Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree that they are "certainly part of the message."  The graphic speaks about the tone of the piece.  The perspective of the author.  The objective of the piece.

Consider, for example, these images which are intended to vilify another religious minority:

...

These are, of course, vile anti-semitic characterizations of Jews associated with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the "Blood Libel."

Mr. Waterman's graphic fits, in both form and intent, into the same category as the above images.  Here it is again:

...

Jeanne, perhaps you could reconsider your praise of the source of this graphic.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Despite Mr. Waterman's obviously-offensive and poorly-executed attempt at humor (as evidenced by the caption underneath the photo-shopped image of Russell Nelson), Mr. Waterman's use of the image is unfortunate for several reasons.  It is unnecessarily offensive and divisive, and clearly alienates a large segment of faithful Latter-day Saints from even considering (let alone likely reading) this thoughts throughout his blogpost, especially those who's instant and resolute reaction is to eschew any criticism of LDS leadership, even when--perhaps ESPECIALLY when--many others are questioning.  Waterman undercuts the effectiveness of his message by diluting it with sensationalism, which is a shame, because there's value in looking at what he wrote...

That said, I think it's hyperbole to claim Mr. Waterman's use of the graphic "fits, in both form and intent, into the same category" as the other images "which are intended to vilify another religions minority" which Smac posted.  Additionally, knowing that Smac knows about Godwin's Law violations, I question whether or not this is a deliberate (or perhaps subconscious?) attempt to get the thread closed to avoid further discussion...

Mods, if any consideration is given that a Godwin's violation has taken place, may I respectfully request considering removing the offending portions (including any and all graphics), especially since the initial intent and spirit of this thread was to focus on how we can help kids, rather than fighting over doctrine/dogma.

And with the above all said, Waterman's blogpost and Nelson's talk are really beyond the original intended scope of this thread, as well as the scope of the blog post who's plea was to see if we could avoid dogmatic warfare and consider the needs of the children and young adults who are taking their lives because of sexual orientation and gender-identity issues.  Even recognizing many of the comments of late have been focused on the policy and fireside, instead of helping kids with suicide, perhaps they should be moved to other threads dedicated to those subjects, instead of this one...?

Can we rise to the challenge of ceasing to focus our arguments about doctrine and talk about how to help kids struggling with suicidal thoughts....?

[Daniel2]

In a separate thread, Meadowchick posted the following:

This was a wonderful Op-ed by John Gustav-Wrathall printed yesterday by the Deseret News.  The writer first describes experiences many have had as a result of the recent policy changes.:

John Gustav-Wrathall: Show an increase of love

By John Gustav-Wrathall, For the Deseret News

Published: Sun, Jan. 31, 2016, 12:00 a.m. MST

 

 

Church leaders and members can, regardless of what the policy is, make a concrete, positive difference in the lives of LGBT individuals both in and out of the LDS Church by creating a safe social environment where everyone is cherished.

In the months since the announcement of new policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to same-sex couples and their children, I have spoken to many gay and lesbian Mormons about their feelings about the new policy and the implications it will have for their lives. The choices gay and lesbian members of the church must face have never been easy. To most, the new policy makes those choices that much more difficult.

Many fear that the added stigma of apostasy for those in same-sex relationships or marriages will result in increased stigma for all LGBT people. In the months since the policy I’ve seen widespread signs of trauma and depression within the LGBT Mormon community, including documented suicides. Many feel the church just wants to get rid of LGBT people. I believe the statements of church leaders, that the policy changes were intended to clarify and uphold doctrine and not increase hatred or rejection.

That being the case, and given the church’s calling to reach out to all in love, what can ordinary members of the church do to ensure that the policy changes do not result in more harm to lesbian and gay sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends?

Before discussing what can be done, I feel it is important to understand a little more about the people who are being affected by the policy and how and why they are being affected.

In the days after the news of the policy came out, I was contacted by a retirement-age man who has been married and who has lived the law of chastity his whole life. He is gay, and staying in the closet has been a heavy burden he has borne his entire life. Even though I have never met him in person, our conversations over the phone have been a tremendous solace to him. In the days after the announcement of the new policy, he was sent into a tailspin of depression and spent several days on the verge of suicide.

Why, many would ask, would a man who has been faithful his whole life, who certainly wouldn’t face any form of discipline under the new policy, be so deeply affected merely by the announcement of the policy that he would contemplate taking his own life? The answer is that being gay is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core.

A lesbian friend of mine is legally married to her same-sex partner. Both were already excommunicated from the church even before the new policy but retain testimonies of Joseph Smith and of the Restoration and have been raising their children in the LDS Church. She once wrote me, “I have … asked God the question … of whether he'd let me follow him the best I could, and feel like he sends me love and nurtur(ing), welcoming me to come along, even while I don't understand everything about his ways. I love the church for what it is, that it builds and improves my life. I'm grateful I can raise my children to live full lives of service in the church, and to make covenants with God.”

After the policy change, I asked her if her feelings had changed. She told me, “I feel like Peter, when the Lord asked him if he would turn away along with all the others. 'Lord, to whom shall I go?'” Nevertheless, the hopes of my friend and her spouse that their children can enter into church covenants have been dashed. They are struggling with the question of whether they ought to stop attending for the sake of their children, who they fear will be stigmatized under the new policy.

I have spoken with numerous church leaders and members in the weeks since the policy change. All agree that regardless of the implications of the policy, they still have a responsibility to minister to all. How best to do that?

First of all, church members need to be aware that almost certainly every ward in the church has families with gay or lesbian members, whether they are aware of them or not. Most at risk are youths or teens who may not have come out yet to parents or church leaders. Because they are not out, negative comments or statements about homosexuality made over the pulpit or overheard in private can be internalized in an extremely damaging way and can’t be countered or contextualized by understanding adults.

It should go without saying that a young person who does find the courage to come out to parents or family should be reassured by parents, siblings and church leaders that he or she is loved unconditionally and supported in making the difficult decisions ahead of them. As the story of my gay friend illustrates, adults can also be at risk and deeply wounded by unintentionally harmful comments made by family, friends and ward members who don’t even know their friends and loved ones are gay.

Providing a context in which people can feel safe in coming out is essential. We can find a variety of ways to communicate the message, emphasized by church leaders in recent years, that we know same-sex attraction is not chosen and is not amenable to change through therapy, that same-sex attraction is not a sin and nothing to be ashamed of. When gay youths see examples of gay adults who are out of the closet and embraced and cherished by their families and their communities, it reassures them that there is a place for them as well and goes a long way toward reduction of risk of depression and suicide.

In my experience, most people in same-sex marriages are simply seeking the same thing all desire: intimacy and family. Recently I heard from a gay man in his 70s who, with his same-sex spouse, raised his children in the LDS church. All of his children are grown now and are raising families of their own in the church. One of his sons is a stake president. This is not an individual who has ever in any way wanted anything for his children but a normal upbringing in the church, with all the blessings of membership. Somewhat ironically, such individuals as this man might not be at risk of being excommunicated for apostasy, which carries real stigma within the Mormon culture, if they did not love the church enough to actively attend, thus getting on the radar of their bishops.

When I started attending church 10 years ago as an excommunicated gay man, my ward embraced me. Families and individuals in my ward have made sure I never felt alone, by sitting with me in church or inviting me to sit with them. My bishops have found informal “callings” for me, such as by giving me opportunities to help with genealogical extraction work. My husband, our son and I have had opportunities to participate in church-sponsored service projects, such as when the church organized relief efforts in North Dakota due to catastrophic flooding there years ago. My bishop has assigned me home teachers and meets regularly with me to counsel me in my efforts to learn and live the gospel.

With my permission, my bishop explained my situation to the ward council and told them that it was his hope that both I and my partner could attend church, and that they should make sure we were received hospitably. When my husband has attended church with me, he has been received by members of my ward with respect and generosity. When I have described the way my ward and local leaders have welcomed me to leaders of the church at the highest levels, their response has been that they wished every ward in the church could follow their example.

It is quite possible that my lesbian friend and her spouse will decide that no matter how kind and hospitable their ward is, it is not worth the risk of exposing their children to a situation where they would feel singled out and stigmatized. But if they do decide to stay, I hope their ward will make extra efforts to make sure that their children have friends, that they are treated like all other children in the ward, and that it is made clear that neither the Lord nor the church views them as any less deserving of all the blessings life has to offer, even if their official membership is delayed and their status cannot be the same as other children in the ward.

Most LGBT people I know do not feel safe in the LDS Church. Even when members and leaders at the local level welcome them (in the way my ward has welcomed me) church doctrine and policy feel invalidating to them at a profound and personal level. This is why so many have experienced trauma and depression in the wake of the policy.

Regardless of one’s membership status or activity in the church, regardless of one’s family configuration, one of the most concrete ways for a person to feel loved is to feel that he or she is heard and understood. When people feel the need to leave the church, their friends in the church should do everything possible to preserve friendships, with no strings attached. They should seek to learn rather than to judge. Even an awkwardly posed question, if asked with evident good intent, will signal respect and a desire to understand.

A recent study of LGBT youth in Mormon families has shown that risk of depression, suicide and self-destructive behavior was dramatically reduced by family support. In my experience as a leader within the LGBT Mormon community, I have observed that LGBT people who choose to live their faith as Latter-day Saints and who value church activity and membership tend to be those who come from families that loved them unconditionally.

The church plays a vital role in the network of support that both individuals and families need to grow into healthy, spiritually grounded adults. Church leaders and members can, regardless of what the policy is, make a concrete, positive difference in the lives of LGBT people both in and outside of the church by creating a safe social environment where everyone is cherished, by including individuals in the circle of our friendship, and by seeking to listen and understand.

The essay makes other good points and is worth remembering.

Please take a look: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865646442/John-Gustav-Wrathall-Show-an-increase-of-love.html?pg=all%3Fref%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

I believe that God is allowing us to experience these trials and challenges, so that we can better learn the eternal principles of love and faith. All of us have the opportunity to reach out in love to our brothers and sisters

Once again, Kudos to The Deseret News, for featuring an open-ed piece by the President of Affirmation (which I didn't know until I got to the end--I'm not affiliated with Affirmation, myself...).

More of THIS kind of supportive dialogue from both sides of the aisle, please!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Has someone mentioned Elder Christofferson's brother yet?  He went to his bishop, can't remember when, and asked if he could attend the ward weekly and that he needed that for his spirituality.  The bishop was fine with it and it didn't matter if he was actively gay or not.  Is this still not the same?  

I'm not sure why this would be news.  Of course "actively gay" people are welcome to Church.  They may not be able to fully participate in things like holding a calling or having a temple recommend (for the same reasons as bar people who have violated other aspects of The Law of Chastity or committed other serious transgressions and are not penitent about it), but they are welcome to attend.  Anyone who is willing to behave with decorum is welcome to our services.  Persistent disruptive or threatening/dangerous conduct are pretty much the only bars to entry.  And those have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

And I THINK I already read that someone posted a link to this article, but since it's been buried by the more recent posts arguing over Waterman and Nelson, I think it's worth re-posting again...

And again... kudos to The Deseret News for their jumping into action to tell stories and help educate, mitigate alienation and isolation, and focus on helping at-risk kids in positive and productive ways:
 

Quote

 

Do's and don'ts for helping LGBT youth

By Lois M. Collins, Deseret News

Published: Thu, Jan. 28, 2016, 4:20 p.m. MST

 

22 comments

 

The Family Acceptance Project provides advice for parents and families of youth experiencing same-sex attraction.

The Family Acceptance Project offers some best-practice advice for things parents and families can do — or avoid — to help their children who are LGBT be safe and feel loved. It’s also available in a version specifically for LDS families.

Among the do’s:

— Express your love when you learn the child is gay or transgender

— Support your child, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable

— If your child is mistreated, be your child’s advocate

— Require other family members to respect your child

— Help your faith community welcome your child

— Expect a good adult future for your child

Things to avoid include:

— Don't physically express disapproval because of LGBT identity

— Don't verbally harass

— Don't leave your child out of family activities

— Don't block access to LGBT friends or resources

— Don't blame your child if he or she is discriminated against because of LGBT identity

— Don't threaten God’s punishment

— Don't make an LGBT child hide that identity and treat it as a secret

Source: Supportive Families, Healthy Children, San Francisco State University

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, salvation and exaltation remain open to all of God's children, but that salvation and exaltation remains dependent upon the fulfilling our part of the commitment.  If we obey his commandments, consistently strive to repent and maintain godly sorrow for our sins, then God's mercy engaged through the atonement of Christ assures of exaltation.  A person who is not repentant, has no sorrow for their sins, and ignores God's commandments have no promise.  

We are not born wrong, but we are born mortal with a purpose to learn to meld the spiritual and the physical worlds.  We must learn to exercise our physical passions within the parameters that God has set.  That is the challenge for everyone without exceptions.  

I am pretty good at finding fault with others whether they are a prophet or not.  The fact is that everyone is human and we can disagree with the actions of others with great ease.  If I were prophet I know I would change some things, but I recognize that is not my place, I am not the prophet, and I will let God work out the kinks as he continues to work through mortal individuals to accomplish his work.  He works with those within and outside the Church without reserve.  Those that choose to follow after Christ and his Father will be made one.  We have a ways to go.

Nice post.  Thanks. I know you wrote it with a very sincere and heartfelt effort.  And I appreciate that.  I hope you will accept that my response is also written with an honest heart.  I realize that salvation and exaltation requires obedience to his commandments.  But even if I lived a perfect life here on earth, I would still not be able to spend eternity with the person I love.  Evidently I will be assigned a woman.  This sounds so similar to the policy that church leaders advised me when I was just 20.  Find a girl, get married, and everything will be hunky dory.  That didn't work out so well.  I am sure you can understand why that same advice for the next life isn't being welcomed.  I fell for it once, trusting in the brethren.  Hard to fall for it a second time.  This time around, I am trusting God more than I am those that promised me something that never happened when I was 20.  I so regret listening to them then.  So much heartache has come out of that blind faith in the brethren.  

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the policy is meant to clearly identify boundaries.  So that those who are agitating for a recognition of gay marriage and an acceptable of living an active gay lifestyle understand that is not a path the Church will pursue.  

One of the things that Jesus taught most often is that his disciples cry repentance to the people; this was also often in conjunction with the declaration to "repent and be baptized".  

If we do not feel guilt or that we have committed sin or that we are engaged in wrong-doing, then we cannot repent.  There are many reasons that may not to feel guilt or remorse ranging from we haven't committed a particular to sin to we have sinned willingly so much that we no longer sense the the Spirit.  We, individually, are the only ones that must work out our relationship with God and know when and where we fall short and are in need of his forgiveness and mercy.  

Seek the Spirit and follow Him - that is what we all must do and learn to do better every day. 

 

I am a little disappointed that you think I do not seek the Spirit.  Not sure how you got that impression other than perhaps that is the only way you can square in your mind, the peace I feel with God.  The odd thing for me is that I felt guilty and immoral having sex with my wife.  It just seemed wrong.  At first, I believed in the promise given to me by church leaders that those feelings would change, and somehow my nature would be "in line" with what God wanted.  But it never happened.  This feeling of doing something immoral was one of the major reasons why I knew that my marriage would not turn out the way I had so counted on and was promised.  

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This is why I think that probably nobody was more surprised about this revelation than President Monson.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows.

Even if Tacenda's run-on sentence were a bit easier to parse, I'm not sure how it supports the conclusion that President Monson was surprised.

And at what point did you think he was surprised?

Incidentally, you've made it into my sig. Aren't you pleased?

 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

While I agree (since we don't believe in infallibility) that there is a possibility of error, given that there was an agreement from all 15 to accept it as revelation from Pres. Monson, it would seem to me on the higher end of improbable and that I should and will sustain the policy until I have received a personal confirmation that it is wrong.  I am of course basing this on my belief that these men have been chosen in part because of their receptiveness to the Spirit and their training over the years has developed this gift to significant levels.  I would be less likely to see it that way if it was simply 15 men pulled off of the street or even 15 random men from temple recommend lists.  Now if I knew each of those 15 men well and had seen evidence of the Spirit acting in their lives, I might be willing to place their judgment on par with the apostles, but that is irrelevant to the discussion really.

How do you know all 15 accept it as revelation?  Only Pres. Nelson has called it that.  We've heard from four others regarding the policy (including Pres. Monson) and they did not identify it as a revelation.  

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

How do you know all 15 accept it as revelation?  Only Pres. Nelson has called it that.  We've heard from four others regarding the policy (including Pres. Monson) and they did not identify it as a revelation.  

And how many of them said it wasn't?

 

[Daniel2]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Storm Rider said:

Daniel,

You are painting a picture to meet your perspective and not the reality.  There remains a high concern about those who choose suicide regardless of the reason. What is so offensive is to use teen suicide to further a political agenda.  That is what is abhorrent to me.  

Several of us have stated clearly the opinion similar to, " Concern for youth and suicide is not a gender issue; it is not a race issue; it is a personal, individual issue.  LDS parents, members, leaders have, as a group, never stopped being concerned about the issue."  

All you have done is pander to the agenda and smugly, self-righteously agree with Rock.  

When you have a member that has committed suicide then you come and talk to me about this stupid agenda being bandied about.  IF, that is a big, giant if, the real intent is to inspire members to care more deeply about teen suicide and to become more involved there is a totally different approach to inspiring others.  What this unfortunate blog entry has done is despicable and I again state, I reject it in total for what it is; a piece of propaganda to further a specific agenda.  

Hi, Storm,

My apologies for the long delay in responding.  I am just now getting around to posting after a few days offline.

It was not my intent previously to "paint a picture to meet [my] perspective and not reality."  In fact, I attempted to be very careful to use words like "it seems to me that..." and "it feels like..."  My post was not meant to be a declaration of an absolute external reality.  It wasn't even meant to be a smug or self-righteous pat on Rockpond's back... I wasn't feeling smug or self righteous,  I was feeling pain and anguish over the loss of kids, because I used to be one of those kids.  My post was an expression of surprise, pain, shock, and disappointment that the very things the woman who wrote the original blog-post was hoping to avoid------backbiting and blame about doctrine or dogma-----seemed to be getting in the way of helping GLBT LDS teens and young adults.  I GET that there are times and places to argue over how the policy came about, whether it represented the best course of action for the church, defend against accusations that The Brethren don't really care about kids, etc.  But the pleas in the initial article intended to see if a conversation could be had beyond that... and unfortunately, in the first few pages of this thread, the answer SEEMED to me to be that the vast majority of comments weren't focused on helping kids, they were focused on defending the church.

"When I have a member that has committed suicide then I should come talk to you about how this stupid agenda is being bandied about...?"  Oh, Storm........... unfortunately, I don't have to wait.  I have already known several who have, including a man I once loved who couldn't overcome the immense pain and conflict he felt between himself, his sexual orientation, his Faith, but especially because of the rejection he felt from his very strict, very distant, and very, very, very devout LDS Temple-President father, who considered him "a waste of everything I ever did for you."   I cried and grieved for him as I never had for anyone or anything for a long time.  For a long time, I thought what I'd felt for him was love, and feared he would be the only man I ever would.

I have contrasted Steve's father's self-righteous treatment of his son--which, according to Steve, played a large part in all of the conflict and worthlessness Steve was feeling that culminated in Steve's senseless taking of his life, with my own amazing parents.  As I have attempted to clarify in some of my comments to other posters, I know that LDS parents DO care about their children.  And I have repeatedly said time and time again, that I know from personal experience that Latter-day Saints are some of the kindest, most compassionate people and parents on the planet---------I was RAISED by the two BEST ones ever.  And as I've said elsewhere, I've spent the last month grieving the loss of my father, and was reflecting a lot on his love, compassion, and care for me.

I used to be a self-loathing, isolated, scared LDS kid.  Before the internet.  Before Will and Grace.  Before Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.  Before any gays were in media.  During the 80's and 90's, EVERYTHING I knew--EVERYING I heard of being gay meant dying of AIDS or drug overdoses.  Losing the chance to have a family.  Never getting married.  Being eternally damned.  The ONLY thing I could find about homosexuality was Spencer Kimball's chapter on "the gross, detestable, and utterly SELFISH crime against nature" in the guilt-inducing "Miracle of Forgiveness," and Elder Packer's "To the One," which, if not advocated, at least exonerated LDS boys and men from hitting any man who dared to "come on" to them.  I was UTTERLY committed to the gospel.  I would spend hours reading my scriptures and kneeling on my  hardwood bedroom floor praying to keep my mind free of the innocent attractions that I somehow couldn't keep from flitting into my head whenever I'd see a cute guy at school or a runner with his shirt off or the other boys in the locker rooms undressing before football practice (ironically, the camaraderie from bonding with other guys by playing sports was supposed to 'cure' me of unmanly attractions, but it was also a double-bind that exposed me to serious visual temptations).  I used to go home every day after school, after seminary, after church and lock myself in the bathroom and cry tears of anger and hatred and self-loathing.  I would look myself straight in the eyes and berate myself, tell myself how vile and gross and disgusting and evil and satanic and depraved I was--especially when I stumbled and fell by ending up masturbating to the despicable images in my head of disrobed men-----I'd never even SEEN porn of any sort, so ironically, in my innocence, I didn't even know what two men would do, sexually... I'd never been involved with any of them).... See, I thought that if I continually tried to convince myself, someday those thoughts would leave me alone.  They never did.  Not even after a faithful mission, and faithfully following two bishop's counsel, upon confession of my SSA, to just get married and never tell my fiancé/wife of my feelings, since I'd confessed them already.  Not after three kids... and not after 8 years of a nightmare of an emotionally-abusive marriage to a wrathful and belittling woman with severe Borderline Personality and Narcissistic Personality Disorders.  Eventually, I got suicidal, myself.  I planned three attempts.  And ironically, I justified my suicide because of twisting well-intentioned, but hard-to-process church teachings (given my own tormented and admittedly unhealthy emotional state) into righteous justification which not only allowed for suicide--it practically CALLED for it.  Didn't Christ say that if thine eye or ear offends us, we were to cut it off rather than allow it to lead us down to Hell...?  Didn't the church teach that no one is BORN gay--our spirits are straight, and any temptations were due to the imperfections of the flesh?  Didn't countless prophets instill the desire that it's better for missionaries to return home in a pinewood box rather than return home dishonored, or that we should fight TO THE DEATH to preserve the ONE thing that is MOST precious above ALL others, that which can never be redeemed--our VIRTUE?  Didn't the Lord command Nephi that it's better that one man perish--that Nephi KILL him--rather than dwindling in wickedness and unbelief...? If it wasn't my eyes or ears--if it was my WHOLE body that was responsible for the carnal and lustful thoughts--didn't that mean, if I LIKENED the SCRIPTURES unto MYSELF--that it was preferable to cut my spirit off from my body--kill the physical that was offensive to my 'straight spirit' and to God--rather than dwindle in wickedness, unbelief, and be led down to Hell...?

No, Storm... I don't need "to wait until I have a member that has committed suicide."  I have known them, and I have been all too close myself.  And I am grateful for a loving family, a patient therapist, and supportive friends that help me process all the emotions and baggage that led me to that dark place.  It's been over 10 years, and life has never been better or happier or more peaceful.  I am blessed and grateful for finding a way out of that dark maze.  And I hope others find support to do so, no matter where their life leads on the exit therefrom.

And the thing that's been on my mind most...?  I have a nephew that just turned 18.  Everyone in the family knows he's gay.  But as I'm the only family member to have left the church, their fears center on the idea that having seen my example, he will choose to follow my path.  My fears are that he will see my path and won't---that he'll follow Steve's.  I wonder if he goes home every night and curses himself, just like I did.  I wish I could reach out to him and help him know of his own worth and goodness.  But to preserve family peace, I haven't spoken with him.  The last thing I would want is for him to be kicked out of his home and have his life disrupted because of me.  But I do fear for him every day, especially because of the rhetoric that's surrounded this issue.

There is another path, of course... he could choose to remain celibate and active in the church.  All I care about is that he chooses LIFE.  And pursues happiness however he sees fit.

This has gotten long and somewhat disjointed...  And, frankly, a lot of what I don't doubt some will call 'a rant' is simultaneously both painful to relive but cathartic just to look back at what can be overcome when imagine some of the objections and characterizations by some posters... ).  It's meant to give context about why I care, and perhaps why I reacted negatively in the thread when people SEEMED to me to be more focused on fighting over who's right instead of fighting to keep our kids alive.  In the end, no other person or organization or parent or team or church can be held solely accountable for any individuals' suicide--it's obviously a complex and multifaceted issue.  If there is ANYTHING we, ourselves, can do to find a way to alleviate others' burdens or help them in any possible way, I believe that's a discussion worth having, because I believe life for these, our kids, should be the most important.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

So on this, you deny a child baptism and the gift of having the Holy Ghost in their lives?  Also, why not do this for the children of all apostates?  Why only for children who are in homes where a parent is in a SSM (and polygamists)?

Because in order for the parents to repent the home would have to be broken up. In those other situations this is not so. This could lead to lawsuits and interference with CPS among the other ramifications for the child. Also, it's only until they are 18 and legally responsible for themselves.

Edited February 2, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Storm,

My apologies for the long delay in responding.  I am just now getting around to posting after a few days offline.

It was not my intent previously to "paint a picture to meet [my] perspective and not reality."  In fact, I attempted to be very careful to use words like "it seems to me that..." and "it feels like..."  My post was not meant to be a declaration of an absolute external reality.  It wasn't even meant to be a smug or self-righteous pat on Rockpond's back... I wasn't feeling smug or self righteous,  I was feeling pain and anguish over the loss of kids, because I used to be one of those kids.  My post was an expression of surprise, pain, shock, and disappointment that the very things the woman who wrote the original blog-post was hoping to avoid------backbiting and blame about doctrine or dogma-----seemed to be getting in the way of helping GLBT LDS teens and young adults.  I GET that there are times and places to argue over how the policy came about, whether it represented the best course of action for the church, defend against accusations that The Brethren don't really care about kids, etc.  But the pleas in the initial article intended to see if a conversation could be had beyond that... and unfortunately, in the first few pages of this thread, the answer SEEMED to me to be that the vast majority of comments weren't focused on helping kids, they were focused on defending the church.

"When I have a member that has committed suicide then I should come talk to you about how this stupid agenda is being bandied about...?"  Oh, Storm........... unfortunately, I don't have to wait.  I have already known several who have, including a man I once loved who couldn't overcome the immense pain and conflict he felt between himself, his sexual orientation, his Faith, but especially because of the rejection he felt from his very strict, very distant, and very, very, very devout LDS Temple-President father, who considered him "a waste of everything I ever did for you."   I cried and grieved for him as I never had for anyone or anything for a long time.  For a long time, I thought what I'd felt for him was love, and feared he would be the only man I ever would.

I have contrasted Steve's father's self-righteous treatment of his son--which, according to Steve, played a large part in all of the conflict and worthlessness Steve was feeling that culminated in Steve's senseless taking of his life, with my own amazing parents.  As I have attempted to clarify in some of my comments to other posters, I know that LDS parents DO care about their children.  And I have repeatedly said time and time again, that I know from personal experience that Latter-day Saints are some of the kindest, most compassionate people and parents on the planet---------I was RAISED by the two BEST ones ever.  And as I've said elsewhere, I've spent the last month grieving the loss of my father, and was reflecting a lot on his love, compassion, and care for me.

I used to be a self-loathing, isolated, scared LDS kid.  Before the internet.  Before Will and Grace.  Before Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.  Before any gays were in media.  During the 80's and 90's, EVERYTHING I knew--EVERYING I heard of being gay meant dying of AIDS or drug overdoses.  Losing the chance to have a family.  Never getting married.  Being eternally damned.  The ONLY thing I could find about homosexuality was Spencer Kimball's chapter on "the gross, detestable, and utterly SELFISH crime against nature," and Elder Packer's "Two the One," which, if not advocated, at least exonerated LDS boys and men from hitting any man who dared to "come on" to them.  I was UTTERLY committed to the gospel.  I would spend hours reading my scriptures and kneeling on my  hardwood bedroom floor praying to keep my mind free of the innocent attractions that I somehow couldn't keep from flitting into my head whenever I'd see a cute guy at school or a runner with his shirt off or the other boys in the locker rooms undressing before football practice (ironically, the camaraderie from bonding with other guys by playing sports was supposed to 'cure' me of unmanly attractions, but it was also a double-bind that exposed me to serious visual temptations).  I used to go home every day after school, after seminary, after church and lock myself in the bathroom and cry tears of anger and hatred and self-loathing.  I would look myself straight in the eyes and berate myself, tell myself how vile and gross and disgusting and evil and satanic and depraved I was--especially when I stumbled and fell by ending up masturbating to the despicable images in my head of disrobed men-----I'd never even SEEN porn of any sort, so ironically, in my innocence, I didn't even know what two men would do, sexually... I'd never been involved with any of them).... See, I thought that if I continually tried to convince myself, someday those thoughts would leave me alone.  They never did.  Not even after a faithful mission, and faithfully following two bishop's counsel, upon confession of my SSA, to just get married and never tell my fiancé/wife of my feelings, since I'd confessed them already.  Not after three kids... and not after 8 years of a nightmare of an emotionally-abusive marriage to a wrathful and belittling woman with severe Borderline Personality and Narcissistic Personality Disorders.  Eventually, I got suicidal, myself.  I planned three attempts.  And ironically, I justified my suicide because of twisting well-intentioned, but hard-to-process church teachings (given my own tormented and admittedly unhealthy emotional state) into righteous justification which not only allowed for suicide--it practically CALLED for it.  Didn't Christ say that if thine eye or ear offends us, we were to cut it off rather than allow it to lead us down to Hell...?  Didn't the church teach that no one is BORN gay--our spirits are straight, and any temptations were due to the imperfections of the flesh?  Didn't countless prophets instill the desire that it's better for missionaries to return home in a pinewood box rather than return home dishonored, or that we should fight TO THE DEATH to preserve the ONE thing that is MOST precious above ALL others, that which can never be redeemed--our VIRTUE?  Didn't the Lord command Nephi that it's better that one man perish--that Nephi KILL him--rather than dwindling in wickedness and unbelief...? If it wasn't my eyes or ears--if it was my WHOLE body that was responsible for the carnal and lustful thoughts--didn't that mean, if I LIKENED the SCRIPTURES unto MYSELF--that it was preferable to cut my spirit off from my body--kill the physical that was offensive to my 'straight spirit' and to God--rather than dwindle in wickedness, unbelief, and be led down to Hell...?

No, Storm... I don't need "to wait until I have a member that has committed suicide."  I have known them, and I have been all too close myself.  And I am grateful for a loving family, a patient therapist, and supportive friends that help me process all the emotions and baggage that led me to that dark place.  It's been over 10 years, and life has never been better or happier or more peaceful.  I am blessed and grateful for finding a way out of that dark maze.  And I hope others find support to do so, no matter where their life leads on the exit therefrom.

And the thing that's been on my mind most...?  I have a nephew that just turned 18.  Everyone in the family knows he's gay.  But as I'm the only family member to have left the church, their fears center on the idea that having seen my example, he will choose to follow my path.  My fears are that he will see my path and won't---that he'll follow Steve's.  I wonder if he goes home every night and curses himself, just like I did.  I wish I could reach out to him and help him know of his own worth and goodness.  But to preserve family peace, I haven't spoken with him.  The last thing I would want is for him to be kicked out of his home and have his life disrupted because of me.  But I do fear for him every day, especially because of the rhetoric that's surrounded this issue.

There is another path, of course... he could choose to remain celibate and active in the church.  All I care about is that he chooses LIFE.  And pursues happiness however he sees fit.

This has gotten long.  And, frankly, a lot of it is cathartic just to express.  It's not meant to demean or disparage or claim superiority or as an emotional power play... (I can already hear some of the accusations from some posters... ha).  It's meant to give context about why I care, and perhaps why I reacted negatively in the thread when people SEEMED to me to be more focused on fighting over who's right instead of fighting to keep our kids alive.  In the end, I believe life for these kids should be the most important.

Daniel 2, I wish this could go viral.  You've done a great service in sharing these very personal feelings of yours...maybe even saved a life.    

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And how many of them said it wasn't?

 

I consider the Prophet's lack of calling it a revelation is his letter to the church enough of an indication that it wasn't.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I consider the Prophet's lack of calling it a revelation is his letter to the church enough of an indication that it wasn't.  

What is your best guess for how Pres. Monson should/will rein in a renegade president of the 12 who is willing to spread this kind of untruth about him?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

And the thing that's been on my mind most...?  I have a nephew that just turned 18.  Everyone in the family knows he's gay.  But as I'm the only family member to have left the church, their fears center on the idea that having seen my example, he will choose to follow my path.  My fears are that he will see my path and won't---that he'll follow Steve's.  I wonder if he goes home every night and curses himself, just like I did.  I wish I could reach out to him and help him know of his own worth and goodness.  But to preserve family peace, I haven't spoken with him.  The last thing I would want is for him to be kicked out of his home and have his life disrupted because of me.  But I do fear for him every day, especially because of the rhetoric that's surrounded this issue.

Rhetoric like yours?

including the nasty judgmental finger-pointing towards people who are unavailable to defend themselves?

Incidentally, are you aware of the research that Smac97 has cited more than once in this thread, which seems to show that people in your nephew's situation are more at risk if they leave the Church than if they remain?

 

[Calm]

Nevo is the one who should get credit for that reference, Russell.

[Russell C McGregor]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I consider the Prophet's lack of calling it a revelation is his letter to the church enough of an indication that it wasn't.  

The argument from silence is a lot less than compelling. Sorry.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What is your best guess for how Pres. Monson should/will rein in a renegade president of the 12 who is willing to spread this kind of untruth about him?

A very good question, and deserving of a response.

Are we seeing the re-emergence here of another Dr. Scratch style conspiracy theory about "factions" among the Quorum of the Twelve? I thought Michael Otterson sufficiently debunked such nonsense at the last FairMormon Conference.

So the pattern seems clear: If one of the Brethren says or does something you don't like, just claim with no substantiation whatsoever that not all of the rest agree with him because, you see, there are nasty "factions" among the Twelve.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows.

Even if Tacenda's run-on sentence were a bit easier to parse, I'm not sure how it supports the conclusion that President Monson was surprised.

And at what point did you think he was surprised?

Incidentally, you've made it into my sig. Aren't you pleased?

 

Love your new sig, Russell.

"I have no use for anything you say because you are nothing but a cheap coward who makes ad hominem attacks."
For the uninformed, here is an Internet definition of ad hominem:

Quote

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

So on this, you deny a child baptism and the gift of having the Holy Ghost in their lives?  Also, why not do this for the children of all apostates?  Why only for children who are in homes where a parent is in a SSM (and polygamists)?

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the express permission of their parents. Are you as indignant about children under such circumstances being "denied" baptism becuase the Church won't defy the wishes of the parents? If not, why not?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

..

Quote

 

.. and Elder Packer's "Two the One," which, if not advocated, at least exonerated LDS boys and men from hitting any man who dared to "come on" to them.

 

 

 

 

The correct title of this talk is "To Young Men Only."

It was given at priesthood session of general conference. A student at BYU, I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when the talk was delivered, and I remember it very well. As I recall, it was in the first October after I returned from my mission, so that would have been 1976.  It was not published in the Ensign magazine general conference edition, due to its sensitive nature, but was published in pamphlet form to be distributed judiciously by leaders in stakes and wards "to young men only."

I still have a copy of the pamphlet, and I have read it many times. It has been unjustly characterized of late by critics on the Internet in references such as the above.

The clear impression I got when I first heard the talk and that I have continued to get each time I have read it is that Elder Packer was referring to an incident in which a missionary defended himself against attempted sexual assault.

Leading in to the incident he recounted, Elder Packer said:

 

Quote

 

It was intended that we use this power only with our partner in marriage. I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

 

"Vigorously resist" -- with bodily force, if that's the only course of action available to you. That was the message Elder Packer intended to convey on that occasion and to illustrate with the incident he recounted.

He followed up with:

Quote

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

I say: Good for the young man who so defended himself, and good for Elder Packer for refusing to rule out such a thing as a possible course of action. It's the same advice I would give to my son or daughter against the time when either might be confronted with such a peril.

 

Edited to add:

The talk is still accessible on the Church website. So, despite all the derision that has been heaped on this talk -- and on the late President Packer for having given it -- it is clear the Church has not disavowed it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The correct title of this talk is "To Young Men Only."

It was given at priesthood session of general conference. A student at BYU, I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when the talk was delivered, and I remember it very well. As I recall, it was in the first October after I returned from my mission, so that would have been 1976.  It was not published in the Ensign magazine general conference edition, due to its sensitive nature, but was published in pamphlet form to be distributed judiciously by leaders in stakes and wards "to young men only."

I still have a copy of the pamphlet, and I have read it many times. It has been unjustly characterized of late by critics on the Internet in references such as the above.

The clear impression I got when I first heard the talk and that I have continued to get each time I have read it is that Elder Packer was referring to an incident in which a missionary defended himself against attempted sexual assault.

Leading in to the incident he recounted, Elder Packer said:

 

"Vigorously resist" -- with bodily force, if that's the only course of action available to you. That was the message Elder Packer intended to convey on that occasion and to illustrate with the incident he recounted.

He followed up with:

I say: Good for the young man who so defended himself, and good for Elder Packer for refusing to rule out such a thing as a possible course of action. It's the same advice I would give to my son or daughter against the time when either might be confronted with such a peril.

 

Edited to add:

The talk is still accessible on the Church website. So, despite all the derision that has been heaped on this talk -- and on the late President Packer for having given it -- it is clear the Church has not disavowed it.

Is it possible that those who object to this talk, object to it because it doesn't declare "open season" on LDS young men?

Do you get the impression that there are some who wouldn't be happy with any counsel less -- accommodating

Because that's the impression I get.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The correct title of this talk is "To Young Men Only."

It was given at priesthood session of general conference. A student at BYU, I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when the talk was delivered, and I remember it very well. As I recall, it was in the first October after I returned from my mission, so that would have been 1976.  It was not published in the Ensign magazine general conference edition, due to its sensitive nature, but was published in pamphlet form to be distributed judiciously by leaders in stakes and wards "to young men only."

I still have a copy of the pamphlet, and I have read it many times. It has been unjustly characterized of late by critics on the Internet in references such as the above.

The clear impression I got when I first heard the talk and that I have continued to get each time I have read it is that Elder Packer was referring to an incident in which a missionary defended himself against attempted sexual assault.

Leading in to the incident he recounted, Elder Packer said:

 

"Vigorously resist" -- with bodily force, if that's the only course of action available to you. That was the message Elder Packer intended to convey on that occasion and to illustrate with the incident he recounted.

He followed up with:

I say: Good for the young man who so defended himself, and good for Elder Packer for refusing to rule out such a thing as a possible course of action. It's the same advice I would give to my son or daughter against the time when either might be confronted with such a peril.

 

Edited to add:

The talk is still accessible on the Church website. So, despite all the derision that has been heaped on this talk -- and on the late President Packer for having given it -- it is clear the Church has not disavowed it.

Why are you quoting me?  I didn't say this.  

But will say, that I doubt very much there have been incidents of a gay missionary attacking someone, at the most they might have felt the urge to kiss someone or hold their hand.  But no way is this to be dealt with by violence, that's so old school and should be dealt with more Christlike behavior.  In fact that is a bully way, and just shows the insecurity of that male with his own sexuality.  

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The correct title of this talk is "To Young Men Only."

It was given at priesthood session of general conference. A student at BYU, I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when the talk was delivered, and I remember it very well. As I recall, it was in the first October after I returned from my mission, so that would have been 1976.  It was not published in the Ensign magazine general conference edition, due to its sensitive nature, but was published in pamphlet form to be distributed judiciously by leaders in stakes and wards "to young men only."

I still have a copy of the pamphlet, and I have read it many times. It has been unjustly characterized of late by critics on the Internet in references such as the above.

The clear impression I got when I first heard the talk and that I have continued to get each time I have read it is that Elder Packer was referring to an incident in which a missionary defended himself against attempted sexual assault.

Leading in to the incident he recounted, Elder Packer said:

 

"Vigorously resist" -- with bodily force, if that's the only course of action available to you. That was the message Elder Packer intended to convey on that occasion and to illustrate with the incident he recounted.

He followed up with:

I say: Good for the young man who so defended himself, and good for Elder Packer for refusing to rule out such a thing as a possible course of action. It's the same advice I would give to my son or daughter against the time when either might be confronted with such a peril.

 

Edited to add:

The talk is still accessible on the Church website. So, despite all the derision that has been heaped on this talk -- and on the late President Packer for having given it -- it is clear the Church has not disavowed it.

Why are you quoting me Scott?  

But will say, that I doubt very much there have been many incidents of a gay missionary attacking someone, at the most they might have felt the urge to kiss someone or hold their hand.  

But no way is this to be dealt with by violence, that's so old school and should be dealt with in a more Christlike way.  In fact, that is a bully way, and just shows the insecurity of that male with his own sexuality, IMO. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

The missionary stated he had hit his companion and gotten the dismissive 'is that all' before he gave any details on why he resorted to hitting him.  There is, from what I have heard confrontation that can lead to annoyance that can lead to hitting...something that can vary from light teasing to deadly violence.  Perhaps because he knew if the missionary had injured his companion, he would have heard of it already, he knew it was low on the level of violence.  

If I guy tried to kiss me or hold my hand when i didn't want him to, are you suggesting I have no right to resist in a physical manner if I feel threatened by such and am concerned that if I do not make my distaste vigourously known, he may move to assualt or molestation?

I have unfortunately heard of incidents of what would be called sexual molestation if a man did it to a woman without consent.  I think the same label should apply even if both are male.  And if there is any indication the individual is intending to continue after verbally rejecting or pushing them away, stronger physical measures are acceptable...whether a knee or a slap from a woman or a significant punch that throws the guy off balance from a man.

Have you ever been in a position where you feel threatened by another physically?