David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

[Duncan]

13 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I listened to the whole thing. 

He was very distraught over the 2015 LGBTQIA policy. He came to see himself on the wrong side of history. This was heightened by his daughter coming out as gay. 

His wife and his sons stopped attending church over The Policy. As of July, 2018 he has stopped attending church. He rsigned all callings.

He has left the Church Educational System. He took a pay cut to administer higher educational services to persons in prison. 

He says he loves The Church, but he clearly no longer believes. He is grieved by what is happening to Bill Reel but is not going to be surprised if at some point it happens to him as well. 

didn't he have a daughter who served a mission?

[phaedrus ut]

On 11/17/2018 at 11:25 PM, carbon dioxide said:

That is too bad.  People end up giving up everything over small potatoes stuff.  I am always curious about people who make the appeal to the right or wrong side of history.  Whether one is on the right or wrong side of history really depends on the moment in time one lives and changes over time.  I am sure many people who say they are are on the right side of history today will be viewed on the wrong side of history during the Millennium as it will be said of them of our day "where are they now?"  I am sure many in Noah's day viewed Noah on the wrong side of history.  Then the rains came and they all were washed away in history while Noah remained.

It’s not small potatoes to a parent who lost a gay child to suicide. The 2015 policy crossed a line for my family. We had maintained our names on the records out of respect for our family’s history in the church. We couldn’t allow our names associated with a church we felt is actively hurting people so we resigned. Four or five families we know joined us.

Phaedrus 

Edit: to avoid confusion. I'm not a parent who has lost a child but I do know someone who has. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by phaedrus ut

[Steve J]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

It’s not small potatoes to a parent who lost a gay child to suicide. The 2015 policy crossed a line for my family. We had maintained our names on the records out of respect for our family’s history in the church. We couldn’t allow our names associated with a church we felt is actively hurting people so we resigned. Four or five families we know joined us.

Phaedrus 

I do agree that it is not small potatoes, and I don’t pretend to know the answer to LGBTQ issues and our theology. I try to remember that everyone, including our church leaders, look through a cloudy glass in this life.  After hearing his podcast, I rededicated to myself to supporting LTGBQ Mormons and non-Mormons in and out of the church no matter what decisions they make concerning how to navigate their path. Each LGTBQ individual has my support as they personally work through their faith in relation to their sexuality and choose their path. I do not pretend to have the answers. I do although wonder if reactions to the Nov policy have in someways not accomplished the goal to prevent/limit suicide in the Mormon community. No matter your view on the policy and your view on how much the church still has to improve/change, the Mormon faith has never been as accepting to LGTBQ members

Edited November 18, 2018 by Steve J

[Tacenda]

Until David Bokovoy's podcast comes up people could listen to John Hamer, he thinks almost the same as David concerning the BoM. And he was the Executive Director of the David Whitmer Historical Association. https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/folk-magic/

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

It’s not small potatoes to a parent who lost a gay child to suicide. The 2015 policy crossed a line for my family. We had maintained our names on the records out of respect for our family’s history in the church. We couldn’t allow our names associated with a church we felt is actively hurting people so we resigned. Four or five families we know joined us.

Phaedrus 

I get that part.  I am speaking on an eternal perspective.  For spend literally trillions of earth years preparing to come to this earth, gain a body and seek exaltation and then throw that all away over an issue like this is "small potatoes",    It is like an football player training his whole life with the life long goal of getting to the super bowl  He endures all the hardships of training camp, years of sacrifice through high school and college.  Gets on the Patriots and makes it to the super bowl.  Then someone on his team offends him and he decided to retire and not play in the super bowl in protest.  All that work down the drain.   The odd thing of all of this is people are making decisions in support of a family member but the decision leads to the complete destruction of that family unit at death.  All I can say is "WOW".  I can't put myself in your position but if I had a gay child who committed suicide, I would have a hard time telling my family who remain that we are going to blow our temple sealing and blessing up over it.  Sorry folks but you all are on your own in eternity.  I have a very hard time processing all of this  but we all have to make our own decisions and live with it. You know the sacrifices that are made of it and whatever works for you I am ok with.

Edited November 18, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

58 minutes ago, Steve J said:

No matter your view on the policy and your view on how much the church still has to improve/change, the Mormon faith has never been as accepting to LGTBQ members

I personally am not a big fan of the policy.  I think the church should treat the kids of gay parents the same at it treats the kids of heterosexual parents who are not married.  The Church does not have to recognize the marriages of gay people. It simply can view those marriages as invalid according to the laws of the Church and treat the kids of gay parents today as it did in 2005 or 2010.  BUT it is not an issue that one should cast their temple blessings aside for in my opinion. I guess for some it is worth it.  As individuals, we all make choices.  Some of them are perplexing to people who are on the outside.

It is true that the church has not be accepting of gay members but I think part of that is has to do with perception that members who are going beyond simple orientation.    Same sex orientation is the same as opposite orientation.  Both are neutral ground.   Neither is sinful.  It is the actions done that can cause people both gay and straight to leave neutral ground and go to a bad place.

Edited November 18, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

It’s not small potatoes to a parent who lost a gay child to suicide. The 2015 policy crossed a line for my family. We had maintained our names on the records out of respect for our family’s history in the church. We couldn’t allow our names associated with a church we felt is actively hurting people so we resigned. Four or five families we know joined us.

Phaedrus 

I'm sorry for your loss phaedrus. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

It’s not small potatoes to a parent who lost a gay child to suicide. The 2015 policy crossed a line for my family. We had maintained our names on the records out of respect for our family’s history in the church. We couldn’t allow our names associated with a church we felt is actively hurting people so we resigned. Four or five families we know joined us.

Phaedrus 

My heart breaks for you and yours.  Having lost a person this way in my own circle..it is more than difficult to understand any reason for that policy and all those thing included that takes away the love and justice the Savior had for all of us.  It just still doesn't make sense.

[flameburns623]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

didn't he have a daughter who served a mission?

I remember he mentioned an older son who served. 

[Maidservant]

I'm not sure I can fairly assess Brother Bokovoy's historiography (framework for doing history) because I haven't spoken to him personally or read anything else where he might have stated it clearly, but if what I think I'm hearing is that one 'stands on the outside and look in', and makes a (historical) description from that position, even with good reports, tools, artifacts, and texts--I think that is, in the end, a poor historiographical stance.  Certainly not the only one being used in universities, since that was not what I was taught where I received my history degree (not necessarily a premier place, of course).

When I say standing on the outside looking in, this is done all the time in history scholarship.  For example, I remember reading a paper about the relationship of women to food in a certain period of medieval time, and the examples were prioresses and wives and poor women and rich women, or I don't know.  But every example enlightened this thread of historical development on a very thin slice of people's actions and 'what it meant'--history leading into the moment, history of the moment, history leading from the moment.  I found this paper so cool!!  However, I reminded myself that what is described in the paper was not what was actually lived in real time in the lives of real women.  When a medieval woman woke up that morning, she didn't say to herself, "Gee, I'm going to contribute to the famine/feast paradigm that is arising among all the women in this time and place."  No, rather, she simply made some bread and ate it--who knows what she was thinking?  Maybe nothing about the bread!  It is people in the present who are coloring in the lines--I wrote my senior capstone arguing that history is actually about the present and what we are willing and capable of seeing and saying, the paradigms WE are in the middle of presently.  History is not about the past--because that's gone.  No one can capture it without gross error and massive insufficiency.  History is about what WE want to SAY about the past--which is something else entirely (and as if we could SAY anything about the past for any reason or outcome other than our own earnest amusement).

In other words, almost every time you make an outline and draw a boundary about what you want to talk about in history and how you want to talk about it, you have already left reality.  Assessing Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in the milieu of 19th century 'forces' is already not reality.  It's simply the picture we want to draw in the present.  It's missing all kinds of reality--whether the sun was shining, whether Joseph wanted to save the whole world, whether there was a fly on the wall, whether he read a book and knew that he got an idea from a book, or whether an idea came into his mind and he never remembered he had read it earlier (I do that all the time!), whether an experience came over him that he struggled to describe for years, whether or not he saw writing scrolling across a stone in the dark of a hat or it was scrolling in his mind, whether he was traumatized and weak, or whether he could see farther than anyone into time and space (or some of both).  All of this is already gone from us.  What is left is only our own selves in our own real time and our own sun and rain and understanding and choice making--including our own inquiry into a two hundred year old man (Joseph) and his experiences and whether or not they continue to hold significance for us in our own individual path.

Doing history is doing history.  And I love history!  But I don't make the mistake of thinking that doing history is doing reality, because it simply and actually and literally never could.  (By the way, this is one of the lessons of the Colonial Narrative and its fallout.)

This 'outside looking in' also means (in my own opinion) that you grant a category of 'supernatural' and set a significant portion of human experience inside that category (significant in terms of both volume and impact), and then grant that the category and its contents cannot be inquired upon/within in terms of science or scholarship.  The answer can be 'whatever you want it to be, such as termed faith or whatever' as long as it remains in the parameters of the 'supernatural' category and doesn't venture outside of it.  If the experience ventures outside of the category, then it MUST be defined by one of three answers: 'it is a lie (the person lied or the person making a recording got it inaccurately or embellished)' or 'it is a fantasy/sickness of mind (an internal experience with no external, collective, atomic/energetic correspondence; unless others 'buy in', of course)'; or it is explained by the minutiae of physics and biology to the point that it is no longer recognizable as an integral experience.

In my opinion, those three answers are not inquiry, but a failure of such.  That is not scholarship or science, but a failure of such.  Disclosure, I don't have a 'supernatural' category in my world view.  EVERYTHING is subject to inquiry, by me.

In my degree, I emphasized Islamic history.  I was taught to not pretend as if I could say something valuable from the outside.  I was taught to resist the easy way of discounting the first person experience by restating what I (as a historian) thought ought to be said with the eyes of the distance of time and place (and rooted in my own milieu of which I cannot escape).  I was taught to surrender to the religiousness and messiness and unexplainable of what humans are always experiencing--to recover the story; the voice; not to rewrite the story in a way we find most acceptable today by excising the first person and their own description of what happened.  While recognizing it was ultimately impossible, we nevertheless tried to inhabit the skin and voice of those agents and actors of history.  For example, the history wasn't to assume Muhammad's dishonesty or fantasy life, but to assume that he had an experience(s).  That experience rose out of his personal life in real time.  That the experience took place also may be described in terms of the forces of history and had impact in history following.  But experientially it is fine to accept that the experience was actual if not completely understood . . .yet.  The question is not 'what is it really?" but 'that it was really'.  It was assumed that our historiographical, scientific, and paradigmatic tools were not completely up to the task of coming to any conclusion upon reality--that we would not finally uncover 'what really happened and this is exactly why' but rather that our history making (not finding) was an ongoing, practically endless engagement and conversation with the texts and artifacts at our disposal.  History makes us who we are right now more than giving us a glimpse into who someone was in the past.

Of course, first person description is also not an exercise in accuracy, per se.  My sister and I argue all the time about what actually went down in our childhood home and the implications of it and where it arose from.  Is our history the same history? Or isn't it?  Yes . . . and no.  It was the same house, the same people, the same events--but very different experiences, because the agent differed (my sister or I).  So is history about an accurate report? (Which it never could be . . .) Or is history more of our best attempt to get inside the experience?  Either is fine--neither is better.  They are different animals of assessment.  But hopefully we can recognize where we are at with it.

I think that outside looking in history is great, and I love seeing the patterns of historical development of ideas and culture and the accumulation of human choice making, and coming up with my own observations and insight in that vein.  But I don't give greater weight to it than letting a person tell their own story in their own voice, and accepting the integral experiential aspect of time, place, and a person(s).

[Kevin Christensen]

Of all the stories we could tell, which stories become paradigmatic?  Which control the narrative?  Which set the terms, define which problems and issues are most significant, and which problems and issues get left entirely in the shade.  Which stories become culturally defining myths?

John Dehlin was going to interview me at one point.  He wanted to interview an apologist, and I said I was game.  But then he put me off for months, and several very skeptical interviews appeared, one after another. He was not, I noticed, too busy to arrange those.  And then the whole Maxwell Institute thing blew up in 2012, and I decided I could not support that sort of thing and emailed him to take me off the list.  Later, I noticed he had censored  my comments from the Coe interview.  (Last time I checked, you could still see the holes in the discussion.)  So, I was not interviewed, and also became erased in that community so that I'm not part of that history, not a Mormon Story worth telling.  I've thought that if I were either 1, famous, or 2, offered a good LDS atrocity story, he would have loved to let me tell my story.

"The Policy"  has become, for some, a socially defining myth.  I have a friend whose wife had left him to live in a series of lesbian relationships for over a decade (she's now in a different temple marriage), and had discussions with his children over the implications, came back to activity in response.  He saw the whole thing as a manufactured crisis.  (What Greg Smith describes as "A Moral Panic.")  His story is real, but not, I notice paradigmatic.  That sort of thing does not serve the desired political narrative.  In I Beheld Satan Fall Like Lightning (180-181), Girard observes:

Quote

The most powerful anti-Christian movement is the one that takes over and ‘radicalizes’ the concern for victims in order to paganize it…they reproach Christianity for not defending victims with enough ardor. In Christian history, they see nothing but acts of oppression, inquisitions…

Neo-paganism would like to turn the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality into some alleged intolerable violence, and indeed, its primary objective is their complete abolition. Faithful observance of the moral law is perceived as complicity with forces of persecution that are essentially religions…Neo-paganism locates happiness in the unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions.

The LDS and gay suicide has become a socially useful narrative, though one that can and has been disputed.  (FAIR has addressed the issue, as have others).  I know of a cases of suicide where the issues was chronic depression and mental illness, where an enabling society would not help.  I know several men who nearly came to suicide, not because they could not act out sexually (they did so countless times), but because they could not stop acting out.  Addiction recovery saved their lives and enhanced the quality of their lives in ways that are simply not allowed to become part of the contemporary socially defining narrative.  (On Will and Grace, Karen is clearly depicted and understood as promiscuous, and an alcoholic/drug addict, and Jack .... is fabulous comic relief, just the way he is, being true to himself, and who would even imagine addiction as a factor?)  The dominant culture selects and repeats and interprets only those stories that serve the dominant myth that people are born one way, and cannot be changed (hence the obsession with aversion/reparative therapy stories) and the overall silence regarding even the possibility of sex addiction as a behavioral factor.  Addiction recovery stories describe the possibility, (even embrace the reality), that sex is not the most important thing, that it may be a changeable desire, rather than a non-negotiable need that is more important than any possible religious covenant, that toxic shame and healthy shame are very different things, and that accountability and boundaries can help a person more than indulgence and enabling.

One of the most enlightening key passages for my own understanding of what goes in in faith and culture decisions is this, from a classic book on art, Betty Edwards's Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.

Quote

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.

What is important?  What real?

What do we desire?   Do we desire somethings that are not ultimately as important as we might think?  Does God ever look at our adult anger and bitterness and frustration in the same way that we deal with a toddler in the terrible twos, understanding the frustration, but also knowing that it is all out of proportion, and lacks the perspective that brings serenity.

How do we think and expect things are?  What is our conceptual map of how things work, and are we willing to consider the possibility that repentance might be not only possible but necessary to see things as they really are?

It turns out that when Buddha sat under the Bo Tree, he was tempted by Maya, the God of Illusion who used Fear and Desire as the tools to try to keep the Buddha from Enlightenment.

It turns out that ancient Temples used to have threshold statues who represented Fear and Desire as the obstacles we had to pass to enter into the Real.

It turns out that when Jesus speaks in 3 Nephi of the sacrifice of the broken heart and a contrite spirit, those sacrifices represent exactly Fear and Desire, what we think and what we want.

I like David's work generally.  He's a good man and a good scholar.  But not the only good man and not the only good scholar, not the only voice or the last word.  There are other stories worth knowing and telling that could, if they were sought out and explored, could cast some useful light on subjects that he leaves unexplored.  And that sort of thing could lead to a very different paradigm, a different society, different standards, and different commitments.

God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the Courage to change the things I can,

and the Wisdom to know the difference.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The LDS and gay suicide has become a socially useful narrative, though one that can and has been disputed.  (FAIR has addressed the issue, as have others).  I know of a cases of suicide where the issues was chronic depression and mental illness, where an enabling society would not help.  I know several men who nearly came to suicide, not because they could not act out sexually (they did so countless times), but because they could not stop acting out.  Addiction recovery saved their lives and enhanced the quality of their lives in ways that are simply not allowed to become part of the contemporary socially defining narrative.  (On Will and Grace, Karen is clearly depicted and understood as promiscuous, and an alcoholic/drug addict, and Jack .... is fabulous comic relief, just the way he is, being true to himself, and who would even imagine addiction as a factor?)  The dominant culture selects and repeats and interprets only those stories that serve the dominant myth that people are born one way, and cannot be changed (hence the obsession with aversion/reparative therapy stories) and the overall silence regarding even the possibility of sex addiction as a behavioral factor.  Addiction recovery stories describe the possibility, (even embrace the reality), that sex is not the most important thing, that it may be a changeable desire, rather than a non-negotiable need that is more important than any possible religious covenant, that toxic shame and healthy shame are very different things, and that accountability and boundaries can help a person more than indulgence and enabling.

Kevin, 

I've always found your posts to be thoughtful and considerate and even though I have disagreed with you from time to time, I've been impressed with the respectful tone and fairness in your posts.  So reading this particular post has caused me a little bit of shock, and I'm hoping you can clarify what you've said here.  

What this sounds to me like is that you're essentially dismissing the problems of suicide for the gay community by taking some variant examples where other contributing factors could be present and essentially stereotyping the entire problem as being a result of changeable addictive misbehavior.  It also sounds like this explanation you've created is supposed to explain an entire group of people and their multitude of unique and individual experiences, and reduce them down into a homophobic religious trope.  Now, I don't use that accusation lightly, and I will withdraw it, if you can clarify your position differently.  

 

[Kevin Christensen]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Kevin, 

I've always found your posts to be thoughtful and considerate and even though I have disagreed with you from time to time, I've been impressed with the respectful tone and fairness in your posts.  So reading this particular post has caused me a little bit of shock, and I'm hoping you can clarify what you've said here.  

What this sounds to me like is that you're essentially dismissing the problems of suicide for the gay community by taking some variant examples where other contributing factors could be present and essentially stereotyping the entire problem as being a result of changeable addictive misbehavior.  It also sounds like this explanation you've created is supposed to explain an entire group of people and their multitude of unique and individual experiences, and reduce them down into a homophobic religious trope.  Now, I don't use that accusation lightly, and I will withdraw it, if you can clarify your position differently.  

 

This is a more than a little reductive of my post, my body of work, and my entire life, zeroing in and reducing down what I have said here to what you have labeled a "homophobic religious trope." 

I'm raising the issue of a conspicuous silence, a live issue that could, and should I think, be a common and well understood part of common discussion, not something that, from my perspective, is systematically excluded from dominant narratives.  I have not, and have never said, that addiction is always the answer for behavior.  But it should be recognized as a valid question.   Knowing what is, and is not, a valid answer to a good question is part of what the serenity prayers called "the wisdom to know the difference."  Indeed, the notion of sex addiction is not a "homophobic religious trope" but rather a silence that I think should be addressed.  It seems to me rather like the way "Lock her up!" and "What about her emails?" became a reflex response that completely diverts a receptive audience from the possible disturbances of honest introspection.

I do, on the topic of addiction, know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

And regarding suicide in LDS culture, I do consider things like this:

https://medium.com/mormon-views/on-the-weaponization-of-suicide-and-moral-culpability-cc3bc4e816e

And on the notion of "moral panic" as a political tool, see Greg's discussion here, starting on page 12.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is a more than a little reductive of my post, my body of work, and my entire life, zeroing in and reducing down what I have said here to what you have labeled a "homophobic religious trope." 

I'm raising the issue of a conspicuous silence, a live issue that could, and should I think, be a common and well understood part of common discussion, not something that, from my perspective, is systematically excluded from dominant narratives.  I have not, and have never said, that addiction is always the answer for behavior.  But it should be recognized as a valid question.   Knowing what is, and is not, a valid answer to a good question is part of what the serenity prayers called "the wisdom to know the difference."  Indeed, the notion of sex addiction is not a "homophobic religious trope" but rather a silence that I think should be addressed.  It seems to me rather like the way "Lock her up!" and "What about her emails?" became a reflex response that completely diverts a receptive audience from the possible disturbances of honest introspection.

I do, on the topic of addiction, know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

And regarding suicide in LDS culture, I do consider things like this:

https://medium.com/mormon-views/on-the-weaponization-of-suicide-and-moral-culpability-cc3bc4e816e

And on the notion of "moral panic" as a political tool, see Greg's discussion here, starting on page 12.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I can understand wanting to discuss issues and asking questions and I support that in principle.  However, there are questions that are based on prejudiced assumptions that can be very hurtful and dismissive.  Considering just how serious the issue of suicide is for the LGBT community, there ought to be an increased level of sensitivity given to any discussions on this topic in my opinion.  

While I do recognize that moral panic is a real problem at times in our society, it can also be problematic to use the label of moral panic as a cover for bigotry.  From my perspective, this topic is not about politics or religion, but its about people who are at real risk, who've been marginalized in our society and who are deserving of our love and respect.  

When it comes to my conservative Mormon friends, perhaps those who share your perspective, I recognize that there is an impulse to want to explain how LGBTQ individuals fit into the grand scheme of God's plan for humanity in a way that harmonizes with the church's current policies and teachings.  I recommend that when engaging in these theological exercises that people keep in mind that they aren't just talking about an abstract hypothetical.  But instead they are discussing real people, some of whom may be participating in these very conversations themselves and are LGBTQ.  Others participating in the discussion may have close family members and friends who are LGBTQ.  

I honestly don't know what you mean by conspicuous silence being systematically excluded from dominant narratives.  That sounds almost like a conspiracy theory to me.  Perhaps an alternative explanation is that certain ideas aren't making their way into the dominant narrative because they don't have merit or have failed in the free market of ideas because they are flawed in some way. 

By offering alternative explanations for contributing factors towards suicide of an at risk group that questions the very identity of these individuals, you're traversing into the territory of disrespectful prejudice, and I worry that this kind of position could itself be a contributing societal factor to suicide rates.  I find this kind of speculation very irresponsible.  If we were discussing a set of meticulously gathered psychological data in a scholarly way, that would be different, but as I see it you're offering up dangerous and hurtful speculation.  

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can understand wanting to discuss issues and asking questions and I support that in principle.  However, there are questions that are based on prejudiced assumptions that can be very hurtful and dismissive.  Considering just how serious the issue of suicide is for the LGBT community, there ought to be an increased level of sensitivity given to any discussions on this topic in my opinion.  

While I do recognize that moral panic is a real problem at times in our society, it can also be problematic to use the label of moral panic as a cover for bigotry.  From my perspective, this topic is not about politics or religion, but its about people who are at real risk, who've been marginalized in our society and who are deserving of our love and respect.  

When it comes to my conservative Mormon friends, perhaps those who share your perspective, I recognize that there is an impulse to want to explain how LGBTQ individuals fit into the grand scheme of God's plan for humanity in a way that harmonizes with the church's current policies and teachings.  I recommend that when engaging in these theological exercises that people keep in mind that they aren't just talking about an abstract hypothetical.  But instead they are discussing real people, some of whom may be participating in these very conversations themselves and are LGBTQ.  Others participating in the discussion may have close family members and friends who are LGBTQ.  

I honestly don't know what you mean by conspicuous silence being systematically excluded from dominant narratives.  That sounds almost like a conspiracy theory to me.  Perhaps an alternative explanation is that certain ideas aren't making their way into the dominant narrative because they don't have merit or have failed in the free market of ideas because they are flawed in some way. 

By offering alternative explanations for contributing factors towards suicide of an at risk group that questions the very identity of these individuals, you're traversing into the territory of disrespectful prejudice, and I worry that this kind of position could itself be a contributing societal factor to suicide rates.  I find this kind of speculation very irresponsible.  If we were discussing a set of meticulously gathered psychological data in a scholarly way, that would be different, but as I see it you're offering up dangerous and hurtful speculation.  

I think your comments precisely reflect a myth that is not supported by any mainstream research.  It is quite common when someone close commits suicide to try and form a narrative to explain the death, so it is important to rely on sound research and not on anecdotal evidence 

if you want to have a real discussion of suicide and its prevention I would suggest starting with the  following website https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html

Common risk factors are

• Family history of suicide
• Family history of child maltreatment
• Previous suicide attempt(s)
• History of mental disorders, particularly clinical depression
• History of alcohol and substance abuse
• Feelings of hopelessness
• Impulsive or aggressive tendencies
• Cultural and religious beliefs (e.g., belief that suicide is noble resolution of a personal dilemma)
• Local epidemics of suicide
• Isolation, a feeling of being cut off from other people
• Barriers to accessing mental health treatment
• Loss (relational, social, work, or financial)
• Physical illness
• Easy access to lethal methods
• Unwillingness to seek help because of the stigma attached to mental health and substance abuse disorders or to suicidal thoughts

 

Ask you can see,  being LDS doesn't seem to appear on the list.  (Neither does being LGBTQ for that matter, although I have seen studies that link being LGTBQ to suicide)

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Danzo

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think your comments precisely reflect a myth that is not supported by any mainstream research.  It is quite common when someone close commits suicide to try and form a narrative to explain the death, so it is important to rely on sound research and not on anecdotal evidence 

if you want to have a real discussion of suicide and its prevention I would suggest starting with the  following website https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html

Common risk factors are

• Family history of suicide
• Family history of child maltreatment
• Previous suicide attempt(s)
• History of mental disorders, particularly clinical depression
• History of alcohol and substance abuse
• Feelings of hopelessness
• Impulsive or aggressive tendencies
• Cultural and religious beliefs (e.g., belief that suicide is noble resolution of a personal dilemma)
• Local epidemics of suicide
• Isolation, a feeling of being cut off from other people
• Barriers to accessing mental health treatment
• Loss (relational, social, work, or financial)
• Physical illness
• Easy access to lethal methods
• Unwillingness to seek help because of the stigma attached to mental health and substance abuse disorders or to suicidal thoughts

 

Ask you can see, Neither being LDS doesn't seem to appear on the list.  (Neither does being LGBTQ for that matter, although I have seen studies that link being LGTBQ to suicide)

 

 

 

I didn't bring suicide into the conversation, but rather was responding to a post where that was brought in.  Also, while this government research on suicide is certainly worth review and discussion, that in no way means that the problem of suicide in the LGBTQ community is a myth.  Why in the world would you say that?  

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't bring suicide into the conversation, but rather was responding to a post where that was brought in.  Also, while this government research on suicide is certainly worth review and discussion, that in no way means that the problem of suicide in the LGBTQ community is a myth.  Why in the world would you say that?  

Also I think he might be overlooking what might constitute "local epidemics of suicide".  No doubt, though, cause of suicide is pretty hard to detect in many cases.  On my take people are pretty complex, each of us full of all kinds of feelings and thoughts that are really hard to pin down most times.  That's not to say the Church's stances and statements on LGBTQ issues hasn't had an effect.  It very well could.  But it also means we can't simply dismiss the issue as myth either.  What I do know is I have a number of LBGTQ friends who were raised in the Church and look back feeling strongly much of their suicidal thoughts, mostly in their youth, were due, at least in part, to LDS teaching.  That really effects me on this.  

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't bring suicide into the conversation, but rather was responding to a post where that was brought in.  Also, while this government research on suicide is certainly worth review and discussion, that in no way means that the problem of suicide in the LGBTQ community is a myth.  Why in the world would you say that?  

The idea that decisions made by the LDS church contributes to suicide in a meaningful way does not reflect any research that I am aware of.  It goes against the research that I am aware on the causes of suicide (Which mostly are a result of mental illness). That is what makes it a myth. A myth is a story told by people to explain some phenomenon without a factual basis.

I am aware that there is some empirical evidence that LGBT have a higher incidence of Suicide when controlled for other factors, but I am unaware that being LDS creates any heightened risk.

Believing in these myths are fine and all, but they can distract from addressing the real causes and and real prevention.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Danzo

[Danzo]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also I think he might be overlooking what might constitute "local epidemics of suicide".  No doubt, though, cause of suicide is pretty hard to detect in many cases.  On my take people are pretty complex, each of us full of all kinds of feelings and thoughts that are really hard to pin down most times.  That's not to say the Church's stances and statements on LGBTQ issues hasn't had an effect.  It very well could.  But it also means we can't simply dismiss the issue as myth either.  What I do know is I have a number of LBGTQ friends who were raised in the Church and look back feeling strongly much of their suicidal thoughts, mostly in their youth, were due, at least in part, to LDS teaching.  That really effects me on this.  

One of the things we need to be careful of is separating the causes from the traumatic  experiences.

Ever person I have talked to who has had suicidal thoughts base those thoughts on the traumatic experiences they have lived through.  It would makes sense that Someone who is LDS would base their suicidal thoughts on their LDS beliefs and experiences, LGBT people based on theirs.  I have listened to people who had suicidal thoughts base on their experience as an immigrant, experiences with abuse, substance abuse, loss of work loss of jobs, etc.  

The research I have read, however shows that these events in ones life are focal points, or triggers, but not the underlying causes.   

Most people who lose their jobs, experience abuse, are LDS, Are LBGT, or have other traumatic or stressful experiences do not commit suicide. 

People who are at risk often take these stressful events and magnify and amplify then to the point that they take over their lives.  

 

[Kevin Christensen]

I have looked at a number statistical studies, including one that shows that suicide among gays is higher than normal populations even in secular and sexually liberal countries like Denmark, which to me raises the issue of why the LDS get singled out as the toxically intolerant and unsympathetic perps in so many narratives.  But I was not writing about them.  I was not even writing about the causes of suicide, but rather included one sentence "The LDS and gay suicide has become a socially useful narrative" that apparently, in your eyes, is enough to demonstrate, prejudiced assumptions, hurtful, dismissive, and even   It's the use of narratives, of such stories as leverage, applied according to the Archimedes principle:  Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I can move the world," or in this case, a world view.  A way to move out of Mormonism.  Something that Bokovoy mentions.

So that one sentence in long post has exposed me as holding "prejudiced assumptions" , being "hurtful", "dismissive", even being and/or conveying "contributing factors" which leaves me with blood on my hands.

Speaking of real people, I did, you notice, mention a few that I do know personally.  A friend's ex-wife (not an addict, in my view, but a person who had been abused by her father, and had a long strange healing trip that did after all, eventually lead to temple marriage), for instance, and several men that I do know, and met with regularly over a decade, sharing very personal stories.  I could go into much more detail, including some quite harrowing.  One who reported that participating in the fellowship and recovery saved his life.  When he came to his first meeting, as an alternative to killing himself, he reported that his greatest fear is that as soon as he mentioned his mode of acting out (primarily with other men), that he would be immediately rejected.  He was amazed and enlightened to find not only acceptance, but the understanding from people who had similar stories.  (About a third of the men in SA meetings I have attended have reported male to male sexual experiences.  Indeed, the man who wrote the SA manual had that kind of background, including a habit of picking up hitchhikers, despite the personal risks.  I heard him speak about when he was driving home from his brother's funeral, after his brother had died as consequence of picking up a hitchhiker, he paused to pick up a hitchhiker, when his wife was in the car behind his.  He reflexively lied to her, claimed it was a student he recognized.  Now, he has +30 years of sobriety)  And I did subsequently mention my essay "A Mormon Rashomon" about some other real people.   I could have mentioned the ex-wife of a very close relative, who left him for a man, then the man for a woman, and that woman for another woman, and that woman for another woman, last I heard.  Real people are involved.  And their children.

Hope says:

Quote

I honestly don't know what you mean by conspicuous silence being systematically excluded from dominant narratives.  That sounds almost like a conspiracy theory to me.  Perhaps an alternative explanation is that certain ideas aren't making their way into the dominant narrative because they don't have merit or have failed in the free market of ideas because they are flawed in some way.

Speaking of "prejudiced assumptions" how many serious studies of sexual addiction have you read?  How many meetings of addicts have you attended?  How many people, real lives, and real stories have you listened to and prayed with?   I've read more than a dozen books, and have more than 12 years worth of meetings, and quite literally hundreds of real people in face to face situations.   I remember watching the A Chorus Line movie, and a gay character telling about his his Mom had to work, and how he spent his time movie theaters, and how men would come sit by him, and more than sit.  That's just a movie, that kind of story has fallen from favor nowadays.  But I know real people who tell that kind of story and much worse.   And I know people who have had such relationships that I would not describe as due addiction. 

Maybe the silence is conspicuous to me because of the real people I know and the real experiences I have had, as opposed to ignorance, insensitivity and prejudice.  For instance, a few months ago I watched an episode of Perception on Hulu that wound me up.  It's a quirky consulting detective drama that ran for three seasons with the guy from Will and Grace (Eric McCormack) as an A Beautiful Mind style psychologist whose hallucinations help him solve crimes.  One episode had a psychiatrist being killed.  Turns out he had a coded way of referring to gay men that he treated with a science fiction experimental drug that provided amazing intimacy with whomever.  At one point they had a trio of  couples trying to make things work, all sympathetically acted, as sincere and heart-felt in their desire for a working solution to preserve their marriages, despite the men admitting homosexual attractions. (And I do know several men in that situation who have succeeded, not by suppressing, or denying, or dubious Skinnerian approaches, or drugs but through recovery.)  Yet the addiction word never enters in. It turns out that the Psychologist/Therapist was killed by a male patient with whom he'd been having drug enhanced affair (not the only person or gender with which he was involved in such affairs), after proposing that the patient he was supposedly treating leave his wife for him.  According to McCormack's character, the only social solution for these couples is to dismiss the marriages as inherently doomed despite the presence of anything like love or children and especially not faith (a religious character was depicted as cruelly fanatical and close-minded), and accept the reality of who you are, and act accordingly without shame, guilt or emotional restraint. Addiction is not so much as mentioned.  So, of course, neither is the possibility that addiction recovery might be relevant for those whom a diagnosis was apt, and that could make a difference for people who really wanted that difference.

Popular acceptance, going along with the crowd, uncritically accepting the dominant narrative, the current social orthodoxy, is not precisely critical thinking, but is rather, a shortcut from the burden of critical thinking.

Is my body of published work no more than confirmation that I never exercise in critical thinking, or perhaps, some evidence to the contrary?

If you put together a group of people with a similar set of values, they will, due to their similarity, create a dominant narrative.  No conspiracy is required.  Just a common way of thinking, and common interests.  It happens that two of the most important diagnostic features of sex addicts is (1) that they have a deeply held personal conviction that "sex is my most important need" and (2) addicts tend to be very good at looking for hypocrisy and weakness in others, a set of grievance stories which have the effect of providing convenient moral justification for themselves.  It follows then that a group with enough addicts to influence group values could be identified by the presence of (1) a conviction that sex is their most important need and (2) a conspicuous tendency to complain about the hypocrisies and oppression and atrocities perpetrated upon them, all of which serves their own self justification.

Know any groups that might answer that description?

Just asking.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Tacenda]

I think everyone should watch "Boy Erased" and talk about it. 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

"The Policy"  has become, for some, a socially defining myth.  I have a friend whose wife had left him to live in a series of lesbian relationships for over a decade (she's now in a different temple marriage), and had discussions with his children over the implications, came back to activity in response.  He saw the whole thing as a manufactured crisis.  (What Greg Smith describes as "A Moral Panic.")  His story is real, but not, I notice paradigmatic.  That sort of thing does not serve the desired political narrative.  In I Beheld Satan Fall Like Lightning (180-181), Girard observes:

The most powerful anti-Christian movement is the one that takes over and ‘radicalizes’ the concern for victims in order to paganize it…they reproach Christianity for not defending victims with enough ardor. In Christian history, they see nothing but acts of oppression, inquisitions…

Neo-paganism would like to turn the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality into some alleged intolerable violence, and indeed, its primary objective is their complete abolition. Faithful observance of the moral law is perceived as complicity with forces of persecution that are essentially religions…Neo-paganism locates happiness in the unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions.

The LDS and gay suicide has become a socially useful narrative, though one that can and has been disputed.

Hi Kevin,

I would be interested in a clarification of your point in this section that I quoted, especially your use of the Girard quote. It sounds like you are insinuating that David Bokovoy has decided to team up with the Antichrist and wants to completely abolish the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality (e.g. Thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not kill, etc.). Thus, in order to achieve his desire for "unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions" (quoted from I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, page 181), he decided to take offense at "The Policy" not because he found it morally objectionable, but rather because he needed a socially useful myth to justify his opposition to all of Judeo-Christian morality and his newfound dedication to Neo-paganism, as described by Girard.

To reiterate, it merely sounds like that is what you are trying to insinuate. I assume that wasn't your purpose. Could you clarify?

Edited November 19, 2018 by Analytics

[pogi]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

By offering alternative explanations for contributing factors towards suicide of an at risk group that questions the very identity of these individuals, you're traversing into the territory of disrespectful prejudice, and I worry that this kind of position could itself be a contributing societal factor to suicide rates.  I find this kind of speculation very irresponsible.  If we were discussing a set of meticulously gathered psychological data in a scholarly way, that would be different, but as I see it you're offering up dangerous and hurtful speculation.  

Just to verify, can you show me any "meticulously gathered psychological data in a scholarly way" that affirms that the Church policy is associated with increased risk of suicide in LGBTQ individuals?

How is this type of speculation any less dangerous?  It seems dismissive of the complexity of a potential life-time of issues that might be afflicting a suicidal individual, and instead uses a singular and convenient target to place the blame.  It comes off, to me, as though these individuals who deserve a more holistic and individualized approach are being grouped together as a whole and used as religious and political pawns - which to me seems unethical. 

I am not saying that church policies are absolutely not contributing factors for any individuals, but just how much weight is there?  This is all speculative at best, and dismissive of the holistic picture. I am afraid that blowing up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not resolve these more complex issues.    

By offering "alternative explenations", we are addressing the reality that there is rarely a singular factor in suicide risk and that it is WAY too simplistic to blame it all on one church policy. 

Talk about "irresponsible" and "dangerous and hurtful speculation"...

     

Edited November 19, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The idea that decisions made by the LDS church contributes to suicide in a meaningful way does not reflect any research that I am aware of.  It goes the research that I am aware on the causes of suicide (Which mostly are a result of mental illness). That is what makes it a myth. A myth is a story told by people to explain some phenomenon without a factual basis.

I am aware that there is some empirical evidence that LGBT have a higher incidence of Suicide when controlled for other factors, but I am unaware that being LDS creates any heightened risk.

Believing in these myths are fine and all, but they can distract from addressing the real causes and and real prevention.

I didn't say anything about the LDS church contributing to suicide for the LGBTQ community in any of my posts on the topic, you're reading something into my comments that I isn't there.  Sorry.  Whether the church and its surrounding culture is contributing to the high rates of youth suicide in Utah is a relevant question, but not the point I was making. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So, I was not interviewed, and also became erased in that community so that I'm not part of that history, not a Mormon Story worth telling.

Indeed. Those who've quite successfully weaponised the concept of 'warts-and-all' 'true history' merely have their preferred narrative, which depends on effectively ignoring all those whose stories don't line up with it.

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm raising the issue of a conspicuous silence, a live issue that could, and should I think, be a common and well understood part of common discussion, not something that, from my perspective, is systematically excluded from dominant narratives.

As one whose own studies have been wrapped up in issues of colonialism, postcolonialism, dominant narratives and subaltern narratives, I find it interesting though in no way surprising that the immediate response to your raising of the issue of 'conspicuous silence' has been attempts to shame you into not speaking your own mind.

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Popular acceptance, going along with the crowd, uncritically accepting the dominant narrative, the current social orthodoxy, is not precisely critical thinking, but is rather, a shortcut from the burden of critical thinking.

Thank you, Kevin. As a professionally trained historian, I am always grateful for those who can (and choose to) see through the fabrication of dominant narratives to the messy but very real nuts and bolts beneath. It is, as you no doubt already understand, a mostly thankless and sometimes dangerous exercise.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan