Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Some of you may remember that my son has come out as gay but he wants to be active LDS. He loves the idea of having a family., but the reality of that dream is not very likely. He knows that it will be difficult to find a girl who will want to marry a gay man. Every so often he will come over to our house because he needs to talk. He has had thoughts of suicide at times and has twice had counseling to help him resolve his issues. His place in the LDS community is one of the things that causes stress. It's impossible for those of us who are straight to really understand what somebody in his situation endures. I can't imagine being told that I would never be able to have sex with a woman and that I would have to marry a man to qualify for exaltation. I worry about him every day because he has been so fragile emotionally. I am not writing this post to try to get the LDS Church to change, but just to help you understand the struggle of one gay LDS man.

That must be tough. I feel it's tough being 30 and single in LDS land. What he's going through is much harder.

[california boy]

4 hours 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."

You have no idea how many youth growing up hold the fact that they are gay so deeply within themselves and do everything they can to prevent others from finding out.  Yes things have changed somewhat.  But it is still very difficult for a gay Mormon to ever tell anyone his deepest secret.  He is just not like other guys.  He doesn't quite know why.  Liking girls seems so natural to all of his friends.  Why can't he just force himself to like girls as well.  Why all the shame.  No matter how hard he tries, he never feels like he is worthy no matter what anyone else says.  When people say they love him, deep in his heart he wonders if they would still love him if they knew he was gay.

He hears church leaders tell him there is no shame in being gay, only acting upon it.  Yet perhaps the hardest thing he has to deal with is what is said in the church hallways and offhanded remarks in priesthood and other activities.  Church leaders can tell him from the pulpit a hundred times he is still worth something, but it all dissolves when in those unguarded moments, he hears another message by someone who has no idea he is gay.  One thing he is sure of.  His parents don't want a gay son.  He doesn't want to be a gay son.  It takes a long time for a Mormon boy to deal with being gay.  It can be a fragile process.  

[california boy]

3 hours 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.

I used to think I was the only gay Mormon.  Like you, I didn't know anyone else in the church that was gay.  After I came out, I met a group of guys through Evergreen.  What happened is another story.  

Then I started meeting former members at different events totally unrealted to the church.  Sometimes it just happened in unexpected and sometimes funny ways.  I remember being asked to join a gay friend for Thanksgiving dinner.  It was my first Thanksgiving since coming out.  I was greatful for the invitation since I was no longer welcome at my family's gathering.  They didn't want the younger children to find out I was gay.  So after an amazing meal, I am talking to this woman that I met there.  I made the offhanded comment about how wonderful the food was, but where was the jello?  She turned to me and said "are you Mormon?"  lol.  I guess only Mormons have jello for Thanksgiving.  We had a great visit.

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

2.  You might want to read a bit on what it means to be an LGBT ally... It's not about being against someone.

Based upon your observed performance, it appears to mean uncritically accepting dubious claims and using them as a stick with which to beat the Church.

Since the oh-so-confidential suicide numbers so triumphantly flourished by you in the OP have collapsed under the first attempt at verification -- by a usually fawningly sympathetic media organ, too -- don't you think it's high time you abandoned this particular line of attack?

 

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Deseret News:

 

Read the entirety of the article.  Although the number is still uncorroborated, that doesn't really matter.  As someone previously said, even one is too many.

The article has quite a bit of information about this subject, and it is very relevant to this thread. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Do we really know there is one?

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why is it disgusting?  Is the Church beyond culpability for its actions and policies?

It's disgusting because of the implication that church actions and policies are responsible for someone exercising their agency. Is the church responsible for s drunk driver when we encourage people not to drink? The idea that we can somehow override someones agency is absurd.

So yes it's disgusting. The only one responsible is the one who acted to cause it. Or is the church suddenly to be punished for the sins of others now? I could have sworn the same people claiming this was wrong not too long ago.

Funny how it ceases to be wrong when it can be used to attack the church. Almost as if that is the entire point.

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

To blame anyone is inappropriate at this point.  We don't know what is causing the deaths.  It would be better to find out why before slamming down solutions that may end up backfiring.

I disagree. If there are any suicides, which no real evidence has been provided, the cause of death is very obvious, it was caused by the one killed.

It seems completely disrespectful to act like their agency has no role in it. Why they made the choice doesn't change the fact that it was their choice.

I understand that it's a difficult issue.It is undeniably painful to have a loved one kill themselves. But isn't it better respect their choice instead of acting as if their are victims? They aren't forced into suicide, no matter how they feel, if they were, we would be talking murder not suicide.

Maybe if we taught agency better and convinced them there is always hope because of Christ and the miracle of forgiveness they wouldn't make that choice.

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wow so much love and compassion, unbelievable 

Yeah it's downright amazing to see people use deaths of others to hate on the church. You would think they would have compassion not to weaponize their tragedy to attack innocents.

 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

According to the tribune, there were only 10 suicides in November and December in Utah.

I have a hard time believing all of those were by homosexaul individuals. If half were LDS (Utah it s about half LDS) and half of them were homosexaul, then that makes her numbers off by an order of magnitude. Even if every one of these deaths were of LDS homosexauls, her numbers are over double the official numbers by the state.  I have a hard time believing that the state would have so high an error rate.  I would hope the moma dragons would share the data if only to explain why the state is missing these large numbers of dead people.

I agree. Which makes me think these "facts" she provided are nonsense. We don't have evidence of one suicide of lgt let alone one caused by the policy. And it's disgusting that people would lie about such a thing to attack others.

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I read it.  Here are my thoughts:

1. I echo Storm's concern about and disgust with the exploitation of suicides as a rhetorical weapon against the LDS Church.  Rockpond has done this before (see here, here, here, here and here), but he apologized.  So it's disappointing to see a return to such an unseemly and repellant tactic.

2. The "statistic," such as it is, appears to be utterly unsubstantiated.  And from a source that is publicly hostile to the LDS Church.  And it's presented with much melodramatic fanfare ("Thirty-four in 84 days is a stunning statistic. It’s horrifying. And gut-wrenching.").

3. I question the purported objectivity of the author.  She's publicly pushing an agenda adverse to the LDS Church.  So while I appreciate good faith calls to rally around our children, I have a hard time giving such a benefit of the doubt to this author.  Note how she calls for bipartisan cessation of arguing about this issue in the first few paragraphs, but by paragrpah 7 she is only berating just one side (the side supporting the Church's doctrinal teachings and position).  And she does so in a way that characterizes such people as cold and unfeeling and indifferent to teen suicide.  And then she sets herself up as a superior moral voice to correct the inbred yahoos who have the temerity to include in their analysis the Church's doctrinal teachings on this subject.  And she does so by . . . get this . . . quoting Shakespeare ("Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"), followed by a condescending offer to "clue ... in" the cretins who include revealed truths in their assessment of this issue.  She then presumes to call such persons (again, only the people who presume to disagree with her) to repentance ("Stop arguing doctrine and go live the gospel. Stop trumpeting 'righteousness' and start ministering to the wounded.") and even questions their sincerity (note the scare quotes around "righteousness" in the above sentence).

4. My sense is that this post is just another attempt to adroitly persuade the Saints to disregard the counsel from the Brethren, and to follow what the world is saying about issues pertaining to same-sex attraction.  It's a classic move:

• First, you start with a topic that *nobody* could find objectionable.  Caring for the welfare of children fits the bill.  
• Second, make broad, unquantifiable, emotion-based accusations about the topic to induce guilt in the target audience.  In the post the author takes as established, quantified, fact that "34 LDS LGBT young people between the ages of 14 and 20 have committed suicide."  She even puts this point in bold.  She then says "Here’s the newsflash: every one of us has culpability for these deaths if we are not actively, openly doing all we can to reduce them."  Yep, that works.  
• Third, introduce an innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do *something* (nice and vague) to resolve the problem.  Here, the author accuses "every one of us" of "culpability" for teen suicides unless we do *something* ("all we can") about them.  Check this one off.
• Fourth, at some point switch the nebulous, vague, innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do "something" ("all we can") with something more specific.  And I suspect that "something more specific" will, in this matter, include taking a position which will in some material respects oppose or otherwise be hostile to the LDS Church, its doctrines and/or leaders.
• Fifth, once you have established item four above, you are at liberty to set yourself up as a moral voice alternate and superior to that of the Brethren.  Because if you don't agree with the author of this blog post, or if you *dare* to support the Church in its teachings about same-sex attraction, then the foregoing steps establish, as axiomatic truth, that you hate children and want them to commit suicide.

Nice, eh?

5. The judgmentalism of the author against people who disagree with her, coupled with her feigned appeal to objectivity and her sanctimony . . . stink.  All people of good conscience find suicide to be a terrible and horrific tragedy.  The author's exploitation of such an explosive and emotional issue in an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage over people who, in good faith and with good reason, may disagree with her on issues about which there is plenty of room for principled disagreement . . . is repugnant.  We have seen this particular cudgel used over and over and over.  Heck, Rockpond, the guy who started this thread, has done it.  Scott Lloyd posted an interesting thread about "Emotional Blackmail."  Here's the link.  It's worth a read.  In it I posted the following as an example of what I think Scott had in mind:

I have also previously said this (speaking of an article by Carol Lynn Pearson, which was fairly similar in tone and tactics to the article in the OP):

More here:

More here: 

6. So yeah, all in all I am not favorably disposed to the article.  While I think it is possible to address suicide amongst LDS youth in good faith and in healthy and productive ways, this article doesn't do it.  Doesn't even come close.  It reeks of judgmentalism against the Saints.  It is a clumsy effort at guilt-tripping the Saints into disregarding the doctrines of the Church and the counsel of the Brethren.

And for disliking the article I now expect to be accused of wanting children to murder themselves.  In 3 .... 2 .... 1 ....

Thanks,

-Smac

She's wrong about the culpability. Period. She's using guilt tactics to manipulate. She's basically telling those who support the Church policy to shut up. The irony is that people with her position have caused and increased turmoil, stress, and contention around the policy, creating a harsher and more difficult atmosphere for GLBT youth.

Has Downing railed against Dehlin and his poor framing of the policy?  Has she railed against others who've framed the policy as open hostility from the Brethren? 

We cannot separate our treatment of others from our speech.  This is true enough.  GLBT issues can be very complex and working through them can be an extremely delicate process, whatever your position or convictions.  Blame-throwing does violence to the conversation which should otherwise be one done in full good faith and understanding.

I really, really am skeptical of calls for kindness that are voiced simultaneously with broad calls for silence. She's not the only grown-up in the room.

 

[Avatar4321]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

She's wrong about the culpability. Period. She's using guilt tactics to manipulate. She's basically telling those who support the Church policy to shut up. The irony is that people with her position have caused and increased turmoil, stress, and contention around the policy, creating a harsher and more difficult atmosphere for GLBT youth.

Has Downing railed against Dehlin and his poor framing of the policy?  Has she railed against others who've framed the policy as open hostility from the Brethren? 

We cannot separate our treatment of others from our speech.  This is true enough.  GLBT issues can be very complex and working through them can be an extremely delicate process, whatever your position or convictions.  Blame-throwing does violence to the conversation which should otherwise be one done in full good faith and understanding.

I really, really am skeptical of calls for kindness that are voiced simultaneously with broad calls for silence. She's not the only grown-up in the room.

 

Perhaps calls for kindness would be taken more seriously if:

1) there was evidence of unkindness

2) those calling for it showed it.

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think one can automatically point to the policy as the cause or even the church culture the policy comes from.  Suicide has a very unfortunate dynamic where there appears to be a high coorelation, perhaps even causal connection between talking about suicide even in an attempt to prevent it as well as clustering...it appears that hearing of others committing suicides may lead to removal on inhibitions leading to more suicide.

So one can't rule out all the possibility that the increase was a result of the discussion after the policy was leaked that essentially conveyed the message that it was normal for LGBT individuals to respond to hearing about the policy with suicidal thoughts (not saying they were saying it was good, but telling people they should call suicide hotlines etc sets up an expectation that suicidal thoughts are an expected response) plus if just talking about suicide ups the rate (possibly because it starts people thinking about suicides), the extreme concern about suicide that was expressed in this discussion may have had the very unfortunate and of course unintended result of increasing suicides rather than decreasing...and possibly it is the most influential trigger.

I am not saying this as a fact, but given past studies on suicide triggers it is a possibility that should be included in the discussion.  It might be much healthier in the long run to approach the issue of mental and emotional health of youth in general, including LGBT, from the viewpoint of what one can do to maximize health as opposed to using threats and examples of suicides as a way to draw attention to and to build emotional support for one's concerns.

More studies need to be done on what actually helps prevent suicides (and not just what may help those who talk about suicide but may not be at risk for it).    Until thenI wish people were a lot more careful in how it is discussed.  Articles like these might just be hurting more than they are helping.

Yes.

Teenage years are so difficult.  Bodies of adults with brains that have not fully developed, teens will take more time to consider chewing on glass to impress their friends, while adults reject it outright (as documented in Nurtureshock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman.)

I've long thought that when we're a teen, we are more likely to think in black and white, all-or-nothing paradigms. Thus this can make living with anything outside the norm more difficult at that age.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

She's wrong about the culpability. Period. She's using guilt tactics to manipulate. She's basically telling those who support the Church policy to shut up. The irony is that people with her position have caused and increased turmoil, stress, and contention around the policy, creating a harsher and more difficult atmosphere for GLBT youth.

Has Downing railed against Dehlin and his poor framing of the policy?  Has she railed against others who've framed the policy as open hostility from the Brethren? 

We cannot separate our treatment of others from our speech.  This is true enough.  GLBT issues can be very complex and working through them can be an extremely delicate process, whatever your position or convictions.  Blame-throwing does violence to the conversation which should otherwise be one done in full good faith and understanding.

I really, really am skeptical of calls for kindness that are voiced simultaneously with broad calls for silence. She's not the only grown-up in the room.

 

You've misrepresented Downing's article while simultaneously calling for a conversation that is done in "full good faith and understanding".  Looks like there is work to be done on all sides of this issue. 

[stemelbow]

Its certainly fair to say suicides are difficult.  It's very hard to understand the cause of them, often, particularly when the victims are people we know and love.  I dont' know how we solve the problem.  Medicating people to the point we often do to keep them from suicide is a band-aid approach which carries with it something quite unfortunate--some might say as unfortunate as suicide.  That suicide might be linked to altitude is something to build off of, I guess.  But man, this is hard.  If the 34 or 32 number is at all accurate and if in comparison to the past it's a significant increase, it is only wise to consider the factors.  To shut down such consideration because of loyalty to a faith is unfortunate and could really hold us as a Church and people back. 

 

Much of the response in this thread is unfortunate.  It doesn't feel like there's much room for discussion on this topic--which I grant is a difficult topic.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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.

You're right.  I should have said, the policy was supposed to help kids.  But it's possible there is some hurting of kids too.  How to gauge the weight?  I don't know we can. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Looks like there is work to be done on all sides of this issue. 

"This issue" being the prevention of LDS LGBT teen suicide where the rubber hits the road: close to home, availing the resources of the Church.

“…bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; …mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death…”

Do “not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither … that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But …teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; …to love one another, and to serve one another. And also …succor those that stand in need of your succor; …administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need…”

These two principles encapsulate what I’ve read experts saying this rather lengthy news article -- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646414/LDS-Church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-Mormon-LGBT-community.html?pg=all -- to leverage family support and religious affiliation to promote healthy attitudes and behaviors.

Learn the facts. Do not contend, feed enmity, judge, or accuse. Communicate appropriately. Use councils and behave as if in council. Help develop and sustain the Bishop’s storehouse of expertise. Exercise hope in Christ, having confidence that He keeps His promises, temporally and spiritually. Maybe we can have an OP and thread discussion that follows along those lines!

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Based upon your observed performance, it appears to mean uncritically accepting dubious claims and using them as a stick with which to beat the Church.

Since the oh-so-confidential suicide numbers so triumphantly flourished by you in the OP have collapsed under the first attempt at verification -- by a usually fawningly sympathetic media organ, too -- don't you think it's high time you abandoned this particular line of attack?

 

Posting an essay is not "uncritically accepting dubious claims" and discussing the essay is not beating the church with a stick.  Please consider that someone expressing a view that may contradict your own does not mean you've been attacked. 

Is it too wishful of me to hope that you actually read the LGBT ally link before responding?

[Danzo]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Posting an essay is not "uncritically accepting dubious claims" and discussing the essay is not beating the church with a stick.  Please consider that someone expressing a view that may contradict your own does not mean you've been attacked. 

Is it too wishful of me to hope that you actually read the LGBT ally link before responding?

We have discussed the essay and found that the thesis is based evidence that is not credible.  

When you post an essay you should expect it to be critically analyzed.

[Danzo]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is it too wishful of me to hope that you actually read the LGBT ally link before responding?

The problem is that many of us did read the link, and found the article offensive.

You can't see that comparing someone to Lady Macbeth might be a bit offensive?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Do we really know there is one?

We know that there are gay Latter-day Saints who are struggling with this issue.  The article remains relevant, even though the Mama Dragons' numbers appear to be specious.  We can and should always seek to improve our interactions with each other (though I am not particularly inclined to give credence to demands for "improvements" from people who are prejudiced against our faith and/or who are seeking to use the tragedy of suicide as a rhetorical weapon against the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Here is what I reject - the use of a child's death to further a political agenda; the use of a child's suicide to make accusations.  For those that have the gall to point a finger of accusation over the grave of any suicide is offensive.  I detest this type of action and I reject it completely.

 

I agree with you, Storm Rider.

The Church pointing the finger of accusation at the local members is offensive.

And detestable.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You're right.  I should have said, the policy was supposed to help kids.  But it's possible there is some hurting of kids too.  How to gauge the weight?  I don't know we can. 

Well, let's see.

Kids not killing themselves versus kids killing themselves.

Which do you think is causing the most harm?

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

I agree with you, Storm Rider.

The Church pointing the finger of accusation at the local members is offensive.

And detestable.

Reference please?

[Storm Rider]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Posting an essay is not "uncritically accepting dubious claims" and discussing the essay is not beating the church with a stick.  Please consider that someone expressing a view that may contradict your own does not mean you've been attacked. 

Is it too wishful of me to hope that you actually read the LGBT ally link before responding?

Rock, you chose the information.  The fact that the article's main thrust is based on lies and exaggeration is the problem.  Additionally, Montgomery made a point of only addressing the Church and its members without so much as a nod to the media outpouring over a policy that does not affect directly a single child - those make-believe children of an active in the church, gay couple that wants their child to be raised in the church and be baptized.  This distortion of the policy and all of the gnashing of teeth and wailing was nothing more than propaganda to meet a specific political agenda and nothing more. 

The fact that there are suicides of children is, I think, what you were wanting to focus; specifically LGBT teens who commit suicide.  That is a topic, when approached honestly and without an ulterior agenda, is something that each disciple of Christ can be concerned about.  Focus on that, promote that, be a source of encouragement to others to join you in your concern.  Leave the agenda at the door.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Reference please?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646414/LDS-Church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-Mormon-LGBT-community.html

Quote

Senior LDS leaders reiterated through a spokesman on Thursday that they expect church members to actively reach out to and care for young Mormon lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

I cannot believe the hypocrisy!