Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If I am troubled by your comments on this thread and then go commit suicide, are you responsible?

The comparison is ludicrous.

but when I claim to speak solely for God and teach you to follow what I say and I am God's anointed and cannot lead you astray then yes you can blame me.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Rivers said:

My heart goes out to all those in pain because of the new policy.  Except I don't know how to identify those to whom I need to reach out.  Too many silent sufferers. 

"In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can't see."

Thanks, Rivers. 

Yes, there are many silent sufferers.  For that reason I think it's important that we are vocal (or otherwise expressive) in our love for our LGBT brothers and sisters.  So many of them believe that they are very much alone. 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thanks, Rivers. 

Yes, there are many silent sufferers.  For that reason I think it's important that we are vocal (or otherwise expressive) in our love for our LGBT brothers and sisters.  So many of them believe that they are very much alone. 

Especially those who are trying to stay faithful to principles of truth and righteousness, in the face of a chorus of manipulators putting relentless pressure on them to cave in to the prevailing social currents.

The kindest thing we can do for them is to make it clear that that chorus is entirely contrary to the Gospel, and that no actual Latter-day Saints are participating in it.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Especially those who are trying to stay faithful to principles of truth and righteousness, in the face of a chorus of manipulators putting relentless pressure on them to cave in to the prevailing social currents.

The kindest thing we can do for them is to make it clear that that chorus is entirely contrary to the Gospel, and that no actual Latter-day Saints are participating in it.

 

I agree, we should always encourage them to stay true to the gospel.  Showing genuine Christ-like love is going to be the first step in that... the step that allows them to hear the rest of our message. 

[salgare]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It can easily be someone that you feel is strong and without cares as easily as it can be the one that obviously is in pain.  Reaching out and caring for others is not done just because you SEE the pain they are in.  If you wait that long it is too late.  It must be a constant reaching out, embracing, caring for the "other" - all others.  

I agree

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Salgare, this is good evidence at how effective propaganda can be.  Someone has created numbers out of whole cloth - i.e. she lied through her teeth

Why do you think she lied?

[Calm]

Came across something that might interest readers who have teens in their family when searching to see if I could find documentation of teen suicides in Utah since Nov:

http://fox13now.com/2016/01/20/new-app-connects-utah-teens-with-resources-for-suicide-prevention-crisis-management/

I do think it is helpful to have places for kids to talk who may not feel comfortable otherwise.  I don't think that the correlation between suicide and talk about suicide should prevent us from trying to communicate, though we need to be careful.

[Calm]

In the DN article:

Quote

 

Ten years later, Gustav-Wrathall is still in that marriage, is still excommunicated and still believes the church is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. He regularly attends the Lake Nokomis Ward of the Minneapolis Minnesota Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His LDS bishop instructed the ward council to embrace him and his never-LDS husband, so he feels loved and accepted and sometimes accompanies Mormon missionaries when they teach people who have questions about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in the church.

He fully believes the reasons offered by LDS Church leaders for the policies announced in November. He made peace with those policies, but after taking numerous calls from Mormon and former Mormon LGBT people troubled by the policies, he said he realized he had begun to experience secondary trauma and depression. He now meets regularly with a therapist friend.

 

I wonder how many other LGBT LDS had the same experience.

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Of course. Do you know anyone who doesn't already believe this?

I don't. I'm not accountable for others. I'm accountable for myself, my family, those in my stewardship. Im not accountable for anyone else. I will gladly help anyone I can but I'm not responsible for them

[Calm]

I know this isn't specifically teen suicide, but I think it demonstrates helpful out of the box thinking on how to create a better atmosphere for communication:

http://suindependent.com/utah-suicide-prevention-coalition-man-therapy/

Quote

In 2014, adult men represented approximately three of every four suicide deaths in Utah. Recently, the Utah Suicide Prevention Coalition announced the launch of a new statewide campaign for working-aged men to erase the stigma surrounding mental health. “Man Therapy” reshapes the conversation, using humor to cut through stigma and tackle issues like depression, divorce, and even suicidal thoughts head-on.

It is funny (warning, there may be language):

mantherapy.org

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Clearly.  But steps can be taken to minimize harm.  I have never argued that the church need change its teachings on sexuality nor do I expect it ever will.  But in my opinion the new policy goes out of its way to create harm and has likely done so and will continue to do so. I thought the church was taking decent steps towards LBGT issues over the past few years within its doctrinal teachings.   I think since November they have kicked things back about 30 or more years.   Thus unnecessary pressure is out on those who are gay and in LDS homes and raised to believe it is what it claims and trying to navigate through it.  They will be more depressed, discourage, struggle with issues of self worth,etc.. All these can lead to risk of suicide.  This policy now cast as revelation is unfortunate and really not needed.

I would like to hear your perspective on one other facet of this issue.  Namely, the inflammatory rhetoric about the policy change.  I could give lots of examples, but I think that's probably unnecessary.  Suffice it to say that many people critical of the Church resorted to all sorts of extremely harsh characterizations of the Church's policy.  There are accusations that the LDS Church "hates" homosexuals.  Words like "cruel," "spiteful," "hate mongering," "bigotry," "maliciousness," "fecklessness," "attack," "just wrong," "disgusting," "sick," "close-minded" "treats gays as less than people," "demeaning," and so on.  Here's a goodie: "The souls of gay children who commit suicide will haunt these misled false apostles. Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing."  

So my cup runneth over in terms of people screaming at the Church.  Not talking.  Not reasoning.  Not explaining.  Not analyzing.  No exposition.  No fair-minded analysis.  Just lots and lots and lots of hateful, emotion-laden rhetoric.  The above-referenced hateful rhetoric appears to have been calculated to vilify the LDS Church, to essentially telegraph to gay Latter-day Saints the message that "Hey!  Your Church hates you!"  There's an awful lot of critics speaking "for" the Church, of critics "explaining" the policy change, and the explanations invariably assume that the Brethren are acting with the worst of motives.  

I've seen this before.  As an attorney I have seen people who represent themselves in court (and even a few attorneys) who are facing a legal issue that they don't like except that it yields a result not to their liking.  For example, people getting evicted following a foreclosure are facing a very difficult, very emotional experience of a judge telling them that they have to leave their home.  I run into this sort of thing all the time at "Immediate Occupancy" hearings.  The purpose of these hearings is to require the tenant to show up in court and explain why he should not be evicted.  I have had dozens of experiences of standing in front of a judge and explaining all the statutory and procedural steps I have taken in the eviction process.  The judge usually grunts, and then turns to the tenant and gives him/her an opportunity to explain their position.  With perhaps two or three exceptions (out of hundreds), the tenants faced with this reality don't really have a legal leg to stand on.  So they resort to . . . name-calling.  Invectives.  Emotional pleas.  Irrelevant tangents.  Anger.  You name it.  Anything other than what the judge wants, which is a dispassionate legal analysis of why they should be allowed to stay in their home.  The judge then signs an order, gives some verbal instructions to the tenant, and that's about it.  In this process most judges are firm, but kind with the tenants.  It's an effective, but still emotional and difficult, process.  Although I have become accustomed to these proceedings, I don't enjoy them.  It's not an enjoyable experience.  But it is a necessary one.

At present I tend to analogize opposition to the Church's policy to the types of "opposition" I hear at these Immediate Occupancy hearings.  Heavy doses of anger and invective and emotion, but not much in the way of substantive analysis or even fair-mindedness.  These things arise generally out of A) an unpleasant but necessary course of action (evicting people after they've been foreclosed on), B) the absence of meaningful or substantive counterarguments (the tenants lacking a legal basis for their desire to stay in the home), D) ignorance (often willful) of many of the considerations at hand, all combining and leading to D) a whole bunch of irrelevant and unfair and unreasoned invective spewed forth by otherwise reasonably decent people against good and decent people (little ol' me, and the judge).

Likewise, the invective described above about the Church's policy appears to arise out of A) an unpleasant but necessary course of action (the Church adopting policies in light of recent innovations in society, such as same-sex marriages), B) the absence of meaningful or substantive counterarguments (I really haven't seen any reasoned, critical analysis of the policy change), D) ignorance (often willful) of many of the considerations at hand, all combining and leading to D) a whole bunch of irrelevant and unfair and unreasoned invective spewed forth by otherwise reasonably decent people against good and decent people (the Brethren).

With all of this in mind, here are my two questions:

1. Can you provide a reasoned, dispassionate assessment of the Church's policy (including, I think, the reasons for it as explained by Elder Christofferson, and also taking into account Elder Nelson's remarks)?

2. Do you think the inflammatory rhetoric about the policy by critics of the Church has perhaps contributed to gay LDS teens feeling alienated from their faith, feeling scared at being told that people they have previously looked up to and revered (the Brethren, and their fellow Latter-day Saints) now "hate" them?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Better yet, don't blame anyone.  Just study the issues and try to provide the positives that may them.

There's dozens of youth dead so there has to be a reason why. You can't just slide youth LGBT suicides under the rug and not ask the whys. Dozens are now dead and I want to know why and how it could have been prevented in the first place.

[salgare]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know this isn't specifically teen suicide, but I think it demonstrates helpful out of the box thinking on how to create a better atmosphere for communication:

http://suindependent.com/utah-suicide-prevention-coalition-man-therapy/

It is funny (warning, there may be language):

mantherapy.org

Depression: man-con level so-so

Anger: man-con level not so hot

Anxiety: man-con level so-so

Substance use : man-con level a-ok

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Especially those who are trying to stay faithful to principles of truth and righteousness, in the face of a chorus of manipulators putting relentless pressure on them to cave in to the prevailing social currents.

The kindest thing we can do for them is to make it clear that that chorus is entirely contrary to the Gospel, and that no actual Latter-day Saints are participating in it.

 

Now that I think on it, much of the hateful rhetoric in this matter published by critics of the Church appears to be only obliquely directed at the LDS Church.  I think it may be that the real intended audience is not the Brethren.  Nor, perhaps, to the rank-and-file faithful members of the Church (though surely the secondary intent of the rhetoric is to shame and hector them into silence, submission and/or capituation).  Rather, this hateful rhetoric appears to be directed at . . . gay LDS teens.  It smacks of the type of propaganda I have read about that is fed to young Palestinian children to indoctrinate them to fear and hate Jews.  But in this case, gay LDS teens are being indoctrinated to resent and fear the leaders of the LDS Church and their fellow Saints.  Critics of the Church have been speaking for the Church, providing "interpretation" of the policy.  And that "interpretation" is . . . that the LDS Church and its leaders and its members hate gay people.  Hate, hate, hate.

If this is so, then that surely would be an incredible stressor to an impressionable young man or woman.  And yet I have not seen much in the way of critics cautioning each other against publishing rhetoric designed to alienate Latter-day Saints from their faith.  Nevo emphasized this point as made in a recent Archives of Suicide Research article (emphasis added):

Quote

There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one's religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one's religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia.

So where are the calls for the critics of the Church to ease up in their rhetoric?  Or the accusations that they may have created "stressors" in the lives of at-risk youth?

Anything?  Anyone?  Buhler . . . ?

-Smac

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

There's dozens of youth dead so there has to be a reason why. You can't just slide youth LGBT suicides under the rug and not ask the whys. Dozens are now dead and I want to know why and how it could have been prevented in the first place.

Have you done any reading of academic studies on suicide?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Has anyone here ever interacted with a LGBT mormon because I havent. I've never been aware of one. And it seems all those mass resignations coming in to that lawyer and the church since November have been by straight people who were already inactive. I've yet to meet a gay mormon.

[Storm Rider]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you think she lied?

I think she lied about the number of suicides because it supported her agenda regarding the evilness of the Church and its policies and doctrines regarding SSA.  Instead of reporting the actual numbers of suicides she invented an inordinately high number to cause alarm. 

There are many groups that push an agendas.  Some activists are not content to discuss the merits of their cause, but have concluded that the end justifies the means.  If it requires that they fight against truth, then so be it.  If it means they must fight against the prophets of God, then so be it.  If it means they must crucify the Savior of the world they are there with hammer in hand ready to pound in the nails. 

We humans become so emotionally committed to a position that we no longer listen or are willing to listen to opposing views.  We are more than willing to sell our souls to achieve our desired ends.  When our priorities are distorted and we lose focus on God we lose focus on all things.  We sell our birthright for a bowl of pottage.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you done any reading of academic studies on suicide?

I know there can be chemical imbalances in people and mental illness. But I also know just depression plays a huge factor such as a girl or boy killing them self after being rejected by a date in middle school. But usually there's a catalyst. I think the new policy could be a catalyst that drove those youth to the point of actually going through with it.

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think you get the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with a principal being more or less important than dogma. In fact, I am having a hard time identifying the dogma that was on the line in the story.

The good Samaritan involved a man who was in need. A Good Samaritan provided the help he needed.

Gay children likely need help and support. We should all provide that support.

That does not mean we can or should sacrifice our support for true and righteous principals.

The good samaritan is about salvation coming through Christ and not the law of Moses.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

There's dozens of youth dead so there has to be a reason why. You can't just slide youth LGBT suicides under the rug and not ask the whys. Dozens are now dead and I want to know why and how it could have been prevented in the first place.

"Dozens?"  CFR.

Also, where do you get the idea that anyone is suggesting we "slide youth LGBT suicides under the rug?"  And do you really think such accusations are helpful (or even accurate)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Has anyone here ever interacted with a LGBT mormon because I havent. I've never been aware of one. And it seems all those mass resignations coming in to that lawyer and the church since November have been by straight people who were already inactive. I've yet to meet a gay mormon.

Most of them won't tell you unless you are pretty good friends. I know a few.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. Can you provide a reasoned, dispassionate assessment of the Church's policy (including, I think, the reasons for it as explained by Elder Christofferson, and also taking into account Elder Nelson's remarks)?

2. Do you think the inflammatory rhetoric about the policy by critics of the Church has perhaps contributed to gay LDS teens feeling alienated from their faith, feeling scared at being told that people they have previously looked up to and revered (the Brethren, and their fellow Latter-day Saints) now "hate" them?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This thread is not really meant to be another discussion of the policy but I'll respond briefly to your two questions:

1.  Bill Reel did a good job of this on his Wheat and Tares blog post titled "Duty Bound to Reject It".  But if you want to discuss his post, please start a new thread. 

2.  I haven't seen much inflammatory rhetoric by critics of the church regarding the policy.  But I think those of us who are active LDS and critical of the policy have shown LDS LGBT youth that there are allies among them.  I think that's an important message. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ouch!  The policy was supposed to help these kids but it may be that it's hurting them (which is what some of us were saying back when it was first introduced).

 

Oh well, I agree we can't get too caught up in that other than to say, we ought to reconsider it if it's hurting people. 

How was the policy supposed to help them? The policy does not address them. They are two separate groups. Teens with same sex attraction and children of same sex marriages are not the same!e group.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Has anyone here ever interacted with a LGBT mormon because I havent. I've never been aware of one. And it seems all those mass resignations coming in to that lawyer and the church since November have been by straight people who were already inactive. I've yet to meet a gay mormon.

In my past service as YM Pres and seminary teacher, I worked with several active gay young men.  Despite what I may be incorrectly accused of here, I encouraged them to stay in the church, to abide by the law of chastity, and serve a mission (for the one who stayed active til he was 19).  In the end, none of them felt that there was a place for them among the saints and all ultimately left the church.  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This thread is not really meant to be another discussion of the policy but I'll respond briefly to your two questions:

1.  Bill Reel did a good job of this on his Wheat and Tares blog post titled "Duty Bound to Reject It".  But if you want to discuss his post, please start a new thread. 

2.  I haven't seen much inflammatory rhetoric by critics of the church regarding the policy.  But I think those of us who are active LDS and critical of the policy have shown LDS LGBT youth that there are allies among them.  I think that's an important message. 

1. Bill's post is rather facile.  But it's about the most substantive critique I've seen.  Beggars can't be choosers, I suppose...

2. I have a hard time accepting that you haven't "seen much inflammatory rhetoric."  But I'll leave it at that.  As far as the "those of us" you reference here, and those people being "allies" with "LDS LGBT youth," against whom/what are you allied?  The Brethren?

Thanks,

-Smac