I really enjoyed getting to know them and they taught me a lot about compassion, just as this video stated. For those who were active, temple-recommend holders, they lived in accordance with the Gospel Standards. Within time I began to understand that while their attraction may not be a choice, their lifestyle was, just like any of us. Those who desired the blessings of the priesthood and the endowment could have it.

My heart breaks for them because I know that they are not able to enjoy the same kind of relationship that I enjoy with a member of the opposite sex. Some of them do choose to marry the opposite sex, and even raise children, but the attraction and chemistry is rarely there. These are very difficult marriages for both parties. I give kudos to any woman (or man) who openly chooses to mary a spouse who they know has same sex attraction.

It's a tough cross to bear, as my Bishop would often state. But we need to love them just like we love anyone else. We don't need to change our standards or principles, we just need to show compassion. What needs to stop right away is the ostracism, the degradation, and the shunning within our wards and our families. We have an incredibly high rate of depression and suicide among our gay brothers and sisters. I can't imagine that is what our Heavenly Father desires for His children.

[mercyngrace]

I served in a Bishopric in an area of Seattle with a large gay community. There were probably about a half dozen openly gay members who would attend church regularly, some of whom even held callings. I counseled regularly with these members, mostly as it pertained to their callings if they were under my stewardship. I really enjoyed getting to know them and they taught me a lot about compassion, just as this video stated. For those who were active, temple-recommend holders, they lived in accordance with the Gospel Standards. Within time I began to understand that while their attraction may not be a choice, their lifestyle was, just like any of us. Those who desired the blessings of the priesthood and the endowment could have it.

My heart breaks for them because I know that they are not able to enjoy the same kind of relationship that I enjoy with a member of the opposite sex. Some of them do choose to marry the opposite sex, and even raise children, but the attraction and chemistry is rarely there. These are very difficult marriages for both parties. I give kudos to any woman (or man) who openly chooses to mary a spouse who they know has same sex attraction.

It's a tough cross to bear, as my Bishop would often state. But we need to love them just like we love anyone else. We don't need to change our standards or principles, we just need to show compassion. What needs to stop right away is the ostracism, the degradation, and the shunning within our wards and our families. We have an incredibly high rate of depression and suicide among our gay brothers and sisters. I can't imagine that is what our Heavenly Father desires for His children.

I've wondered lately, if homosexuality is the new blindness. In other words, instead of asking who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind, maybe we should just patiently wait for the works of God to be manifest.

And maybe the real work of God is manifest in the softening of our own hearts as we view the pain and suffering of our fellow beings. Maybe the real work of God is manifest when we learn to love.

I also wonder if, as it is with the love of God, it's the love that changes men's nature rather than the change of nature that breeds the love.

[altersteve]

1:40 - the lady seems to indicate she changed her position that homosexuality is a sin. Is it not a sin?

Homosexual behavior is a sin. Being gay is not.

2:12 - lady says that homosexuality is not a choice. Is it not a choice?

I don't believe it is.

2:20 - "nobody in their right mind would choose this". Is homosexuality viewed as a mental disease then?

No.

5:45 - the person says you should see your divinity (present tense). Are they divine as God is divine?

Nobody is as divine as God -- unless you mean divine in the same way that God is divine. If that's the case, then yes. We are all divine as sons and daughters of God, regardless of sexual orientation.

Edited April 23, 2012 by altersteve

[smac97]

I've wondered lately, if homosexuality is the new blindness. In other words, instead of asking who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind, maybe we should just patiently wait for the works of God to be manifest.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel, and that that LDS Church is "blind" to that?

And maybe the real work of God is manifest in the softening of our own hearts as we view the pain and suffering of our fellow beings. Maybe the real work of God is manifest when we learn to love.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the LDS Church's stance toward people with SSA is compassionate and charitable.

I also wonder if, as it is with the love of God, it's the love that changes men's nature rather than the change of nature that breeds the love.

An artful turn of phrase, except that I have no idea what it means. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pahoran]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel, and that that LDS Church is "blind" to that?

I read Mercy as comparing homosexual inclination (not behaviour) with physical blindness, and relating it to the miracle in which Jesus healed a man who had been born blind. The apostles asked Jesus whether the man's blindness was due to his own sins or those of his parents.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the LDS Church's stance toward people with SSA is compassionate and charitable.

I fully agree, although individuals can be hard-hearted. I myself have no patience at all for pressure groups and grievance milkers.

An artful turn of phrase, except that I have no idea what it means. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

I wouldn't mind knowing that myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

I'm not sure what is changing here. Gay LDS have always been able to find acceptance in the Church by pretending they aren't gay (i.e. not forming intimate relationships with or even showing interest in other people of the same gender). Or they could try to foster such relationships with members of the opposite sex, or just live life without seeking to form that kind of bond with anyone. That's how it's always been.

The only "change" that could come about would be LDS changing our views towards intimate homosexual relationships. But I don't see that ever happening.

We're certainly talking about it more, but I'm not sure what good that's going to do in the long run. We're still going to have the same number of lonely, sexually frustrated gay LDS, and the same number of partnered, sexually fulfilled gay ex-LDS.

Edited April 23, 2012 by cinepro

[smac97]

I'm not sure what is changing here. Gay LDS have always been able to find acceptance in the Church by pretending they aren't gay (i.e. not forming intimate relationships with or even showing interest in other people of the same gender).

I don't agree that celibacy = "pretending they aren't gay." Heterosexual church members who are celibate aren't "pretending they aren't heterosexual."

Or they could try to foster such relationships with members of the opposite sex, or just live life without seeking to form that kind of bond with anyone. That's how it's always been.

The proscription against extra-marital sex applies to all church members. And it is a difficulty faced by single Latter-day Saints of all stripes (never married, divorced, widowed, etc.).

The only "change" that could come about would be LDS changing our views towards intimate homosexual relationships. But I don't see that ever happening.

We're certainly talking about it more, but I'm not sure what good that's going to do in the long run. We're still going to have the same number of lonely, sexually frustrated gay LDS, and the same number of partnered, sexually fulfilled gay ex-LDS gay.

Celibacy can be difficult, but it's not the end of the world.

-Smac

[mercyngrace]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel, and that that LDS Church is "blind" to that?

Nope. And I'm not even sure how you got that from what I posted, Smac. I'm suggesting that maybe we are (many Christians) are too worried about why a person is the way they are, and too caught up with what we perceive as sin (being born with SSA). I'm wondering if perhaps we might see God in this midst of this adversity.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the LDS Church's stance toward people with SSA is compassionate and charitable.

I'm not talking about any church's official stance. I"m talking about the real changes that take place in the human heart as they help their brethren bear a difficult burden. I'm talking about the miracles and the spiritual growth that comes through helping another man carry his cross. Even discussing this in terms of an organizational response misses the point. I'm not talking about politics or policies. I'm talking about people and the ability of a loving Father to teach and heal all of them.

I referenced the man blind from birth because, like the disciples, too many of us in the LDS church and in many Christian churches have debated over where the sin lies - whether its a product of birth or choice and whether the mere existence of the inclination makes a man sinful or whether only the associated actions do. I'm suggesting that rather than carry on that conversation, we might find it wiser to simply to let the Lord open our eyes as well as the eyes of "the blind" - something, He did for His disciples and the blind in a tender, and compassionate way. Perhaps, we all have much to learn about how we see each other.

An artful turn of phrase, except that I have no idea what it means. Can you elaborate?

Yes. GRACE. Experiencing the love of God changes our nature. Perhaps experiencing our love will help others move toward God more than experiencing our judgment. President Monson said:

Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who worked among the poor in India most of her life, spoke this profound truth: “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” ⁵ The Savior has admonished, “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” ⁶ I ask: can we love one another, as the Savior has commanded, if we judge each other? And I answer—with Mother Teresa: no, we cannot.

President Uchtdorf said :

It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick. I can quote scripture, I can try to expound doctrine, and I will even quote a bumper sticker I recently saw. It was attached to the back of a car whose driver appeared to be a little rough around the edges, but the words on the sticker taught an insightful lesson. It read, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.”

We must recognize that we are all imperfect—that we are beggars before God.

I'm saying is that we might find this approach, on a personal level, enables us to better experience the works of God. The empathy you admired in the video participants was an empathy that developed in their own Gethsemanes as they suffered for someone they love. That ability to succor comes at a price. They paid it. And if you believe the principles of D&C 121, it will prove fruitful someday.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're welcome,

-MnG

Edited April 23, 2012 by mercyngrace

[smac97]

Mercyngrace

Nope. And I'm not even sure how you got that from what I posted, Smac. I'm suggesting that maybe we are (many Christians) are too worried about why a person is the way they are, and too caught up with what we perceive as sin (being born with SSA).

I disagree that the "why" behind SSA has been overly emphasized. That's not the point of this thread. This thread is more about the LDS Church's stance on God's commands vis a vis same-sex behavior and on church members with SSA. The vid in the opening thread seems to be sending an ambiguous message on these points. As I mentioned before, "the subtext of this vid, then, appears to be 'ignore the prophets and listen to us instead.' If so, I find such a stance problematic. Church members should not set themselves up as voices of moral authority at odds with the priesthood leaders of the Church."

I'm not talking about any church's official stance.

Oh. Well, this thread is about the LDS Church's stance, so you'll understand why your off-topic comments were misunderstood.

I referenced the man blind from birth because, like the disciples, too many of us in the LDS church and in many Christian churches have debated over where the sin lies - whether its a product of birth or choice and whether the mere existence of the inclination makes a man sinful or whether only the associated actions do.

Perhaps, but the debate about the origins of SSA has little to do with this thread.

I'm suggesting that rather than carry on that conversation, we might find it wiser to simply to let the Lord open our eyes as well as the eyes of "the blind" - something, He did for His disciples and the blind in a tender, and compassionate way. Perhaps, we all have much to learn about how we see each other.

Okay. This thread hasn't suggested that we shouldn't be compassionate toward people with SSA.

Yes. GRACE. Experiencing the love of God changes our nature. Perhaps experiencing our love will help others move toward God more than experiencing our judgment

Well, yes. I continue to be puzzled by all this off-topic stuff.

I'm saying is that we might find this approach, on a personal level, enables us to better experience the works of God.

Okay. Not particularly relevent to the OP, tho.

The empathy you admired in the video participants was an empathy that developed in their own Gethsemanes as they suffered for someone they love.

Okay. But has that empathy carried them to the point of embracing the sin along with the sinner?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mercyngrace]

Smac,

It's evidentyou have an agenda and just want to see what you want to see here. You are declaring a "subtext" that was neither explicitly stated or hinted at and you appear to want to find fault with these people who are expressing empathy and compassion.

If my comments offend you, I apologize. I did not notice any point in the video where any participant indicated that sin was justifiable. Can you point that out?

Also, the church's stance isn't on trial in this video except, apparently, in your own mind. Can you point out where the church's official response is criticized in this video? This video is about individuals and their struggles and it's an invitation to individuals who struggle to know that they are loved regardless.

(edited for clarity and to remove unintentional use of loaded words)

Edited April 23, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Okay, I rewatched the video and it is completely supportive of the church's position so I don't see what your issue is.

Those who reference the church do not disparage the church's position. One woman says she grew up thinking that BEING gay was a sin and now she knows better (consistent with the church's position) another says he grew up an active, believing LDS and didn't think much about the church's position, a third says he is a bishop and even he didn't understand the position.

They are talking about themselves, as members, not understanding and condemning others for having SSA. They don't even mention acting or living as a homosexual, just "being" gay.

How is this contrary to the church's position, smac?

Even John Dehlin's comment that "society is moving in your direction" doesn't necessarily imply an acceptance of homosexual activity but an acceptance of those who view themselves as "gay".

[smac97]

It's evident you have an agenda

Yes. It's called "staying on topic." Color me fickle.

and just want to see what you want to see here.

I'm happy to discuss the topic rather than go off-topic. That's what I "want to see here."

You are declaring a "subtext" that was neither explicitly stated or hinted at

Then say so and we can discuss it, rather than going way off-topic.

and you appear to want to find fault with these people who are expressing empathy and compassion.

I acknowledged their compassion and said that I admire it. Did you miss that part?

But I question the ambiguity of their message. That's the topic of this thread. The topic you presently are not discussing.

If my comments offend you, I apologize.

You did not offend. You just went off-topic.

I did not notice any point in the video where any participant indicated that sin was justifiable. Can you point that out?

Again, I question the ambiguity of their message. Here is my comment again: "I wonder if LDS kids with SSA will look at this video and be confused by the ambiguity of the message. How does life 'get better' for Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? By resisting SSA, obeying the commandments as taught by the Church, and hoping that the membership of the Church will love and support you in such an effort? Or by accepting it as 'who you are,' beginning to act in ways which break the commandments, and hoping that the Church will change its doctrines by embracing and endorsing same-sex behavior?"

Also, the church's stance isn't on trial in this video except, apparently, in your own mind.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think the vid is ambiguous. I think it could be construed as challenging the church's stance.

Can you point out where the church's official response is criticized in this video?

The Church's stance isn't addressed. Hence the ambiguity. Hence my comment that "I wonder if LDS kids with SSA will look at this video and be confused by the ambiguity of the message" (see above).

Are these people trying to convey a message like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, but know that we love you, and God loves you. Obeying the precepts of the Church, particularly as regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity, will be difficult for you. Know that we will be here to love and support you as you cope with this difficulty."

Or is the message something like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, including leaders who refuse to alter the doctrines of the Church to endorse and embrace the full ambit of same-sex attraction, including allowing Latter-day Saints to engage in same-sex behavior. We hope the Church will make this change. Meanwhile, know that we love you, and God loves you, even if other church members don't."

I am a reasonably informed person, but I can't tell what the message is. However, given A) the absence of any reference to the Church's compassionate stance on this issue, B) the implicit suggestion that the vid's participants are the lone voices of love and compassion in the Church, and C) the absence of any encouragement by the vid's participants to obey the principles of the Restored Gospel notwithstanding inclinations they may have to the contrary, I suspect that the overall ambiguity of the vid is intentional. And I find that troubling.

This video is about individuals and their struggles and its an invitation to individuals who struggle to know that they are loved regardless.

Yes, and I admire that. The question, though, is whether LDS kids with SSA will look at this video and be confused by the ambiguity of the message. How does life "get better" for Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? By resisting SSA, obeying the commandments as taught by the Church, and hoping that the membership of the Church will love and support you in such an effort? Or by accepting it as "who you are," beginning to act in ways which break the commandments, and hoping that the Church will change its doctrines by embracing and endorsing same-sex behavior?

The vid does not explain how life gets better. Hence the ambiguity. Hence my concern.

By the way, I find it amusing that you take exception to my imputing motives to the vid participants, yet you did the same thing with me ("you appear to want to find fault with these people...").

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jaybear]

The message is loud and clear.

The message is directed to young gay LDS members.

The message is you are loved, please don't kill yourself.

If you want to look for subtext, you can imagine any thing you wish.

[mercyngrace]

Smac -

I don't know what your motives are. I should not have said you have an agenda - that wasn't what I meant, I retract it. What I meant was more clearly expressed after that when I stated that you are seeing/looking for subtext that isn't there.

Which is what you asked for in the OP.

However, since commentary on the church's position is absent in the video, and the video addresses individual (family and friend) responses to gay folks, making this video about the church seems agenda driven.

[Jaybear]

The vid does not explain how life gets better. Hence the ambiguity. Hence my concern.

Message subtext: Life gets better, because there are people who love you and will accept you, unconditionally, no matter whether you choose to remain a celibate Mormon, or leave the LDS Church.

Obviously, not all parents are a kind, loving and accepting as the ones depicted on the video. So perhaps the message should have been "It gets better, for some of you."

[smac97]

Mercyngrace,

Okay, I rewatched the video and it is completely supportive of the church's position so I don't see what your issue is.

Okay.

Those who reference the church do not disparage the church's position.

I know. They don't address the church's position. At all. Nor do they encourage LDS kids with SSA to adhere to the precepts of the Restored Gospel. At all. Hence the ambiguity of the vid's message.

They are talking about themselves, as members, not understanding and condemning others for having SSA. They don't even mention acting or living as a homosexual, just "being" gay.

I know they don't. That's sort of the problem. They ignore the elephant in the room, the issue which LDS with SSA face: Should they live according to the precepts of the Restored Gospel, or not?

The vid participants state that "There are people out there, there are allies within the Mormon Church" (3:24) and that "I'm learning how to be the best ally, the best advocate that I can be for you." (3:37).

If these people are are "allies" with people with SSA, against whom are they "allied?" Presumably against people who have uncharitable views toward people with SSA, right? But is it possible that a viwer could come away with the impression that the vid participants are aligning themselves against the precepts of the Restored Gospel which prohibit homosexual behavior?

Another vid participant assures the intended audience, LDS with SSA, that "society is moving in your direction." (5:30). What does that mean? Society as a whole is moving toward the endorsement of homosexuality in all respects. The orientation. The "lifestyle." The behavior.

So might a young Latter-day Saint view the vid and come away with the impression that these folks are hoping that the LDS Church will follow "society" toward the acceptance and endorsement of homosexual behavior? Frankly, I think that is possible. In fact, I think that is the likely outcome. In fact, I think it is intended outcome.

How is this contrary to the church's position, smac?

See above.

Even John Dehlin's comment that "society is moving in your direction" doesn't necessarily imply an acceptance of homosexual activity

Oh, I agree with you there. I agree that it doesn't "necessarily" imply such a thing. But I certainly think is "possibly" implies such a thing. On balance, I think that implication is intentional. But whether it is intentional or not, the ambiguity itself is troubling because it muddies the waters for young LDS dealing with SSA.

What is Dehlin telling them to do? Stay true to the principles of the Church? It's hard to say, because the vid is utterly silent on this point, right?

Why on earth does the vid elide on past such an important issue? Is it because Dehlin is implicity advising young LDS with SSA to ignore those principles because "society is moving in your direction," such that those principles will be abandoned in the future and people with SSA will be at liberty to engage in homosexual behavior?

but an acceptance of those who view themselves as "gay".

Okay. But what are the parameters of that acceptance? Is Dehlin hinting that the LDS Church will alter its doctrines to allow/embrace/endorse homosexual behavior?

Moreover, if the message of the vid is utterly benign (I'm certainly willing to consider that as a possibility), then what's the point of the vid? If the vid mirrors the LDS Church's stance, why not say so? Why not acknowledge the Church's stance? Why create an ambiguous message that, if misconstrued, could lead vulnerable young Latter-day Saints into erroneously concluding that "acceptance" of SSA includes - or should include - acceptance of homosexual behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 23, 2012 by smac97

[smac97]

Smac - I don't know what your motives are. I should not have said you have an agenda - that wasn't what I meant, I retract it.

I am concerned about the ambiguity in the vid. I want to discuss it.

What I meant was more clearly expressed after that when I stated that you are seeing/looking for subtext that isn't there.

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that, I think. Even you admit that "Even John Dehlin's comment that 'society is moving in your direction' doesn't necessarily imply an acceptance of homosexual activity..." Your concession shows that the implication I have suggested is not out-of-bounds.

Which is what you asked for in the OP. However, since commentary on the church's position is absent in the video, and the video addresses individual (family and friend) responses to gay folks, making this video about the church seems agenda driven.

How 'bout you discuss the topic rather than speculate about my "agenda?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[David T]

Moreover, if the message of the vid is utterly benign (I'm certainly willing to consider that as a possibility), then what's the point of the vid?

To express to gay Mormons that are suffering that there are indeed those in their community who love them as they are, that things can get better for them, and above all, "don't check out" - don't kill yourself.

[smac97]

Message subtext: Life gets better, because there are people who love you and will accept you, unconditionally, no matter whether you choose to remain a celibate Mormon, or leave the LDS Church.

Well, as one guy recently put it, "If you want to look for subtext, you can imagine any thing you wish."

But assuming you are correct, is this the best message to convey to young Latter-day Saints? Shouldn't we express our love for these folks and encourage them to live by the precepts of the Restored Gospel? Or is the Restored Gospel just a pesky thing to be shunted aside when it requires us to do something difficult (such as resist certain impulses of the flesh)?

We all know you place no value on the Restored Gospel, but Mormons do. Or should.

Obviously, not all parents are a kind, loving and accepting as the ones depicted on the video. So perhaps the message should have been "It gets better, for some of you."

How does it get better? Through living the Restored Gospel? Or not?

We all agree that Latter-day Saints with SSA should be shown love and compassion. That point is not in dispute. The question is whether we should encourage Latter-day Saints with SSA to continue to live the standards of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your position on this point is clear. So is mine. The position on this point as taken by the vid participants, however, is not clear. Hence this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[David T]

But assuming you are correct, is this the best message to convey to young Latter-day Saints?

If the immediate goal is to stop those considering suicide from carrying it out? YES!