Youtube Vid: It Gets Better With Mormon Family And Friends

[wenglund]

Okay what? You agree? If you agree that the main thrust of the vid is to "talk people down off the ledge", then why do you keep harping on a perceived subtext which is of less importance.

Because it is of some importance. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

While I have similar concerns to Smac regarding the ambiguity and possible subtext of the video, I also have some questions about the super-text. Are LDS with SSA committing suicide because they feel unloved by their parent/Church? Will expressions of love actually bring them back from the ledge so to speak?

I ask because from what I have read, it isn't included among the six reason why people commit suicide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

While I have similar concerns to Smac regarding the ambiguity and possible subtext of the video, I also have some questions about the super-text. Are LDS with SSA committing suicidebecause they feel unloved by their parent/Church? Will expressions of love actually bring them back from the ledge so to speak?

I ask because from what I have read, it isn't included among the six reason why people commit suicide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I presume that lack of self worth is a subset/cause of depression, which your lists suggests is the most common cause of suicide.

[epiginosko]

I presume that lack of self worth is a subset/cause of depression, which your lists suggests is the most common cause of suicide.

I would agree that it sounds like a probable cause.

[Senator]

Will expressions of love actually bring them back from the ledge so to speak?

I ask because from what I have read, it isn't included among the six reason why people commit suicide.

That's good to know. I'd hate for people to waste there time on that one.

[cinepro]

If it weren't such a serious subject, I would almost encourage Wade to make a video response clarifying whether or not it does, in fact, get "better".

Edited April 25, 2012 by cinepro

[smac97]

If it weren't such a serious subject, I would almost encourage Wade to make a video response clarifying whether or not it does, in fact, get "better".

I think life can certainly get "better." But the improvement depends largely on the decisions of the individual. So it's a bit odd to blithely assure everyone, regardless of their individual circumstances and individual choices in life, that the future will always be "better."

Thanks,

-Smac

[wenglund]

I presume that lack of self worth is a subset/cause of depression, which your lists suggests is the most common cause of suicide.

I just checked the list of causes of depression and I didn't see "self worth" on it. However, even if we assume that it is a cause of depression, I am not sure whether the supposed self-worth issue, that may supposedly lead to depression, which then may lead to suicide in LDS with SSA, is caused by their not knowing for certain that they are loved by their parents/Church. Do you have any evidence for any of this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 26, 2012 by wenglund

[epiginosko]

I think life can certainly get "better." But the improvement depends largely on the decisions of the individual. So it's a bit odd to blithely assure everyone, regardless of their individual circumstances and individual choices in life, that the future will always be "better."

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree. But it is a comforting thought, which is still important when talking with people who are at their rope's end. But I agree with your implication that a happier life depends on individual circumstances and choices. What that means for active church members who have a testimony of the restored gospel is that they either choose a life of celibacy or enter into a marriage with a compassionate member of the opposite sex and try their best to raise a family in righteousness. Perhaps neither path is easy, but show me a straight and narrow path that ever is.

I don't know if reparative therapy works, but I do know that people can make choices to either remain celibate or enter into a relationship that is in line with the doctrines of the Church.

Some may argue it would be a sexually unsatisfying for a gay person to marry a straight person, but wouldn't that describe at least half of heterosexual marriages as well?

My council to a gay man (and this applies to gay women as well) who chooses to enter into a marriage with a member of the opposite sex is to focus instead on emotional and spiritual fulfillment: being a good partner, a caring husband, and fantastic father, rather than focus on physical fulfillment. Again, I think it would take a very compassionate spouse who would knowingly enter into that kind of arrangement, but it can and does happen.

Edited April 26, 2012 by epiginosko

[wenglund]

That's good to know. I'd hate for people to waste there time on that one.

Unlike you, I certainly wouldn't view expressions of love as a waste of time.

I just question whether it is a viable solution, if not the best solution, for the stated problem of suicides among LDS with SSA, or for that matter in the case of anyone else who is suicidal.

I am all for warm and fuzzies and group hugs or even rounds of Kumbaya for the purposes for which they are generally intended. However, when people's lives are at stake, I tend to favor proven strategies. Perhaps I am a little odd that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

However, being "without form and void," I don't seem to have the ability to start my own topics, otherwise I would propose that and see if a more doctrinally sound message could be created to address this sensitive issue.

FYI if no one has mentioned it yet, now that you are over 25 posts you can start your own threads, edit, etc.

[wenglund]

If it weren't such a serious subject, I would almost encourage Wade to make a video response clarifying whether or not it does, in fact, get "better".

I, like most people, often feel better when given reassurance of people's love for me. But, then, I don't suffer from SSA, nor have I been suicidal, so I can't speak in the first person whether expressions of love would bring me back from the ledge so to speak. So, I am not the best, or even a relevant candidate for the video you suggested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamba Tuhan]

I would assume that the improvement a faithful LDS, whether gay or hetero, is looking for is being able to truly align his own will with God's, whatever that may mean for him.

In has been my personal experience that what makes life 'get better' is fully embracing the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel and seeking the grace and divine help necessary to align my life with them. Doing so has brought me peace, joy, and love beyond expression -- and has opened me up to be fundamentally transformed when it comes to what I wish for, desire, think about, spend time on, and am attracted to. The whole process has been truly miraculous, and I don't expect the miracles to cease.

I can certainly understand the desire to try to circumvent this process. From the very beginning of time, the Redeemer's battlecry of 'Repent!' has seemed like, at best, an inconvenience but more often as an invasion of personal will, a destroyer of individuality, a denial of self-identity, a moral tyranny, and/or a complete impossibility. That we are all inherently, naturally flawed -- quite literally born fallen and as enemies to God and His purposes -- is not always a comfortable message, but it undergirds in all ways the very reality of redemption, pervading and informing our ability to discuss the desirability of things 'getting better'.

One who has experiened for her-/himself the transforming grace of the Saviour cannot in good conscience recommend any other path. To do so would be the moral equivalent of 'kindly' assuring a cancer patient with an operable tumour that, if s/he feels really good eating apricot stones, one is sure that the laetrile from the apricots will prove as effective as -- quite possibly more effective than -- surgical removal of the tumour.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Jaybear]

I just checked the list of causes of depression and I didn't see "self worth" on it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quoted from your original link: The state of depression warps their thinking, allowing ideas like "Everyone would all be better off without me" to make rational sense.

Quoted from your new link: Problems such as social isolation due to ... being cast out of a family or social group can lead to depression.

However, even if we assume that it is a cause of depression, I am not sure whether the supposed self-worth issue, that may supposedly lead to depression, which then may lead to suicide in LDS with SSA, is caused by their not knowing for certain that they are loved by their parents/Church. Do you have any evidence for any of this?

I never said, suggested, or implied such a causation.

Moreover, the only relevant question is whether someone who is suffering from depression, and is suicidal, would be benefited by a message stating/clarifying/reaffirming that they are loved and would be missed.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I can't imagine any reason that it would hurt, unless of course SMAC was allowed to temper the message with a reminder of the importance that they remain chaste.

[wenglund]

I never said, suggested, or implied such a causation.

Then you evidently weren't addressing the questions that I asked (which spoke to causation), but have been talking past me.

Moreover, the only relevant question is whether someone who is suffering from depression, and is suicidal, would be benefited by a message stating/clarifying/reaffirming that they are loved and would be missed.

You are welcome to your opinion. I don't happen to share it. I believe the reasonable and pragmatic questions I asked are relevant as well. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Then you evidently weren't addressing the questions that I asked (which spoke to causation), but have been talking past me.

You and I both spoke of causation. We only started to speak past each other, when you misstated my position.

I did not say or imply that suicides were "caused by their not knowing for certain that they are loved by their parents."

You are welcome to your opinion. I don't happen to share it. I believe the reasonable and pragmatic questions I asked are relevant as well. To each their own.

On further reflection, you are right. I should have said "the most important question" rather than "the only relevant question." ..

Expect for the last question where you asked me to substantiate a claim I did not make, your questions were reasonable and pragmatic.

[Jaybear]

In has been my personal experience that what makes life 'get better' is fully embracing the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel and seeking the grace and divine help necessary to align my life with them. Doing so has brought me peace, joy, and love beyond expression -- and has opened me up to be fundamentally transformed when it comes to what I wish for, desire, think about, spend time on, and am attracted to. The whole process has been truly miraculous, and I don't expect the miracles to cease.

There was a similar "It Gets Better" video featuring openly gay BYU students. I don't recall anyone of them offering this message.

[Log]

There was a similar "It Gets Better" video featuring openly gay BYU students. I don't recall anyone of them offering this message.

Might that potentially be because maybe the students in question hadn't fully embraced the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel and sought the grace and divine help necessary to align their lives with them?

[wenglund]

You and I both spoke of causation. We only started to speak past each other, when you misstated my position.

I did not say or imply that suicides were "caused by their not knowing for certain that they are loved by their parents."

You evidently aren't following the line of discussion very well, but I don't care enough to try and and straighten things out for you.

On further reflection, you are right. I should have said "the most important question" rather than "the only relevant question." ..

It doesn't matter. I disagree with that also. Oh well...life goes on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

You evidently aren't following the line of discussion very well, but I don't care enough to try and and straighten things out for you.

And here I was just thinking to myself how pleasant it has been to correspond with you, as you had not resorted to condescension.

Perhaps next time.

Might that potentially be because maybe the students in question hadn't fully embraced the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel and sought the grace and divine help necessary to align their lives with them?

It might be that some have and some have not. But, it seems more likely to me that they just did not think that this was best time to send such a message.

[california boy]

Another gay Utah teen committed suicide. Do you still think a message of love is the wrong message?

http://qsaltlake.com/2012/04/27/after-teens-suicide-ogden-to-hold-community-meeting-candlelight-vigil/comment-page-1/

[wenglund]

And here I was just thinking to myself how pleasant it has been to correspond with you, as you had not resorted to condescension. Perhaps next time.

Yes, I can respect that it can be hard for you at times when you see that mote appear in my eye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Another gay Utah teen committed suicide. Do you still think a message of love is the wrong message?

http://qsaltlake.com...comment-page-1/

Are you suggesting the message of love didn't work?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

A major assumption I have seen in this thread is the assumption that we know for a fact that homosexuality goes against the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation.

The assumption seems to be that it is something that certain parties are trying to "reconcile" with the Gospel. That to live life as an open homosexual would necessarily entail "dying in one's sins." That to live as a homosexual is to be "decadent" (a word found nowhere in scripture). That to repent and "fully embrace the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel" one must necessarily make an Abrahamic Sacrifice of one's sexuality. That if one chooses to live as an open homosexual, a supposed corollary is that they might not have sufficiently "sought the grace and divine help necessary to align their lives" with the Gospel.

These are all begging the question.

The question is whether or not it is against the Gospel to live as an open homosexual.

People with authoritative callings have certainly taught this in the past. But is it based on revelation? Are we so sure it is not a philosophy of men mingled with scripture? Since we believe that all men are fallible, even Prophets, and that scripture is only as good as the truth it conveys, and that God will yet reveal many things pertaining to the Kingdom in the future, we cannot just use a proof-text from a manual to declare that once the Prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

That is authoritarianism; that is unrighteous dominion, and amen to the Priesthood of the man (not woman, of course) who uses their supposed authority to coerce uniformity of belief. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.

So let's examine the scriptural roots of our position here, keeping in mind that Joseph Smith was adamant that "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" therein.

Leviticus 18:22 says that "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." In context with the rest of the chapter, which refers to a separation between Israelites and those who worship Molech, it might very well refer to same-sex prostitution in a pagan Temple. In which case, it would be the prostitution that is the underlying problem, not the genders per se. (And do keep in mind that when to'ebah is translated "abomination" or "detestable", it usually refers to ritually improper actions.)

Leviticus 20:13 says that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

But the problem with using these verses from Leviticus as proof-texts for opposition to homosexuality is that Leviticus also states that if a man has sex with a woman on her period, they should be cut off from their people. Hands up, who would even think to ask this question of someone in their ward? If they did this in the privacy of their own home, why would it even matter? Idiosyncratic disgust of the practice can't be used as justification to ban it, since some of us wouldn't find it particularly repellant at all. If we don't enforce some aspects of Levitical law, why do we jump on others (such as the prohibition against homosexuality) and claim they are integral parts of the Gospel? Don't we believe God's words? Do we lack faith?

Leviticus states that adultery is punishable by death. That prostitutes should be burned alive. That children who curse their parents should be killed. Why are we not enforcing these? God said so, right? Why do we wear clothes made of blended materials? Why do men cut their hair?

Well, Paul also has his opinions on the matter:

Romans 1:26 says that "for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

His argument is that God must have given these people up to vile affections because they were doing something "unnatural." He is basing his opinion on the idea that homosexuality is distinct from "nature." This gets us into a dense forest of philosophical considerations on what is and is not "natural" -- for myself, I think the fundamental issue is that using "natural" as a synonym for "moral" is a complete non-starter, since everything is a part of nature, including immoral actions. We need a better yardstick for measuring morality that "unnaturalness"; to claim that a given behavior which obviously really does exist in the natural world is "unnatural" is, in my view, a completely nonsensical statement. Since the Gospel is only that which is truth, and (as Brigham Young said) we should trade ten errors for one truth, then it seems we should trade this statement of Paul's for one which accounts for more evidence.

Paul speaks of "effeminate" men in 1 Corinthians; 1 Timothy uses the ambiguous word arsenokoitai which has been translated in all sorts of ways -- everything from pimps, to prostitutes, to homosexuals, to masturbators. There are a few other slight verses which might, by implication, be dealing with homosexuality, but that's pretty much it. There are a few other ambiguous places where homosexuality might be inferred, but these are the biggies.

(Sodom's sin was not homosexuality; they were violent and uncharitable. I hope to God that we don't take Lot's offering of his virgin daughters to be raped as some sort of model for virtuous behavior.)

That's, what, five major lines in the scriptures we have upheld by common consent and share in common with other Christians. Five major verses out of over 31,000 in the Old and New Testaments alone. Now, of course, the mere number of verses doesn't necessarily signify importance, but if heteronormativity to the exclusion of homosexuality is a core message of the Gospel, it is certainly given short shrift. More often, I find the concern to be with treating others fairly.

What I see more clearly condemned in the scriptures I trust is non-consensual sex. Pedophilia, rape, bestiality, in which one member either does not or cannot give consent. This is not a slippery-slope; this is a fundamental distinction. Agency is the major, delineating factor. Rape = nonconsensual sex exercising unrighteous dominion on another person's Free Agency = hurts someone. Masturbation = consensual autoeroticism = hurts no one.

(Yes, people can use their agency to mutually consent to do immoral things, but that's not the point at issue here, which is to decide if there is a difference between homosexuality and other forms of sexuality. I think that the lack of agency inherent in other forms of sexuality shows that there decidedly is a difference between them and homosexuality, since people can also use their agency to mutually consent to doing completely moral things, such as non-reproductive consensual heterosexual sex. It is there where we have a useful basis for comparison.)

I don't think our founding Prophet would have been very tolerant of same-sex marriage during his lifetime. Like all fallible people, he was a man of his age, which was more conservative than ours in many ways.

At the same time, he was a radical revolutionary in other ways; he was branded a barbarian heretic for daring to institute polygamy, for instance. (If you name someone who despises capitalism, fights for equal rights for women under the law, and believes that government has no right to dictate people's private sexual practices, you might be describing a "Liberal" of today ... but you would also certainly be describing the early Saints.)

Now, I am personally a believer in some form of literal "spirit birth." I have never had difficulty reconciling the "adoption" theology, in which the Uncreated Intelligence -- a distinct Will, a distinct Individual co-eternal with God -- is nevertheless given a physical body through sexual reproduction and birth. After all, something similar must, in my opinion, happen during the movement of our Uncreated Intelligences from the sphere of our premortal life into our mortal tabernacles here on earth. We're not "creating" our child's Eternal Intelligence; we're creating from preexisting elements the Tabernacles of the Gods, the bodies which are Temples, so that spirit and element, inseparably connected, can receive a fulness of joy. Salvation is only possible within a Tabernacle; in some ways, salvation is to be given a Tabernacle.

In my view, then, there is no contradiction between "adopting" the eternal Intelligence by giving them a biologically-related body created through sexual reproduction. If you look at it from one angle, "family" is the biological ties given through flesh and blood; if you look at it another way, "family" is the adoptive ties made through covenants between Free Intelligences, since no Intelligence can be created from nothing and all eternal relationships are therefore, in the end, chosen.

The root of the problem is, I think, a semantic, linguistic confusion -- an inadequacy of language -- which conceptually equates (or confuses) birth itself with ex nihilo "creation", when in fact we know that Joseph Smith taught that God does not have the power to "create" the spirit of a single man at all, which is a Free Intelligence from age to age, with no creation about it, existing on a self-existent principle. But since these Free Intelligences can exist separately from the body, they can be sent to different places, different bodies; note that we think of spiritual "death" as a separation, not an annihilation.

But given that I believe in this somewhat more "conservative" view of the purposes of biological reproduction in the context of the Gospel, do same-sex marriages thwart the purposes of the Plan of Salvation? I don't think so.

I do think there is legitimate concern that the lack of gender-based role-models for children of same-sex couples can lead, in some instances, to behavioral trouble and grief. I'm a child of divorced parents myself, with no wish to repeat the process for any children I might have; I've seen others who were very significantly hurt by the loss of heterosexual monogamy between their divorced parents, etc.. But while the books I've read by social scientists such as David Blankenhorn and others might raise legitimate concerns, I don't think they're ultimately insurmountable.

I think good same-sex marriages can provide the same stability for children as good heterosexual marriages, and that it's equally possible for both types to fail to provide for children (with the caveat that some homosexual relationships might self-select to be more caring of their children than some heterosexuals, since the process of adoption or surrogacy is so much more involved than "accidental" heterosexual pregnancies. By the same token, some heterosexuals might self-select to be more caring than some homosexuals, because the one group has biological ties to their children while the others don't. The point is that it is not the sexual orientation of the parents which is crucial, but rather the degree to which they are willing to sacrifice for their children, adoptive or not.)

Again, I think it all comes down to agency and consent.

Edited April 30, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[smac97]

Jeremy,

You're way off-topic. Please get back on.

Thanks,

-Smac