Your Religion In The Spotlight. Does It Cause You Anxiety?

[california boy]

Having once taught both physics and statistics (disciplines requiring some familiarity with arithmetic and mathematics), I find this a bit more than mere hyperbole.

There are several issues with the statement. First is, of course the publisher, a self-identified bias seems to color the numbers.

Second, ⁹⁰⁰/₃₀₀₀ = 30%; ¹²⁰⁰/₃₀₀₀ = 40%. Neither is 50%, and in even the "best" case, it's off by 20%: not close at all.

Third, if the numbers are 50% (advanced for argument's sake), why are all of the numbers mere estimates? Three thousand is a very round number. So are 900 and 1,200. Supposedly, the statistics are from actual interviews conducted at the "Homeless Youth Resource Center", so we might be able to determine something more accurate than ±33%.

Methinks that the numbers are gross overestimations, designed specifically to attack Utah (and by implicit extension, LDS) culture.Indeed, they appear to be no more than "Scientific" Wild-Eyed Guesses, "SWEGs", chosen more than estimated with a specific goal in mind well in advance of the "effort" used to create them.

This reminds me of Mitch Snyder's claim that 3,000,000 homeless people die on the streets of USmerica every day (in 100 days, there would be neither man, woman nor child left in USmerica, legal, illegal, queer, heterosexual, or orange), or the equally stupid claim that so many Africans died from deplorable conditions on the sea voyage to USmerica from their home (where their kings and neighbors captured and sold them to the Dutch) that sharks still swim those routes hoping for an easy meal, 220 year later long-lived, those sharks.

Lehi

i am just passing on the information. If you wish to believe that Mormon families don't exclude their gay children from their families or that ward members don't shun gay children, that is your prerogative. Personally, I have met far too many gays who were once Mormon to know that few Mormon families continue to have a healthy relationship with their gay children. My own family has not invited me to a family dinner, reunion, get together of any kind for 10 years. When I first came out, a member of the high counsel asked me to lunch. He told me his brother is gay and came out 27 years ago. It was only just recently that the family started to welcome him back into the family. He said they probably didn't handle it very well. A guy I work with confessed to me that he used to be Mormon. His family doesn't have anything to do with him. The ward would not let him be involved and shunned him. He now goes to the Presbyterian church where he is the choral director and feels a part of the congregation. It happens. Would you like more stories or would you prefer to pretend that being gay in the Mormon church doesn't effect your relationship with the ward members and your family.

[TAO]

The facts show otherwise.

First of all, I'm gonna need some sources. The article in question doesn't seem to give them.

Second of all, the population of Utah is 2,768,885.

1200/2,763,885 = 0.0434% (that's 4 in 10,000 people)

That's a remarkably good rate, I must say.

As I said, I don't think it's quite as common as you think. It is a problem (and a problem the church has been trying to fix), but no, it isn't a 'common' scenario... simply it happens. I'd expect things like this to happen.

EDIT: Fixed the numbers, the Utah population I got was from an old survey. The new one is from 2010 on Wiki.

Edited October 31, 2011 by TAO

[TAO]

i am just passing on the information. If you wish to believe that Mormon families don't exclude their gay children from their families or that ward members don't shun gay children, that is your prerogative. Personally, I have met far too many gays who were once Mormon to know that few Mormon families continue to have a healthy relationship with their gay children. My own family has not invited me to a family dinner, reunion, get together of any kind for 10 years. When I first came out, a member of the high counsel asked me to lunch. He told me his brother is gay and came out 27 years ago. It was only just recently that the family started to welcome him back into the family. He said they probably didn't handle it very well. A guy I work with confessed to me that he used to be Mormon. His family doesn't have anything to do with him. The ward would not let him be involved and shunned him. He now goes to the Presbyterian church where he is the choral director and feels a part of the congregation. It happens. Would you like more stories or would you prefer to pretend that being gay in the Mormon church doesn't effect your relationship with the ward members and your family.

It's not that it doesn't effect your status... it does effect your status. I expect that for most who 'come out', this is what happens.

However, it just isn't as common as people think it is.

Also, I have found that confiding in a bishop is a good way of 'getting it out' without having the whole church know about it... at least for my problems... which are not related =P.

Edited October 31, 2011 by TAO

[ERMD]

On the local level, the Bishop of the home ward for the three females let them know on no uncertain terms that he saw the wife as the "problem", that she should have done more to "support her husband" and that she should have expected the outcome. His attitude towards these three females, which included his unwillingness to help them in any way once they had been forced out of their home, was quickly adopted by others in the ward and the atmosphere there soon became toxic for the wife and two girls.

As a matter of general policy, since members are warned by General Authorities not to associated with apostates, all that need be done is that an individual be identified as an apostate (or a homosexual, and un-supportive wife, etc.). and the process can begin with human nature doing the rest. As I mentioned above, all of this can be very effectively done de facto while maintaining credible deniability, as your response demonstrates.

And how exactly, did the substance of these confidential conversations (assuming they took place) become common knowledge? Has the accuracy of the accounts been verified?

My son came home early from his mission and was excommunicated. He and the rest of our family have been met with nothing but love, care, and compassion on both the ward and stake levels.

Based on first hand experience rather than hearsay, I find these claims of "shunning" to ring quite hollow.

[Sky]

i am just passing on the information. If you wish to believe that Mormon families don't exclude their gay children from their families or that ward members don't shun gay children, that is your prerogative. Personally, I have met far too many gays who were once Mormon to know that few Mormon families continue to have a healthy relationship with their gay children. My own family has not invited me to a family dinner, reunion, get together of any kind for 10 years. When I first came out, a member of the high counsel asked me to lunch. He told me his brother is gay and came out 27 years ago. It was only just recently that the family started to welcome him back into the family. He said they probably didn't handle it very well. A guy I work with confessed to me that he used to be Mormon. His family doesn't have anything to do with him. The ward would not let him be involved and shunned him. He now goes to the Presbyterian church where he is the choral director and feels a part of the congregation. It happens. Would you like more stories or would you prefer to pretend that being gay in the Mormon church doesn't effect your relationship with the ward members and your family.

I happen to have a brother who is openly gay, and my family goes out of their way to show him love and respect (including me). He is invited for Sunday dinner every Sunday. That doesn't mean that we always agree with his choices, and that we haven't had our ups and downs along the way. We strive to maintain our devotion to the LDS faith. He has left the Mormon Church and since become a part of the Metropolitan Community Church. I would think this is definetely a challenge for any LDS family. I just wanted to point this out because not all LDS families shun their gay family members.

[LeSellers]

i am just passing on the information.

No, you're passing on the propaganda. There's a difference.

If you wish to believe that Mormon families don't exclude their gay children from their families or that ward members don't shun gay children, that is your prerogative.

That some LDS families do, or that a few wards do, I can grant.

It is simply not the case that all do, as your statement implies.

Personally, I have met far too many gays who were once Mormon to know that few Mormon families continue to have a healthy relationship with their gay children. My own family has not invited me to a family dinner, reunion, get together of any kind for 10 years. When I first came out, a member of the high counsel asked me to lunch. He told me his brother is gay and came out 27 years ago. It was only just recently that the family started to welcome him back into the family. He said they probably didn't handle it very well. A guy I work with confessed to me that he used to be Mormon. His family doesn't have anything to do with him. The ward would not let him be involved and shunned him. He now goes to the Presbyterian church where he is the choral director and feels a part of the congregation. It happens.

"It happens" is not at all the same thing as "it is policy" or "it is normal". In fact, "it happens" is much like the headlines in the newspapers (if there still are newspapers anymore): it's news because it only happens once in a while.

Your anecdotal evidence, even were we to accept it as accurate, is not statistically useful.

Lehi

Edited October 31, 2011 by LeSellers

[Senator]

Folks,

Lets bring this back on topic please.

[Mariner]

And how exactly, did the substance of these confidential conversations (assuming they took place) become common knowledge? Has the accuracy of the accounts been verified?

My son came home early from his mission and was excommunicated. He and the rest of our family have been met with nothing but love, care, and compassion on both the ward and stake levels.

Based on first hand experience rather than hearsay, I find these claims of "shunning" to ring quite hollow.

Since I do not attend Church, I have no firsthand knowledge about how the conversations became known. Here is what I do know first hand.

A very upset and frightened home-schooled 18 year old TBM female is living in our home because she could find no help or even sympathy from the members of her ward. The wife / mother and the other daughter stayed in our home for some time as well and eventually had to leave the ward boundaries and take an apartment in another city. Again, because the ward leadership took the side of the husband in the dispute.

This Bishop has supported the husband's actions in refusing to provide any financial support for the wife and female offspring until forced to do so by the courts. In the meantime, the one remaining male child continues to live in the family home, unsupervised during the day (not attending school), all with the ascent of the Bishop. Not sure how much of the "confidential conversations" would have had to "leak out" for folks to see what is happening here. Actions speak louder than words and the consequences are there to see by all.

This was a 110% TBM, home-schooling, all-in, family. The Church was their whole life and their total support network - until it wasn't.

That is what I know.

I have no doubt that your son's excommunication was handled discretely and appropriately. I would guess that you are a respected, tithe paying member of the ward who commands respect and wields some influence. You and your family are in a very different position from a wife and female children who are rejected by their husband / father, and consequently by the ward. Because they were living the letter of the law (wife stays in the home), neither the wife nor the female children have any means of support.

I trust that you remain a caring and supportive parent to your son and that he feels that you are in his corner. This has not been the case for the female victims here.

[Senator]

Since I do not attend Church, I have no firsthand knowledge about how the conversations became known. Here is what I do know first hand.

A very upset and frightened home-schooled 18 year old TBM female is living in our home because she could find no help or even sympathy from the members of her ward. The wife / mother and the other daughter stayed in our home for some time as well and eventually had to leave the ward boundaries and take an apartment in another city. Again, because the ward leadership took the side of the husband in the dispute.

This Bishop has supported the husband's actions in refusing to provide any financial support for the wife and female offspring until forced to do so by the courts. In the meantime, the one remaining male child continues to live in the family home, unsupervised during the day (not attending school), all with the ascent of the Bishop. Not sure how much of the "confidential conversations" would have had to "leak out" for folks to see what is happening here. Actions speak louder than words and the consequences are there to see by all.

This was a 110% TBM, home-schooling, all-in, family. The Church was their whole life and their total support network - until it wasn't.

That is what I know.

I have no doubt that your son's excommunication was handled discretely and appropriately. I would guess that you are a respected, tithe paying member of the ward who commands respect and wields some influence. You and your family are in a very different position from a wife and female children who are rejected by their husband / father, and consequently by the ward. Because they were living the letter of the law (wife stays in the home), neither the wife nor the female children have any means of support.

I trust that you remain a caring and supportive parent to your son and that he feels that you are in his corner. This has not been the case for the female victims here.

Start your own thread.

[Calm]

Sorry...Off topic.

Edited October 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERMD]

I will not rebut Mariner's hearsay so as to not continue the derail.

[Scott Lloyd]

Recently, with the high visibility of certain Mormon figures in the political scene, I have noticed an interesting phenomenom. Both my active LDS mother and brother have expressed a high level of anxiety when the subject of Mormonim comes up in any of the media venues.

For example, during a recent GOP debate, the subject was raised of Rev. Jeffress comments in regards to Romney's Mormon religion. The responding comments made by Romney and a few other candidates were all respectful. Yet, when it was coming to a conclusion, my mother spoke out and said, "why does this make me so anxious? You should feel my heart right now, it's absolutely racing!"

Later in discussions with my brother he also expressed that he gets very anxious when the church is talked about in the media, even when no hostility is being expressed. Why is this?

Does anyone else experience this?

I used to experience this as well. However, I don't any more and I attribute it to several years of immersion in critical discussion, such as takes place on this board.

There's obviously a psychological component at work here.

Any thoughts?

I get highly annoyed when I see widespread ignorance or bigotry about Mormonism exhibited in discourse in the mass media, considering that in this day and age society is supposedly more enlightened than in the 19th or first part of the 20th century.

But does it make anxious? Hardly. If anything, I say it's high time the general public was given greater exposure to Mormons and Mormonism so that we can begin to quell the prejudice.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

I have not experienced any anxiety for a long time. The main reason is that I don't care. People hold opinions. And if those opinions are changeable by the Media then they are lousy opinions. Why should I care about what people think based on what the Media "thinks"?...

Pretty much my thoughts as well. And If the gospel is true and the proclaiming of it to the world is sanctioned by God, then any publicity is good publicity. I think it will attract more potential new members than it would scare away.

[Senator]

I get highly annoyed when I see widespread ignorance or bigotry about Mormonism exhibited in discourse in the mass media, considering that in this day and age society is supposedly more enlightened than in the 19th or first part of the 20th century.

But does it make anxious? Hardly. If anything, I say it's high time the general public was given greater exposure to Mormons and Mormonism so that we can begin to quell the prejudice. a

Annoyance, is a feeling I can relate to. However, I would have to say that amusement best describes my reaction nowadays. A quick snort is about all it draws out of me.

If anything, I say it's high time the general public was given greater exposure to Mormons and Mormonism so that we can begin to quell the prejudice.

I agree. But I would also add that the information explosion has also exposed Mormons to there own Mormonism to a degree greater than ever before. Part of which is in the exposure to criticisms that they may have never incountered. I think this may be the case in regards to my own family members.

[Garden Girl]

Having our LDS faith in the limelight can be a positive thing for members, who, hopefully will have an opportunity to pass along accurate information in answers to questions, etc?

The only time I get nervous is when the mockers, scoffers, and antis (like that ridiculous Pastor Jeffres who was relishing being the center of attention with the media as he judged and proclaimed a whole people and faith as being non-Christian and a cult), start misrepresenting the tenets of our faith. I believe he will ultimately have to answer for this...

And the only reason these types of people give me any pause is how they tend to use sensationalism if possible (terms like "magic underwear" come to mind vs. simply stating that we wear temple garments). Non-members who are not familiar with LDS will tend to naturally be put off by such descriptions and misrepresentations... who wouldn't be when you hear some of the vitriolic rhetoric being put forth.

Fortunately, many non-LDS have family, friends, or co-workers who are LDS and so are familiar enough to recognize such rhetoric for what it is. I actually welcome the opportunity for people to inquire about our faith.

And by the way, California Boy, you're painting with an awfully broad brush... similar to the rhetoric mentioned above... I'm sure there are some families and members who behave as you describe, but your brush is way too broad from my experience...

GG

[Senator]

And the only reason these types of people give me any pause is how they tend to use sensationalism if possible (terms like "magic underwear" come to mind vs. simply stating that we wear temple garments).

I also think we can tend to be a little hyper-sensitive at times. Granted, there are people that intentionally use sensational terms motivated by their own bigotry. But there are also people who use such terms simply because they are matching the wording to the level of understanding they have. Why do we expect people to automatically know the proper terminlology that is used within the the circle? Someone may have heard somewhere that Mormons were special secret underwear that have special powers. That's all they know. So, "magic underwear" isn't exagerating there level of understanding. Why would we expect them to know to use the words "temple garments"?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. But I would also add that the information explosion has also exposed Mormons to there own Mormonism to a degree greater than ever before. Part of which is in the exposure to criticisms that they may have never incountered. I think this may be the case in regards to my own family members.

To the extent that's true, I don't think it's altogether a bad thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I also think we can tend to be a little hyper-sensitive at times. Granted, there are people that intentionally use sensational terms motivated by their own bigotry. But there are also people who use such terms simply because they are matching the wording to the level of understanding they have. Why do we expect people to automatically know the proper terminlology that is used within the the circle? Someone may have heard somewhere that Mormons were special secret underwear that have special powers. That's all they know. So, "magic underwear" isn't exagerating there level of understanding. Why would we expect them to know to use the words "temple garments"?

The Golden Rule has application here. I try to be respectful, especially in public discourse, about beliefs/terms/concepts people hold sacred; I don't think it's too much to expect that the same consideration be shown to me.

[Jaybear]

I also think we can tend to be a little hyper-sensitive at times. Granted, there are people that intentionally use sensational terms motivated by their own bigotry. But there are also people who use such terms simply because they are matching the wording to the level of understanding they have. Why do we expect people to automatically know the proper terminlology that is used within the the circle? Someone may have heard somewhere that Mormons were special secret underwear that have special powers. That's all they know. So, "magic underwear" isn't exagerating there level of understanding. Why would we expect them to know to use the words "temple garments"?

I think its fair to say that most people who use the term "magic underwear" are using the term derogatorily.

I think a better example would be an EV pointing out Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

[Sky]

I also think we can tend to be a little hyper-sensitive at times. Granted, there are people that intentionally use sensational terms motivated by their own bigotry. But there are also people who use such terms simply because they are matching the wording to the level of understanding they have. Why do we expect people to automatically know the proper terminlology that is used within the the circle? Someone may have heard somewhere that Mormons were special secret underwear that have special powers. That's all they know. So, "magic underwear" isn't exagerating there level of understanding. Why would we expect them to know to use the words "temple garments"?

All it takes is a little research for people to realize that "magic underwear" is an offensive term to Mormons. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially for a reporter.

[Senator]

The Golden Rule has application here. I try to be respectful, especially in public discourse, about beliefs/terms/concepts people hold sacred; I don't think it's too much to expect that the same consideration be shown to me.

I agree. But again, why would we expect people to automatically know that Mormons hold there special underwear in sacred regard? Relative to the greater cultural context, such and idea is kinda weird.

[Senator]

I think its fair to say that most people who use the term "magic underwear" are using the term derogatorily.

Perhaps, but there are simply ignorant people that are merely parroting what they've heard.

[LeSellers]

All it takes is a little research for people to realize that "magic underwear" is an offensive term to Mormons. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially for a reporter.

You do remember that Hitchens is not a "reporter", right?

He's an atheist polemicist, and he uses ridicule to skewer all religions, and, now that we Saints are in the spotlight, especially The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is purposefuilly trying to get out collective goat, and to make his fellow skeptic look askance at the Gospel.

Not everything published in a newspaper or magazine is written by a reporter. There are opinion pieces out there that start from a distinct bias.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

Not everything published in a newspaper or magazine is written by a reporter. There are opinion pieces out there that start from a distinct bias.

The contemporary problem, of course, is finding reporters who are not also polemicists, or rather, polemicists in reporter's clothing.

Another of the "signs of the times."

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. But again, why would we expect people to automatically know that Mormons hold there special underwear in sacred regard? Relative to the greater cultural context, such and idea is kinda weird.

Again, the Golden Rule applies. A term like "magic underwear" seems, on its face, to be derogatory, and, imagining myself as an outside observer and without knowing more about it, I would not use that term in speaking of another's religious faith unless I were deliberately trying to be obnoxious.