Youtube Vid: It Gets Better With Mormon Family And Friends

[Judd]

I think there are a number of different people in the video that, reading between the lines, probably have pretty varied opinions on the issue and may very well be saying different things. Those of whoever created the video, I would agree, are ambiguous. I think despite the movement within the church regarding homosexuality, there are many different opinions and goals that it's difficult to circumscribe all of them into one movement. That being said, I do wonder whether some of the recent efforts are for the sake of the gospel relative to homosexuality or if it is for the sake of homosexuality within the gospel.

Prior to this, the underlying assumption was that being homosexual and being a member of the church were at odds, simply because you never heard the stories of those who were still within the church as much as you heard those from without. In that sense, I think some of the 'movement' can be positive, but it appears with some that the goal is something else, in my opinion. Also, there are many people, both in and out of the church, who struggle with various issues that deeply affect their life, and sometimes we lose sight of that based on the bias of where contemporary political currents take our attention.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Judd

[smac97]

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 I find the subtext disturbing. I think that living according to the Restored Gospel is the best course of action for all of God's children, even if it can be a difficult path.

Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to living the Word of Wisdom. We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Word of Wisdom is optional or unnecessary.

Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to fidelity within marriage, or celibacy outside of marriage. We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Law of Chastity is optional or unnecessary.

When it comes to homosexual conduct, there are growing societal forces at work actively working to legitimize such conduct. Some of these efforts are aimed squarely at the LDS Church and its doctrines (see my previous comments about Affirmation for examples). I think the vid participants, probably with varying degrees of awareness, are part of that movement. And I find this movement incompatible with the Restored Gospel. Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to homosexual conduct. We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Law of Chastity is optional or unnecessary.

The subject of the vid seems to be suggesting that living according to the Restored Gospel us optional, or even unnecessary. And this subtext is being peddled by Latter-day Saints to other, vulnerable Latter-day Saints.

Maybe we need to ask; which is the greater sin to someone on the ledge; to take one's own life, or, their homosexual behavior or even the mere contemplation of engaging in such behavior?

No, we don't need to ask that. The answer is obvious. And it's a false dichotomy.

But it's interesting that you bring this up. Frankly, I dislike what I see as the GRM's (Gay Rights Movement) exploitation of gay suicides. Their websites and books trumpet these suicides as epidemic, as being caused by ostracism/homophobia (with no mention of other factors, including those possibly arising out of gay culture).

It comes across as cynical arm-twisting of a rather revolting sort. "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!"

Let me explain something about my views:

I have profound respect for women, but I reject the notion that respect for women necessarily includes an unfettered right to non-elective abortion. Respect for women must start with respect for all women, including nascent ones (whom, according to recent reports, are disproportionately aborted precisely because of their gender).

I have love and respect for people of all races, but I resent racialists who constantly frame discussion of humanity and humanity's problems in such terms and resent self-appointed leaders of racial groups who foment and create radial discord so as to further trade on it. The recent "payback" incidents where whites and Hispanics have been targeted for brutal race-based violence as "justice for Trayvon" are just the most recent of numerous examples of this phenomenon.

I am deeply concerned about the plight of the poor in the United States, but I reject as a solution a permanent government-dependent welfare class.

I refuse to adhere to such extremist views, or to ignore them when they gain notoriety.

When it comes to people with SSA - and specifically young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I think it is tragic that some of these brothers and sisters are treated poorly by some because of that orientation. And I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason, including despairing Latter-day Saints. However, I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is a concerted effort to legitimize homosexual conduct and undermine any organization that feels differently. I also believe that this concerted effort bears substantial responsibility for inculcating vulnerable Latter-day Saints (those with same-sex attraction) with the notion that their orientation is either compatible with or superior in importance to the Restored Gospel.

And the further this discussion goes, the further I am coming to conclude that the vid participants, or some of them, are part of this effort. I do not doubt their sincerity, only their profound lack of judgment. In attempting to alleviate despair among young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I fear that these folks may be tacitly (for now) recommending a course of action that will only deepen that despair and lead young LDS away from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2012 by smac97

[epiginosko]

The vid participants are not "openly" refuting the church's doctrines? Tacitly, then? Circuitously? Secretively? Are you admitting something here?

No, I'm not making any subversive statements. There is no question that these are socially liberal members. Most here already know John Dehlin from his work on Mormon Stories. He is an advocate for the LGBT community, and I don't think he has ever hidden that. Many of the others in the video are part of the Mormon Stories umbrella non-profit group the Open Stories Foundation.

Yes. "If." But it sounds like these folks are also in favor of not obeying the Law of Chastity, since they support same-sex marriage, which would necessarily include behavior utterly prohibited by the Church, even if that behavior is allowed under secular law.

I believe that they would argue that they support free agency, not compulsion of obedience - particularly when dealing with civil legislation which reaches beyond the general church membership.

First, I reject the notion that living up to one's covenants can be described as a mere "lifestyle."

Fair enough, but I think you missed my point. By lifestyle, I mean everything from the word of wisdom, paying tithing, law of chastity, etc. I could have spelled these out separately but instead opted for the generic term "lifestyle." Perhaps that wasn't the best fit. Perhaps it would have made morse sense to use a term such as "standards of the Church." My apologies for the confusion.

Second, the vid is not directed at non-members. It is specifically directed at Latter-day Saints. It is specifically directed at an audience all of whom have made covenants to God.

I believe it is even more narrow than that. I believe it is specifically targeting gay Latter-Day Saints who are struggling with thoughts of suicide.

Third, your comment here seems to confirm my concern about the vid: That the participants in the vid are not concerned about encouraging young Latter-day Saints to live in accordance with the precepts of the Restored Gospel. That the participants in the vid view gospel covenants as optional, as things which can be dispensed with or disregarded.

I can't comment on their individual motives. I can only say that it seems clear to me that this video is more concerned about offering support for those gay members who are considering suicide.

Huh? The Church Handbook of Instructions is rather clear on this:

That is the church's policy. What I was talking about is a discussion from the General Authorities specifically aimed at gay youth who are struggling with thoughts of suicide. You don't talk them down from the ledge by quoting policy.

Affirmation is demanding that the LDS Church change its doctrines to conform to popular notions of sexual morality. Affirmation is presuming to dictate doctrine to the LDS Church.

How many of the people in that vid are affiliated with Affirmation, I wonder?

I don't know. The one's who I personally know are not involved with Affirmation.

Well, I can. If they are sending an ambiguous message to young Latter-day Saints with SSA, and if within that ambiguity lies a suggestion that engaging in homosexual conduct is okay, and if that ambiguity was intentionally created to mask this suggestion, then I find fault with that.

You absolutely have the right to object if you don't feel that they have handled this in the appropriate way. I would be interested in knowing how you would handle it differently? Keep in mind that the target audience of this video is those members of the LDS community (most of whom are raised LDS and not converts) who have same-sex attraction and who struggle with depression and thoughts of suicide (many even going as far as attempting it) because they feel that they have disappointed their parents, their community, and that it would be better for them to be dead than gay. What would your message be?

[smac97]

I believe that they would argue that they support free agency, not compulsion of obedience - particularly when dealing with civil legislation which reaches beyond the general church membership.

There is no "compulsion" at issue, except that people who take moral exception to homosexual conduct are gradually being compelled to accept it against their will. There are many examples out there.

I can't comment on their individual motives. I can only say that it seems clear to me that this video is more concerned about offering support for those gay members who are considering suicide.

I think we can agree on that. The question, however, is what kind of support they are offering.

That is the church's policy. What I was talking about is a discussion from the General Authorities specifically aimed at gay youth who are struggling with thoughts of suicide. You don't talk them down from the ledge by quoting policy.

Okay. I agree that such a talk would be a good idea. However, I suspect that such a talk would be met with scorn and derision from the Gay Rights Movement. As Affirmation has so amply demonstrated, the Gay Rights Movement is not calling for just compassion and understanding. They are calling for capitulation, by the LDS Church, on its doctrines regarding sexual morality.

You absolutely have the right to object if you don't feel that they have handled this in the appropriate way. I would be interested in knowing how you would handle it differently?

That's a fair question. I would handle it differently by ditching the subtext. I would not proffer false hope to young Latter-day Saints with SSA (by implying that life "gets better" when homosexual proclivities are acted upon). I would not present present a deliberately ambiguous message as regarding the standards of the Church and present it to other Latter-day Saints from another Latter-day Saint.

Keep in mind that the target audience of this video is those members of the LDS community (most of whom are raised LDS and not converts) who have same-sex attraction and who struggle with depression and thoughts of suicide (many even going as far as attempting it) because they feel that they have disappointed their parents, their community, and that it would be better for them to be dead than gay. What would your message be?

It would not be materially different from a message to a person contemplating suicide for any other reason.

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2012 by smac97

[Senator]

Because I find the subtext disturbing. I think that living according to the Restored Gospel is the best course of action for all of God's children, even if it can be a difficult path.

I agree. But that's irrelevant to my point. I am addressing how to handle people that are on the ledge. Your "okay" to these statements appears to be disengenuous, because you are quite sure the subtext is really the main text. I disagree.

I see the vid as speaking to LDS gays that are mature in dispare, that are on the ledge. What such people need at that moment in there lives is not the law of the gospel by the mercy of the gospel. Get them down of the ledge first, the tool of choice ( which was masterfully wielded in the vid) is the safety of a pair of outstretched arms bathed in unconditional love.

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Senator

[Log]

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

Suppose the vid is successful in diverting even one soul into permanently departing the next life - what is its value then?

[smac97]

I agree. But that's irrelevant to my point. I am addressing how to handle people that are on the ledge. Your "okay" to these statements appears to be disengenuous, because you are quite sure the subtext is really the main text. I disagree.

I am not being disingenuous. And I am not saying that "the subtext is really the main text," or anything like it. I am calling it a "subtext" for a reason.

I see the vid as speaking to LDS gays that are mature in dispare, that are on the ledge. What such people need at that moment in there lives is not the law of the gospel by the mercy of the gospel.

I agree.

Get them down of the ledge first, the tool of choice ( which was masterfully wielded in the vid) is the safety of a pair of outstretched arms bathed in unconditional love.

I agree.

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

And there is where we disagree. I think it is entirely possible to do everything you've just described without the subtext. The subtext introduces problems that may lead young Latter-day Saints back to despair by falsely implying that homosexual conduct can be reconciled with living according to the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2012 by smac97

[Senator]

I am not being disingenuous. And I am not saying that "the subtext is really the main text," or anything like it. I am calling it a "subtext" for a reason.

Yet you are more than willing to through the baby out with the bath water.

And there is where we disagree. I think it is entirely possible to do everything you've just described without the subtext. The subtext introduces problems that may lead young Latter-day Saints back to despair by falsely implying that homosexual conduct can be reconciled with living according to the Restored Gospel.

I think the first and foremost desire of the participants on the vid (at least two of whom had suicidal kids) is to see that young Latter-day Saints simply live (meaning, stay alive).

[smac97]

Yet you are more than willing to through the baby out with the bath water.

What do you mean?

I think the first and foremost desire of the participants on the vid (at least two of whom had suicidal kids) is to see that young Latter-day Saints simply live (meaning, stay alive).

I know. I have repeatedly said that I admire this aspect of the vid. But that shouldn't preclude us from discussing the troubling subtext.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

Suppose the vid is successful in diverting even one soul into permanently departing the next life - what is its value then?

??

That's not enough?

[smac97]

??

That's not enough?

I too do not understand Log's comment.

[Senator]

What do you mean?

That the subtext is so disturbing, that as the vid now stands you would rather they not have produced it. That the severity of the subtext is enough to eclipse the main text to the point of deeming it worthy of deep sixing.

I know. I have repeatedly said that I admire this aspect of the vid.

But seemingly not as much as you disdain the subtext aspect.

But that shouldn't preclude us from discussing the troubling subtext.

Of course

[smac97]

That the subtext is so disturbing, that as the vid now stands you would rather they not have produced it.

I said that? Where?

And why are you making this thread about me?

And will you stop doing that?

But seemingly not as much as you disdain the subtext aspect.

Kindly shelve the comments about me and get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

I said that? Where?

It is a subtext that I perceived.

And why are you making this thread about me?

And will you stop doing that?

Kindly shelve the comments about me and get back on topic.

Ah..

I'll let it rest.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Senator

[Log]

I too do not understand Log's comment.

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Log

[smac97]

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

I'd rather not go there. Too much speculation and too much presumption. Let's get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[epiginosko]

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1. There are gay members of the Church.

2. There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

3. None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon. It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

1. Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.

2. Homosexuality should be accepted.

3. Society is changing to gradually accept homosexuality.

What I don't think the video is saying, which seems to be implied to some is:

1. The Church is gradually accepting homosexuality.

2. The Church needs to reverse its doctrines to accept homosexuality.

So, as I posed to Smac, how would the members here have worded a similar message? I would be interested in seeing some specific examples of verbiage, not just conceptually, keeping in mind a similar target audience.

[Senator]

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

You did???

I echo Smac's reply to this only to add that I find the implication to your statement/question, simply repulsive, and I won't speak further to it.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Senator

[smac97]

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1. There are gay members of the Church.

Yes.

2. There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

Anecdotally, yes. But there is substantial disagreement as to the reasons for this. Some blame the doctrines of the Church and uncharitable church members. Some blame popular culture for advising young Latter-day Saints to disregard their religious beliefs and to engage in prohibited conduct.

3. None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

Yes.

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon. It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

1. Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.

2. Homosexuality should be accepted.

3. Society is changing to gradually accept homosexuality.

Assuming that your references to "homosexuality" encompass both the latent orientation and sexual behavior arising therefrom, then yes.

What I don't think the video is saying, which seems to be implied to some is:

1. The Church is gradually accepting homosexuality.

2. The Church needs to reverse its doctrines to accept homosexuality.

I'm not sure that's the implication. The implication seems to be that young Latter-day Saints with SSA can/should disregard the doctrines and teachings of the Restored Gospel, and that this may become easier to do if and when social pressure (perhaps including pressure from the "allies" Dehlin referenced) coerces the Church to capitulate on its doctrines and allow homosexual behavior within the Church.

So, as I posed to Smac, how would the members here have worded a similar message? I would be interested in seeing some specific examples of verbiage, not just conceptually, keeping in mind a similar target audience.

An interesting question, but not one I'm prepared to address without some due consideration. And it's also a bit off-topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Log]

You did???

I echo Smac's reply to this only to add that I find the implication to your statement/question, simply repulsive, and I won't speak further to it.

You are free to find it as offensive as you like. I simply took your statement and applied it to the next life. Let us recall what you said.

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

I suggest your values are a wee bit out of synch.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Log

[smac97]

You are free to find it as offensive as you like. I simply took your statement and applied it to the next life. Let us recall what you said.

I suggest your values are a wee bit out of synch.

Please shelve the personal critiques. Talk about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Log]

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

2. There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

Where are the studies showing that gays who are members suffer a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide compared to gays who are not members?

I seem to recall that, even in homophiliac countries (Netherlands, New Zealand), gays, per se, suffer a disproportionate amount of mental problems, presumably including depression and suicide, compared to non-gays.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1. There are gay members of the Church.

2. There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

3. None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

I'd be interested to know what you have in mind with your point 2. "Disproportionate" in what way? I think we can all agree that homosexuals experience depression and commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals do. Alan Turing, for example, experienced depression (which is a medical condition) and committed suicide without any known exposure to the baleful influence of Mormon teachings.

Let me ask you this question: do you believe that, after controlling for regional factors and the "gay" effect, homosexuals in the Church are more likely to commit suicide than homosexuals outside of the Church?

Because, you see, I don't. I regard that claim as politically-motivated propaganda.

And perhaps that is the most unfortunate "subtext" of this video.

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon. It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

Speaking of propaganda, I find expressions like "socially progressive" to be both value-laden and question-begging. I don't regard decadence as progress.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited April 25, 2012 by Pahoran

[epiginosko]

I'd be interested to know what you have in mind with your point 2. "Disproportionate" in what way? I think we can all agree that homosexuals experience depression and commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals do.

I only have the percentages from BYU at hand which shows that 75% of gay students have contemplated suicide and 25% have attempted it. That seems disproportionate to the straight community. This is actually a good question. As I am a Sociology minor, I may have to propose a comparative study on this at Weber State University to see if there is any correlation at a non-LDS run school.

Let me ask you this question: do you believe that, after controlling for regional factors and the "gay" effect, homosexuals in the Church are more likely to commit suicide than homosexuals outside of the Church?

My assumption would be that this would be the case in any predominantly social conservative environment where homosexual activity is considered morally wrong. I doubt it is exclusive to Mormonism. However, I have no data to back that up.

Because, you see, I don't. I regard that claim as politically-motivated propaganda. And perhaps that is the most unfortunate "subtext" of this video.

Fair enough. We have two working theories. Now we need objective data.

Speaking of propaganda, I find expressions like "socially progressive" to be both value-laden and question-begging. I don't regard decadence as progress.

"Socially progressive" is simply used in this context as a label for a particular ideology, not an endorsement of it. You may feel more inclined to label it as "the liberal agenda," however that is not without its own bias.

I want to make clear here that I am interested in objectivity, not arguing a particular bias. I understand the church's doctrines and policies well. I am a faithful, recommend-carrying member. I have served in a Bishopric. I understand the laws and commandments that we covenant to keep. This, to me, is a sociological problem with an "easier said than done" solution.

I know that Smac said that my request for how this group would address the same problem to the same audience was off-topic, but I don't think that it is. 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.

[wenglund]

What are the accepted and appropriate expressions of homosexual affection for gay LDS?

Christ-like love--i.e. the same kind of affection extended to them by those in the video.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-