Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[sunstoned]

I teach at a public university in Utah.  I am also associated with that university's multi-cultural center which includes the LGBTQ organization.  From my own experience and my own observations I know that the latest church policy has deeply impacted many LDS LGBTQ students.  Several of which are BIC and RMs.  Working with some of these students over the last couple of months and hearing their stories has been heartbreaking. I am not going to go into details on this board, because frankly I am sickened by some of the calloused and insensitive attitudes that have been displayed in this thread.  Suffice it to say that this policy has hurt people and destroyed family relationships.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by sunstoned

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I gave you your CFR.  

No, you didn't.  I asked: "What part of the CHI teaches Latter-day Saints 'to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion?'"  

You have provided no quotes, no instruction, nothing in the CHI that even approximates counsel to the Saints that they are "to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion."

Asked and not answered.  Which is what I expected.  

The CHI, of course, has minimal "counsel" to the Saints.  It is a policies and procedures manual for leaders of the Church.  For such counsel a reasonable person would turn to the Church's magazines and manuals.  So let's explore a bit, shall we?  What counsel are the General Authorities giving to the Saints relative to people with same-sex attraction?

Well, there's this 1995 Ensign article by Elder Oaks:

Quote

Some Latter-day Saints face the confusion and pain that result when a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex, or even when a person has erotic feelings that could lead toward such behavior. How should Church leaders, parents, and other members of the Church react when faced with the religious, emotional, and family challenges that accompany such behavior or feelings? What do we say to a young person who reports that he or she is attracted toward or has erotic thoughts or feelings about persons of the same sex? How should we respond when a person announces that he is a homosexual or she is a lesbian and that scientific evidence “proves” he or she was “born that way”? How do we react when persons who do not share our beliefs accuse us of being intolerant or unmerciful when we insist that erotic feelings toward a person of the same sex are irregular and that any sexual behavior of that nature is sinful?

...In the midst of the challenges and choices of mortal life, we are all under the Savior’s commandment to “love one another” (John 15:12, 17). As the First Presidency said in a recent message:

Quote

 

“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.” 

 

Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.

...

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

...

After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added:

Quote

“Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. (See Isa. 53:4–5; Mosiah 4:2–3.)”

Similarly, in a conference address on this same subject, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.”

...

Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22–23, 30, 32). 

...

Church leaders are sometimes asked whether there is any place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for persons with homosexual or lesbian susceptibilities or feelings. Of course there is. 

...

Another important source of help is the strengthening influence of loving brothers and sisters. All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness “to bear one another’s burdens” (Mosiah 18:8) “and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

So regarding how Latter-day Saints should treat and interact with people with same-sex attraction, the counsel from Elder Oaks, an apostle, in an article published in the Church's magazine designed to disseminate instructions to the Saints, is to "Love one another," to "be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving," to be "more prompt to help," to "extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution," to "love one another with genuine compassion," to use the "powerful instruments" of "kindness, compassion, and love," to condemn "so-called 'gay bashing'—physical or verbal attacks," to "reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues," to show "Christlike love," to "reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems," to "show forth love and to extend help and understanding," to not "cast out" such persons, to "love" and "help" them, to invite them be in the Church of Jesus Christ, as "of course there is" a place for them, to provide "love and encouragement," to such persons, and to help "bear one another's burdens."

These, m'boy, are "verbatim quotes."  This is just one of many examples of the consistent counsel that the Brethren have given to the Saints.  In my view, no reasonable or fair-minded person could read such things and construe them as teaching the Latter-day Saints to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, and so on.

Let us now turn to the Eternal Marriage Student Manual.  Some excerpts:

Quote

 

[Quoting Pres. Hinckley]: 

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God.  

...

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties.

 

Here are some 2009 remarks by Elder Bruce C. Hafen (addressing a conference held by Evergreen International):

Quote

 

Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: “Our hearts reach out to [you].  We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters.” And President Packer has echoed, “We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you.”  With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.  

...

The Atonement’s healing blessings are conditional, just as receiving the mercy that allows forgiveness is conditioned on our repentance.  The conditions we must satisfy include repenting fully of any actual sins in our lives.  Beyond that, Nephi teaches us this about the other conditions we must satisfy: “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)  In other words, we must do “all we can do” within our own power, then his grace overcomes our separation from God as it heals us.

How much is “all we can do” for one who suffers same-gender attraction? I don’t know. But I do know that “all we can do” is less than many of you think it is, because some of you are so conscientious that you think you have to do it all.  Don’t beat yourselves up needlessly.  You don’t have to do it all.  

 

I invite readers of this post to review the linked content above in more detail.  Some may find portions of what is said disputable.  Some may disagree with opinions and sentiments.  But what I think nobody will find, is counsel from the leaders of the LDS Church for church members to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I teach at a public university in Utah.  I am also associated with that university's multi-cultural center which includes the LGBTQ organization.  From my own experience and my own observations I know that the latest church policy has deeply impacted many LDS LGBTQ students.  Several of which are BIC and RMs.  Working with some of these students over the last couple of months and hearing their stories has been heartbreaking. I am not going to go into details on this board, because frankly I am sickened by some of the calloused and insensitive attitudes that have been displayed in this thread.  Suffice it to say that this policy has hurt people and destroyed family relationships.

Well, I'm glad we've cleared up the roles we are supposed to fulfill as participants on this board:

Critics and enemies of the Church are supposed to vilify the LDS Church, fabricate allegations against it and its members and its leaders, and - most importantly - constantly speak for the LDS Church to LDS teens and tell those teens how much their co-religionists hate them, how much the leaders of their church hate them, and so on.  This alienating tactic is not unlike the ones used to teach Palestinian children to fear and hate Jews (by indoctrinating them that Jews hate them).

Meanwhile, Latter-day Saints are supposed to uncritically and silently accept all of the vile things being said by their moral betters about them and their faith.

Funny how two reasonable and intelligent people can read the same thread and yet come away with such divergent perspectives about it.  I too have been "sickened" by some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.  But I suspect our respective sickenings are about different things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by smac97

[salgare]

I just have two question for the apologetic side of this argument

Are some babies born with gender issues?

Should not the answer to this question highlight the underlying problem to this whole debate?

[Damien the Leper]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think you are being sentimental, you are loving in the way our Father and his Son are loving.  This is the message that disciples respond to with open hearts.  

I believe I owe any maturity and reason to my better half, Saint Sinner. We've gone rounds on this issue in general. He and I are trying. Love over dogma seems to work best. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Valentinus

[maxrep12]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm glad we've cleared up the roles we are supposed to fulfill as participants on this board:

Critics and enemies of the Church are supposed to vilify the LDS Church, fabricate allegations against it and its members and its leaders, and - most importantly - constantly speak for the LDS Church to LDS teens and tell those teens how much their co-religionists hate them, how much the leaders of their church hate them, and so on.  This alienating tactic is not unlike the ones used to teach Palestinian children to fear and hate Jews (by indoctrinating them that Jews hate them).

Meanwhile, Latter-day Saints are supposed to uncritically and silently accept all of the vile things being said by their moral betters about them and their faith.

Funny how two reasonable and intelligent people can read the same thread and yet come away with such divergent perspectives about it.  I too have been "sickened" by some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.  But I suspect our respective sickenings are about different things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That is quite a lot of straw man building. I didn't know there was a "teen" audience here, or that we should be addressing them. 

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/01/double-binds-hurt-us.html#disqus_thread

The link above details where and how the numbers were arrived at(From Natasha Helfer Parker).

Thank you for posting this as it was very interesting and helpful.  I hope more information continues coming out that will help us determine why there is such a difference in the numbers arrived at by different groups.

I also wonder how many of those youth in the 18 - 20 year range are from Utah (and their families are there), but they no longer lived in the state.  I do hope that there were not as many suicides are reported.  But if there were, we should look at all the different variables and situations that may be causing the discrepancy. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Where is there a policy of kids killing themselves?

This is not a laughing situation.

Playing dumb is not appropriate.

 

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny how two reasonable and intelligent people can read the same thread and yet come away with such divergent perspectives about it.  I too have been "sickened" by some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.  But I suspect our respective sickenings are about different things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

To be fair, I've silently read about half this thread and the article and I feel both ends have been reactionary and kinda talking past each other. 

I feel both have correct points though. Of course, as usual I feel like I land in a slim area of middle ground on this issue that tends to disappear surrounding this issue. 

My concern with the main article are that the points are disjointed. It reads to me as let's not point fingers but really we know what led to this, but just love and help.

The problem with it is...

a) the people who most need to read it aren't going to because they're not even listening to apostolic counsel or examples to this...let alone a blogger.

B) those who would read it that are active in the church are likely already doing to the best of their ability and access of loving and helping people that are lgbt (For many their access is probably limited at best and their ability would then be dependent on their exposure...the more i've been exposed the better I've become) 

C) there is no real definitive method to help with potential suicide mentioned in the entire article inspite of several calls to give real help and support. So it come off as an emotive pep rally.

and on the same note the numbers have a serious problem. For one there's no way to corroborate them...it's one woman collecting the numbers and she doesn't mentioned her method of doing so. For another the numbers are correlative which doesn't prove cause or direct relation to the event. it's a form of confirmation bias that similar to people who report vaccine issues caused autism. We expect conflict and we focus on data point that indicate it. 

The problem I've seen here is that pointing this out looks cold and heartless. There's no real way to critique an emotional article with rational critique without looking bad. Meanwhile on the other end it makes people defensive because it feels like it's continuing a persistent punching bag syndrome of a community they very much are tied to (compared to one they, again, have limited access to). And the title question continues to go largely unanswered. There aren't solid suggestions in the article about actually helping LDS lgbt who may be suicidal. There's not a great description of what it would look like to reach out to said youth population or the actual grassroots issues that create roadblocks to it. And what's left are two groups who are reacting to each other and feeling more at odds then actually coming together and working.

 

that's what I've seen anyways. And before anyone asks this is what I do to help in my limited sphere: 

- I talk openly and without judgment to those who are figuring out their path with lgbt concerns. 

- I work hard not to condescend or to have the right answer, but if I have concerns I also don't hide them or pretend they don't exist. I don't pretend that I don't believe church doctrine on families on this. I also don't pretend to have all the answers as to what heaven looks like. I'm honest but charitable and caring in my dialogue, seeking their wisdom as much as sharing my grains.

- I reiterate that I love and care for them as people first and foremost and that what ever choice they make in their expression will not change that

- i don't treat ssa as a disease or unbearable weight, though I don't pooh pooh their challenges in figuring balance in their varying religious and sexual id's

- when the policy came I talked to the one I loved the most who is lgbt to make sure she was ok and knew that I loved her. Her sister had beat me to it.

In my sphere that is what I'm capable with the access I have. I'm not ignorant nor callus to the fact that lgbt populations have higher rates of suicide (in any population) but I also don't think this article was all that helpful in pointing this out and addressing it. It was emotionally reactive and pushy which led to emotional reactions and pushback.

 

with luv, 

bd

Edited January 30, 2016 by BlueDreams

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you are suggesting that the LDS Church is teaching its members to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion, then CFR.  I'm not looking for paraphrasing, or interpretation, or extrapolation, or anything like that.  Chapter and verse.  Verbatim quotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

All you have to do is look to the new policy for that.

By the way, has anybody pointed out yet that the Deseret News article incorrectly states the LDS Church "announced" this new policy?

It was actually leaked.

It is pretty clear the Deseret News piece pulls out the stops to try to make the Church look good.

Which is expected.

It is the LDS version of Pravda, after all. 

 

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

What part of the CHI teaches Latter-day Saints "to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion?"  CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Verbatim quotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

What part of the southern segregation laws in the 1950's taught whites "to hate black people, and to shun them, and to abandon them"?

You are smarter than this, Smac.

You know a policy doesn't have to say "hate this person" or "shun this person" in order for it to have that effect.

And this is indeed the effect the new policy is having.

As well as many previous statements by Church leaders regarding persons with same sex orientation.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

that's what I've seen anyways. And before anyone asks this is what I do to help in my limited sphere: 

- I talk openly and without judgment to those who are figuring out their path with lgbt concerns. 

- I work hard not to conscend or to have the right answer, but if I have concerns I also don't hide them or pretend they don't exist. I don't pretend that I do believe church doctrine on families on this. I also don't pretend to have all the answers as to what heaven looks like

- I reiterate that I love and care for them as people first and foremost and that what ever choice they make in their expression will not change that

- i don't treat ssa as a disease or unbearable weight, though I don't pooh pooh their challenges in figuring balance in their varying religious and sexual id's

- when the policy came I talked to the one I loved the most who is lgbt to make sure she was ok and knew that I loved her. Her sister had beat me to it.

Min my sphere that is what I'm capable with the access I have. I'm not ignorant nor callus to the fact that lgbt populations have higher rates of suicide (in any population) by I also don't think this article was all that helpful in pointing this out and addressing it. It was emotionally reactive and pushy which led to emotional reactions and pushback.

 

with luv, 

bd

BlueDreams, this is exactly what we should be discussing and I love what you wrote above (I added the bold).  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

What part of the CHI teaches Latter-day Saints "to hate gay people, or to shun them, or to abandon them, or to do anything other than treat them with love and kindness and respect and compassion?"  CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Verbatim quotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

From Consiglieri-

What part of the southern segregation laws in the 1950's taught whites "to hate black people, and to shun them, and to abandon them"?

You are smarter than this, Smac.

You know a policy doesn't have to say "hate this person" or "shun this person" in order for it to have that effect.

And this is indeed the effect the new policy is having.

As well as many previous statements by Church leaders regarding persons with same sex orientation.

1

Consiglieri- Thank you for this rebuttal. It is disturbing how some on this board are glib and treating the discussion like a game by asking for silly CFR's like Smac's.

 

I will gladly stipulate that church leaders have never said "you should hate gay people". But then no one has ever claimed that (nice strawman, Smac). I wonder if Smac could stipulate that is is possible for policies and teachings to create a negative environment for some church members.

Edited January 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[busybee]

On 29/01/2016 at 4:02 AM, Calm said:

Why do you think she lied?

The figures as quoted by the representative of the Department of Health in Utah in the Tribune article indicate that she has, indeed, lied. I would put far more faith in the Dept of Health's statistics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

That is quite a lot of straw man building. I didn't know there was a "teen" audience here, or that we should be addressing them. 

You think teens are incapable of clicking on and reading a public message board on the Internet?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, busybee said:

The figures as quoted by the representative of the Department of Health in Utah in the Tribune article indicate that she has, indeed, lied. I would put far more faith in the Dept of Health's statistics. 

You do not know that Wendy Montgomery lied.  She is an active member of the church and those who know her have posted that she has integrity and would never lie about this.  As Calm and others have pointed out, maybe she was lied to by some or there are many other variables that would cause the numbers to not match up. It's not right to call her a liar.  

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by ALarson

[Damien the Leper]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You think teens are incapable of clicking on and reading a public message board on the Internet?

Of course they are.

Hi, Scott. How've you been, sir?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I. I am not going to go into details on this board, because frankly I am sickened by some of the calloused and insensitive attitudes that have been displayed in this thread.  Suffice it to say that this policy has hurt people and destroyed family relationships.

 

 

I know there is content on here that contradicts those whose agenda is to hate and/or vilify the Church over its policy. Such vindictive individuals are not going to like being so contradicted; that stands to reason.

But I've not seen anything here from defenders of the Church and its policy that could justly and reasonably be taken as reflecting "calloused and insensitive attitudes." That strikes me as overwrought nonsense.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[busybee]

On 29/01/2016 at 5:37 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

I've never faulted you for being you Nehor...it's what your good at...you make this board fun

 

shhhh...don't tell anyone but I'm your #1 fan

Hey!! You get right back in line!!

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

A coroner's inquest is simply not what you are making it out to be;  

 

The validity and reliability of certifications of suicide are decreased for several reasons. The determination of suicide requires that the death be established as both self-inflicted and intentional. For most certifiers, establishing intentionality is the most difficult criterion. A coroner or medical examiner who suspects suicide may be reluctant to impose social stigma, guilt, and loss of insurance benefits on the victim's family. Since many certifiers lack explicit criteria for assessing suicidal intent, they might search for a narrower range of evidence concerning intent. Thus, a certifier might conclude that a death was not a suicide because information proving intent was not collected. However, absence of evidence of intent is not evidence of absence of intent. Some certifiers require a suicide note to certify a death as suicide. Yet, only about one third of persons who commit suicide leave such notes. Forensic science experts also differ on the proper certification of deaths for psychotic, very young, or alcohol- or drug-intoxicated persons.

calmoriah raises a good question: Has there been a rash of supposedly accidental deaths among teens in Utah in the last two months that even approaches the number of suicide deaths -- for any reason -- that are being claimed? Does the number  even exceed the norm?

Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Of course they are.

Hi, Scott. How've you been, sir?

I've been well, all-in-all. I hope you are well as well.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

calmoriah raises a good question: Has there been a rash of supposedly accidental deaths among teens in Utah in the last two months that even approaches the number of suicide deaths -- for any reason -- that are being claimed?

Did the suicides actually take place in Utah or were the teens just from Utah (with their family still living in Utah who reported it to Montgomery)?  I'm trying to find how it was stated, and will look at it again.  Just wondering if some of the 18 -20 years age group no longer lived at home or in Utah?  

Edited to add: ,

I found how it was stated and it does state that  "Twenty-eight of these suicides occured in Utah".

 So, were there 28 deaths in the state of Utah for the age group of  between 14 and 20 years?  That's the question here, not if they were all reported as suicides.

Edited January 30, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/01/double-binds-hurt-us.html#disqus_thread

The link above details where and how the numbers were arrived at(From Natasha Helfer Parker).

In the spirit of documentation required, meaning independently verifiable, can we discuss Joseph Smith's claim that he was commanded by an angel with a drawn sword to practice polygamy? Is this a two way street?

Impressive and most of the comments were right on the money.

[Meadowchik]

The fact is that Montgomery's reporting method cannot be considered reliable. There could be so many variables that ensue through an amateur--albeit well-intentioned--process which are avoided by more generally-accepted reporting protocols and official procedure.  Just as an example, perhaps she's reporting a death that took place in one state but is attributed to Utah?  And yes, it is possible that she is being lied to, as well. 

This is why it is inconsistent to compare word-of-mouth reports to official data.  Different procedure results in different meanings.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You know a policy doesn't have to say "hate this person" or "shun this person" in order for it to have that effect.

And this is indeed the effect the new policy is having.

 

 

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Consiglieri- Thank you for this rebuttal. It is disturbing how some on this board are glib and treating the discussion like a game by asking for silly CFR's like Smac's.

 

I will gladly stipulate that church leaders have never said "you should hate gay people". But then no one has ever claimed that (nice strawman, Smac). I wonder if Smac could stipulate that is is possible for policies and teachings to create a negative environment for some church members.

So even though the Church leaders have been at pains to teach their people to show love and compassion to those with same-sex attraction -- especially family members -- you just know in your gut that they don't mean what they say.

This doesn't strike me as rational. In fact it seems characteristic of a mob mentality.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd