Daniel2 Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) On 07/08/2016 at 10:41 AM, Danzo said: If anyone out there is actually worried about suicide instead of just using someones death as a bludgeon to beat the church with... This bolded verbiage belies your bias. What others see as genuine inquiry and an appeal for additional compassionate outreach by church leaders to fill a void they see among their children's ongoing depression and suicidal tendancies, you characterize as "a bludgeon to beat the church with." Reasonable minds can attempt to find a middle ground where it's not a blame game so much as a sincere effort to try to help teens feel love and support and eschew suicidal behaviors, and where we don't have to deny data from Health Department reports and actions by public Health Officials, employ the most hyperbolic phrases that conjure up brutal images (i.e. "bludgeon the church"), and recoil to the most extreme positions in order to defend what we imagine must be defended, while doing nothing to solve for the current problem of rising teen suicides. Edited July 13, 2016 by Daniel2 3
Daniel2 Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) On 07/07/2016 at 4:02 PM, kllindley said: Maybe you do. But not everyone. Petitions are signed to prevent a 1 hour special about marriages like mine, because it might lead someone to think what I have done is possible. The original bill in California also restricted adult therapy, so the desire is there to extend the restrictions to adults. What if I had sought therapy when I was 17? It's terrible for a therapist to tell a vulnerable teen that he can live a traditional lifestyle, but that same teen wouldn't be vulnerable to being told that the only way for him to be happy is to leave his oppressive religion and have sex with men? And you can believe whatever you like about the claims in my original post. The reality, unless you can support your characterization of them as inaccurate, is that freedom to practice religion is being infringed. When a resource that would enable a young man to live his religion despite countervailing social norms is a target of legal restrictions, lawsuits, petitions to the FTC to silence dissenting opinions, that is a restriction of freedom. Petitions may be signed about preventing a one hour special about mixed-orientation marriages (an action which is perfectly in-keeping with freedom of speech), but at least marriages like yours have NEVER been legally, legislatively, or electorally under-attack. The ability to enter into marriages like yours have never been recognized as a constitutional right, and then rescinded by popular vote. Marriages like yours have never been illegal, or unrecognized, and they continue to be legal and fully-recognized by both government and in the civic square. Your choice to marry as you wish remains fully intact, and always will, because allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't diminsh your ability to marry someone of the opposite-sex. In those regards, you may count yourself lucky/blessed. There are many desires to extend restrictions to all types of people... but the law weighs, measures, filters, and sifts the constitutionality of all-such desires, if they are enacted into law, and none that pass the constitutional muster can stand. That is ultimately exactly what happened with marital prohibitions for same-sex couples. 17-year-olds today who live in the growing number of states that restrict therapists from attempting reparative or conversion therapy would (and should) be counseled about the realistic possibilities and unrealistic outcomes of conversion and reparative therapy. No. I emphatically and unequivocally disagree and reject the notion that the restriction of therapists, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists today from providing reparative or conversion therapy to underage minors is in ANY sense an infringement on anyone's "freedom to practice religion," as you claim. No. I emphatically and unequivocally disagree and reject the notion that "when a resource that would enable a young man to live [and, I would add... exponentially increase 'dying for'] his religion despite countervailing norms is a target of legal restrictions, lawsuits, petitions to silence dissenting opinions," then that MUST be "a restriction of freedom." To begin, what you refer to as a "young man" here is misleading, because as far as this issue is concerned, this law applies to legally-held "underage minors"--not "men" or "women." Moving on: the practice of medicine, in all it's forms (including mental health) is highly regulated in this country. Health care professionals are held to the highest of standards based on the best available medical knowledge. Health care professionals cannot misrepresent the outcomes of their treatments, and are held accountable by facing medical malpractice suits, restrictions of licenses, etc. when they fail to live up to the rigorous medical standards based on the best and most advanced medical findings available. Additionally, parents do not have an unfettered right to impose their religious ideologies on their children, especially when said religious ideologies have been found to directly and immediately endanger the wellbeing, health, and life of their children. Governmental agencies are empowered to remove children from parents who are found to be neglectful or abusive towards their children. Parents who espouse the Jehovah's Witness Faith cannot refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children in the name of "freedom to practice religion being infringed," despite such being a refusal to "enable a young man to live his religion despite countervailing social norms," and that is NOT a legally-unauthorized "restriction of freedom." Parents who espouse the Jehovah's Witness Faith cannot refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children in the name of "freedom to practice religion being infringed," despite such being a refusal to "enable a young man to live his religion despite countervailing social norms," and that is NOT a legally-unauthorized "restriction of freedom." The same is true of parents who subscribe to religious prohibitions against snake antidote, sustenance, or other medical treatments. Religion can NOT be used as an excuse to impose parents' religious views regarding the application of medical treatments on their underage children when the wellbeing and lives of the children are at risk, and especially when the denial of such would be classified as neglect or abuse. Regarding the data collected surrounding the dangers of conversion therapy or reparative therapy, there is a wide and well-documented, medically-based consensus among virtually all major medical professional organizations and licensing bodies concerning the dangers of such attempts, particularly to underage minors, and the virtual impossibility of changing sexual orientation. Claiming that one's religious freedom is being denied because modern medicine refuses to bend fact-based science to one's religious beliefs is NOT a true denial of what is legally-recognized as the practice of freedom of religion. In sum, Kllindley, while you can believe whatever you like about my comments above, in the US, adults are free to refuse treatments for themselves, as well as to pursue non-medical, religious-based treatments for themselves, but they are NOT free to impose those beliefs on their own children when such practices represent a direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to their children, even if they claim that their "freedom of religion" is being unjustly violated. Edited July 12, 2016 by Daniel2 1
Danzo Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Based on what I feel are alarming numbers, matched by the tragic events I’ve personally been witness to over the last month, I support further inquiry and investigation into examining the sources, causes, and prevention of teen suicide, and, in the meantime, doing all we can to reach out to teens and try to help them avoid whatever causes are driving them to take their own lives. Denial or allegations of cherry-picking don’t help the lives of those that we’ve lost, or all those future possible losses that may be on the horizon. I too support further inquiry and investigation into the sources causes and prevention of teen suicide, which is why I provided the links and the info that I did. It is good that officials are alarmed by the rate of suicide in Utah, in fact, I am happy that they provided the sources that I linked to, which provide useful ways, backed by actual data, that can help us understand the causes and possible solutions to the problem of suicide. Unfortunately the articles that you linked to deliberately chose their endpoints for dramatic effect. They are news organizations and they get paid by getting people to click. Don't feel bad, it is quite common for the news to cherry pick data to make a dramatic point. People who try to sell mutual funds do it all the time. the pick the lowest value and measure it against the highest point to show how much the fund has appreciated in value. Look at the graph http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/hsu/1502_Suicide.pdf You will see the 2007 represents a local low point (the lowest point is in 2005, but 2007 is the second low point), you will see that the rate gradually goes up and then drops in 2011. The increase between 2011 and 2013 (the end point for this data) is the most dramatic rise, the one we should be most concerned about. Even with that rise, the final rate is not that much higher than 2004 If we go by the articles you linked to, one would naturally be asking what bad thing happened in 2007 (since they use that year as an endpoint). Looking at the graph, we see 2005- 2012 a general drop in the suicide rate. If we are really trying to understand suicide and lessen the impact we should be asking what good thing happened those years and try to repeat it. Edited July 12, 2016 by Danzo
Gray Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danzo said: Where do you come up with this? The data suggest that being active LDS has a dampening effect on suicide it says nothing about sexual orientation. The Data show that being active LDS has a dampening effect on suicide rates, a negative correlation, if you will. Yes. But there is no data that suggests being active LDS has a dampening affect on suicide rates of LGBT teens. Quote Why does this Idea seem strange to you? You seem obsessed with the idea the being LDS is somehow dangerous or "Unhealthy" I guess you are free to believe this, but it is not what the data show. Maybe this is a faith based belief? My opinion is based data that says rejection leads to increased suicide risk for LGBT teens, and that conflict with religious views leads to the same. As I see it, those factors are present in LGBT LDS teens. Combined with anecdotal evidence of a number of suicides in recent months of LGBT LDS youth, I believe the issue warrants further study. I'm certainly not obsessed, but if you need to see it that way in order to dismiss what I'm saying, I can't stop you. Edited July 12, 2016 by Gray 1
Jeanne Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: Yes. But there is no data that suggests being active LDS has a dampening affect on suicide rates of LGBT teens. My opinion is based data that says rejection leads to increased suicide risk for LGBT teens, and that conflict with religious views leads to the same. As I see it, those factors are present in LGBT LDS teens. The issue warrants further study. Having been to a memorial of a 19 year old teen this week, I would sure welcome this study. 2
Danzo Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: This verbiage belies your bias. read the article I linked. http://afsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/recommendations.pdf Help. Recognize the contagion effect. Be a part of the solution. Don't let my bias stop you helping these children. Biased people care about children too. Edited July 12, 2016 by Danzo
stemelbow Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, Danzo said: I to support further inquiry and investigation into the sources causes and prevention of teen suicide, which is why I provided the links and the info that I did. It is good that officials are alarmed by the rate of suicide in Utah, in fact, I am happy that they provided the sources that I linked to, which provide useful ways, backed by actual data, that can help us understand the causes and possible solutions to the problem of suicide. Unfortunately the articles that you linked to deliberately chose their endpoints for dramatic effect. They are news organizations and they get paid by getting people to click. Don't feel bad, it is quite common for the news to cherry pick data to make a dramatic point. People who try to sell mutual funds do it all the time. the pick the lowest value and measure it against the highest point to show how much the fund has appreciated in value. Look at the graph http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/hsu/1502_Suicide.pdf You will see the 2007 represents a local low point (the lowest point is in 2005, but 2007 is the second low point), you will see that the rate gradually goes up and then drops in 2011. The increase between 2011 and 2013 (the end point for this data) is the most dramatic rise, the one we should be most concerned about. Even with that rise, the final rate is not that much higher than 2004 If we go by the articles you linked to, one would naturally be asking what bad thing happened in 2007 (since they use that year as an endpoint). Looking at the graph, we see 2005- 2012 a general drop in the suicide rate. If we are really trying to understand suicide and lessen the impact we should be asking what good thing happened those years and try to repeat it. Quote On average, 37 youth in Utah die from suicide and 942 are injured in a suicide attempt each year.1,2 The youth suicide rate in Utah is consistently higher than the U.S. rate, and has been increasing for nearly a decade (Figure 1). That's awful. I really wish we could break this down by religion and sexual orientation. I think such could help us actually discuss the problem in a more nuanced way. To use this to say gay LDS teen suicides have increased doesn't work, really. That's not to say gay LDS teens don't have a tough time, though. All things being equal I'd imagine this number could be broken down to: If LDS in Utah is at 70%, then of the 37 we might see 26 of these that were LDS If Active LDS in Utah is 36%, then we might see 9 of these as active LDS If gay teens are 1%, then we might see 0, or .37, of these individuals as gay If gay LDS are 1% of the 26, then we might see 0, or .26, of these individuals as gay. According to this, if we're able to find 1 or more of these suicides were gay, then we'd see a higher percentage of gay teens who kill themselves than expected--compared to the general population. If 1 suicide was active LDS gay teen, then that'd be much higher than what would be expected. If 2, active LDS gay teens in one year--then that is 7 or 8 times expected, compared to the general population. This is pretty scary. The problem is we don't know the breakdown. Maybe there are less LDS teens who commited suicide then expected (meaning maybe there weren't 26 LDS teens who committed suicide). If so, then Utah numbers are effected more by non-LDS suicides than LDS.
USU78 Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes. But there is no data that suggests being active LDS has a dampening affect on suicide rates of LGBT teens. And that's because nobody records any such data about suicides. If you want to make a claim and have people take it seriously, you really ought to find some data instead of arguing by assertion. 1
USU78 Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's awful. I really wish we could break this down by religion and sexual orientation. I think such could help us actually discuss the problem in a more nuanced way. To use this to say gay LDS teen suicides have increased doesn't work, really. That's not to say gay LDS teens don't have a tough time, though. All things being equal I'd imagine this number could be broken down to: If LDS in Utah is at 70%, then of the 37 we might see 26 of these that were LDS If Active LDS in Utah is 36%, then we might see 9 of these as active LDS If gay teens are 1%, then we might see 0, or .37, of these individuals as gay If gay LDS are 1% of the 26, then we might see 0, or .26, of these individuals as gay. According to this, if we're able to find 1 or more of these suicides were gay, then we'd see a higher percentage of gay teens who kill themselves than expected--compared to the general population. If 1 suicide was active LDS gay teen, then that'd be much higher than what would be expected. If 2, active LDS gay teens in one year--then that is 7 or 8 times expected, compared to the general population. This is pretty scary. The problem is we don't know the breakdown. Maybe there are less LDS teens who commited suicide then expected (meaning maybe there weren't 26 LDS teens who committed suicide). If so, then Utah numbers are effected more by non-LDS suicides than LDS. And yet the 2002-ish data demonstrated that inactive Mormon teens were 7x more likely to suicide than active Mormon teens. This kinda throws a wrench into any such extrapolating efforts. 1
Danzo Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's awful. I really wish we could break this down by religion and sexual orientation. I think such could help us actually discuss the problem in a more nuanced way. To use this to say gay LDS teen suicides have increased doesn't work, really. That's not to say gay LDS teens don't have a tough time, though. All things being equal I'd imagine this number could be broken down to: If LDS in Utah is at 70%, then of the 37 we might see 26 of these that were LDS If Active LDS in Utah is 36%, then we might see 9 of these as active LDS If gay teens are 1%, then we might see 0, or .37, of these individuals as gay If gay LDS are 1% of the 26, then we might see 0, or .26, of these individuals as gay. According to this, if we're able to find 1 or more of these suicides were gay, then we'd see a higher percentage of gay teens who kill themselves than expected--compared to the general population. If 1 suicide was active LDS gay teen, then that'd be much higher than what would be expected. If 2, active LDS gay teens in one year--then that is 7 or 8 times expected, compared to the general population. This is pretty scary. The problem is we don't know the breakdown. Maybe there are less LDS teens who commited suicide then expected (meaning maybe there weren't 26 LDS teens who committed suicide). If so, then Utah numbers are effected more by non-LDS suicides than LDS. The problem with your figures is that you expect everything to be evenly distributed. Suicide is not a random problem, it has causes and mental illness is generally considered the primary cause. The data (Which I have linked to, ad nauseam), show that suicides are not evenly distributed through populations but are influenced by behaviors and environments. One of the studies shows active LDS having a 7 times lower incidence of suicide. Others show that one of the biggest correlations has to do with substance abuse (something discouraged in active LDS). Another shows that time in front of a TV increases suicide (we try to keep our youth busy). Family mealtime reduces suicide (something we encourage). 1
stemelbow Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: And yet the 2002-ish data demonstrated that inactive Mormon teens were 7x more likely to suicide than active Mormon teens. This kinda throws a wrench into any such extrapolating efforts. If that older study applied to our numbers in recent years, it might mean that 26 LDS teens kill themselves per year. Maybe 23 are not active and 3 are active. or maybe that study doesn't really fit for recent years. Maybe suicide for inactive LDS teens is less likely than active LDS teens. But we don't know. We can only guess...sadly. It seems like data could be or could have been collected to help us understand the problem here. But if it was, it doesn't seem freely available. I might go back and view all Utah obituaries as much as I can to see if we can identify anything to help us understand this issue.
stemelbow Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, Danzo said: The problem with your figures is that you expect everything to be evenly distributed. Suicide is not a random problem, it has causes and mental illness is generally considered the primary cause. The data (Which I have linked to, ad nauseam), show that suicides are not evenly distributed through populations but are influenced by behaviors and environments. One of the studies shows active LDS having a 7 times lower incidence of suicide. Others show that one of the biggest correlations has to do with substance abuse (something discouraged in active LDS). Another shows that time in front of a TV increases suicide (we try to keep our youth busy). Family mealtime reduces suicide (something we encourage). Correct. So, if suicides are not evenly distributed that means there's an unexpected breakdown. if we could quantify the breakdown we might be able to start to draw better conclusions. But we don't. We can't. As it is, with a number of 37, we'd see less than 1 suicide per year that is a gay teen and less than 1 that is gay LDS, according to this. If the number of each is over 1, then we have a piece of data showing something about this. If, say, active LDS gay teens who killed themselves in 2015 was 5, that'd be huge. But, as it is, that number might not be that far off.
Danzo Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Correct. So, if suicides are not evenly distributed that means there's an unexpected breakdown. if we could quantify the breakdown we might be able to start to draw better conclusions. But we don't. We can't. As it is, with a number of 37, we'd see less than 1 suicide per year that is a gay teen and less than 1 that is gay LDS, according to this. If the number of each is over 1, then we have a piece of data showing something about this. If, say, active LDS gay teens who killed themselves in 2015 was 5, that'd be huge. But, as it is, that number might not be that far off. Actually, the breakdown is expected. We would only expect it to be evenly distributed if being active LDS had no effect on suicides. Data show that Active LDS are seven less likely to commit suicide. Given that correlation alone, we would expect behavior that go against what the church teaches to increase suicide. the data bears that out. Substance is one of the biggest correlators with suicide as well as lack of family connectivity. And, it would seem LGTB behavior also correlates as well. I just don't understand why many people want the LDS Church to prevent suicide by having it stop pushing for the things that are actually proven to prevent suicide. 1
smac97 Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: Hi smac, I think the analogy I posted earlier best explains what I'm trying to get at here: Quote Let's suppose that I wanted to join a model RC airplane club. The rules of the club are clear. They claim they accept Mormons as members, but they have a caveat. Mormons who attend LDS church services, wear garments, read LDS scriptures, or continue to believe in LDS doctrines will be banned from the club. In what way does the model RC airplane club "accept" Mormons as members? The LDS approach to homosexuality is similar. No, it's not. Your analogy fails because the rules of the club are discriminatory. The LDS Church does not discriminate in its application of The Law of Chastity. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is prohibited from engaging in same-sex behavior. And adultery. And fornication. And same-sex marriage. Quote We accept gay people, so long as they don't do anything "gay" and reject their feelings on the matter. Mostly correct. We accept people with same-sex attraction, so long as they do not engage in same-sex behavior. And if they do engage in such conduct, we encourage them to repent to and to obey God's commandments relating to matters of sexual behavior. We should be doing all we can to encourage such persons to remain true to their covenants and to repent when they fail to do so. Similarly, we accept people who would like to have sex outside of marriage, so long as they do not engage in fornication or adultery. And if they do engage in such conduct, we encourage them to repent to and to obey God's commandments relating to matters of sexual behavior. We should be doing all we can to encourage such persons to remain true to their covenants and to repent when they fail to do so. Similarly, we accept people who have weaknesses and frailties of the flesh, and who are tempted to violate commandments of God other than the Law of Chastity. And if they do engage in such conduct, we encourage them to repent. I cannot countenance the notion that people with same-sex attraction should be given some sort of special dispensation to break the commandments of God. To me, that smacks of bigotry, as if they are "lesser," that they are beholden to their desires, that they should be held to a separate, lower standard of conduct than than applied to other members of the Church. Quote I don't think this can reasonably be called acceptance. I don't know what else to call it. We ask people with same-sex attraction to adhere to the exact same code of sexual conduct that the rest of us are expected to follow. To do otherwise would be to give in to, as Michael Gerson put it, "the soft bigotry of low expectations." I recognize that people with SSA can face a difficult life in the Church. But they are not alone in that. People who are divorced or widowed or never married face similar struggles. Some people have physical or mental infirmities. Some have substance abuse problems. Some are dishonest in their dealings with their fellow men. Some struggle with pornography or infidelity or other aspects of the Law of Chastity. Some have family members who inflict great injury and hardship. Some have financial problems. And on and on and on. There are all sorts of troubles and afflictions in this world. The LDS Church purports to be a "hospital" for everyone who wishes to seek "treatment" for their ailments, whatever they are. The problem here, however, is that some folks want us to reject the words of the prophets and apostles by singling out one of these ailments - homosexual behavior - and re-characterizing it as something that is acceptable within the Restored Gospel. But it's not. Despite what the world says, it's not. Despite the calumnies hurled against us and our beliefs, it's not. Quote The approach seems to be tolerance for gay people outside of the church, and rejection within the church. That first part only works if "tolerance for gay people" = "acceptance of homosexual conduct." The World pretty much accepts such conduct. I concede that. As for the second part, that is - sadly - something of a mixed bag. There are some members of the Church who struggle to accept people with same-sex attraction. And for that such persons will eventually need to repent. But I can't agree with "rejection within the church" if by that you mean "letting people with SSA unrepentantly violate the Law of Chastity." That's just not a fair characterization. The LDS Church welcomes everyone who wishes to join. But that "wishing" requires acceptance of a code of conduct. That code of conduct is applied to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Thanks, -Smac 1
Thinking Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't know what else to call it. We ask people with same-sex attraction to adhere to the exact same code of sexual conduct that the rest of us are expected to follow. There is a subtle difference. A heterosexual person is given the opportunity and blessing to commit to and have sex with somebody to whom he/she is attracted. A homosexual person is given no such opportunity. 2
SteveO Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Thinking said: There is a subtle difference. A heterosexual person is given the opportunity and blessing to commit to and have sex with somebody to whom he/she is attracted. A homosexual person is given no such opportunity. Except there are plenty of single sisters in the church who were never given that opportunity and most likely will never be given that opportunity in this life--who have committed to staying true to the standards regarding sex outside of marriage. I doubt being made to feel you weren't/aren't good enough to marry is any less painful or difficult to cope with. And that's why I have trouble with the LGBT movement within the church...you'd think they are the only ones with problems, and that everyone should drop what they're doing to make sure the attention and efforts are focused exclusively on them. 1
kllindley Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, SteveO said: Except there are plenty of single sisters in the church who were never given that opportunity and most likely will never be given that opportunity in this life--who have committed to staying true to the standards regarding sex outside of marriage. I doubt being made to feel you weren't/aren't good enough to marry is any less painful or difficult to cope with. And that's why I have trouble with the LGBT movement within the church...you'd think they are the only ones with problems, and that everyone should drop what they're doing to make sure the attention and efforts are focused exclusively on them. Please don't blame all of us for that mentality. In fact, it is usually the "straight allies" who make the fuss.
california boy Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 11 hours ago, kllindley said: What is gay and straight? Are you serious about accepting science which shows these are socially constructed ideas? Or do you prefer to artificially force people into one of two boxes. What about bisexuality? Can an imperfect person get into the Celestial Kingdom without being perfect? So God rejects all of us until we become perfect? Oh brother. Now I have to define what being gay means?? Being gay means you are attracted to the same sex. It means that you have romantic feelings for someone of your own sex. It means that you want to seek out a relationship and companionship with someone of the same sex not only for this life but for eternity. It means that you connect spiritually and emotionally in a strong bond with someone of the same sex. Not sure if I now how to define what being straight is. I guess I better do that as well. Being straight means that you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex. It means that you have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex. It means that you want to seek out a relationship and companionship with someone of the opposite sex. That you want to spend not only this life but eternity with someone of the opposite sex. Now that we got that out of the way, my question remains, Can a gay person (someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex) get into the Celestial Kingdom without changing and becoming straight? Will there be male/male companionships in the Celestial Kingdom? Will a gay person be allowed to share eternity with someone who he is actually attracted to and can love deeply. Or will all gay people, no matter how faithful they have been on earth, never marrying, never forming romantic relationships on earth, being completely chase, be allowed to finally be with someone of the same sex. Or will they be required to be with someone of the opposite sex, something that they never wanted to do for their entire life. The message I am getting is NO. You have to become straight in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. You have to loose your attraction/love for someone of the same sex and change it to someone of the opposite sex. If that is not telling someone who is gay that God rejects them for being gay, then I don't know what is. Are you hearing a different message? Does God allow someone who is gay into the Celestial Kingdom without becoming straight? Or does the Mormon God reject every gay person until they become straight. Is the only way to become perfect is to be straight?
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Thinking said: There is a subtle difference. No, there isn't. Adultery is uniformly prohibited, regardless of sexual orientation or any other attribute. So is fornication. So is same-sex marriage. So is homosexual conduct. Quote A heterosexual person is given the opportunity and blessing to commit to and have sex with somebody to whom he/she is attracted. A heterosexual person is given the opportunity and blessing to commit to and have sex with a person of the opposite sex. So is a person with same-sex attraction. The Church does not restrict or allow sexual activity based on whether Person A is "attracted" to Person B. Person A can only have sex with Person B if they are married and of opposite genders. This holds true regardless of the "orientation" of either individual. Quote A homosexual person is given no such opportunity. A homosexual person is given no opportunity to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. But heterosexual church members are also not given this opportunity. Feelings are not determinative of morality vis-à-vis the Law of Chastity. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members. If we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread and elsewhere (see, e.g., here), based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart. Your reckoning does not really work. Using it I could rationalize adultery on the grounds that I - as you put it - "have sex with somebody {other than my wife} to whom {I am} attracted." But since feelings/desires are not determinative of the propriety of sexual conduct, adultery remains verboten, regardless of how much I want to do it (note: this is purely hypothetical - I am very happy with and devoted to my wife). Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2016 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, california boy said: Can a gay person get into the Celestial Kingdom without being straight? Salvation is fully available to all of God's children, regardless of the particular struggles they face in this life. I reject your premise that same-sex attraction is an immutable, eternal trait. Quote The message I am getting is NO. No, that's not the message you are getting. You are fabricating it out of whole cloth. If I am wrong on this point, then CFR. Good luck! Quote You have to become straight in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. You have to have faith in Christ and keep His commandments in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I know you believe that same-sex attraction is an eternal, immutable trait. I respect that, but we need to be honest enough to characterize it as your belief, not a tenet of the LDS Church. Within the LDS paradigm, anyone who desires to attain the Celestial Kingdom can do so through faith and obedience. For some, that involves resisting a desire to engage in sexual conduct prohibited by God (adultery, fornication, homosexual conduct, etc.). You are free to believe or assume as you like regarding homosexuality as an immutable trait, but you are not free to import those incompatible beliefs/assumptions onto the LDS Church and then complaint about the resulting totally-saw-it-coming incompatibility. Quote If that is not telling someone who is gay that God rejects them for being gay, then I don't know what is. Again, the concept of "being" immutably, eternally "gay" is foreign to the LDS paradigm. You can believe that if you like, but you cannot falsely attribute such things to us and then proceed to make false characterizations of our faith based on it ("God rejects them for being gay"). I know of a person who in the past committed adultery and fornication many, many times. This person, after much effort and prayer and fasting and counseling with priesthood authorities, repented of this sinful conduct, sought and obtained re-admission to the Church through baptism, and has had the blessings of the temple restored. God did not "reject" this person for "being" something, for having an immutable, eternal trait. This person's previous acts violated some of God's most important commandments. However, this person now has an opportunity to inherit the Celestial Kingdom because of repentance, because of faith in Christ, because of the Atonement. If this person had continued to engage in adultery, if this person had remained in a state of rebellion and sin by refusing to repent, then it would be my understanding that God would "reject" this person and not allow entry to the Celestial Kingdom (of course, I would never presume to actually declare an individual's eschatological destiny, as such a thing is not within my stewardship) (and in the LDS paradigm, the lesser kingdoms of glory - where the unrepentant go - are still unimaginably wonderful places, so the LDS belief about God's mercy toward His children is encouraging). I know you really, really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity. While you are certainly at liberty to believe such a thing for yourself, I would reject any attempt to characterize such conduct as being allowed in the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church. That would simply be a false characterization of our beliefs. Quote Are you hearing a different message? Yes. Yes I am. I note you are not actually, you know, quoting the "message" of the LDS Church regarding the Law of Chastity and gays (available at mormonsandgays.org), and are instead resorting to your own hostile, laden-with-assumptions interpretation of it. Quote Does God allow someone who is gay into the Celestial Kingdom without becoming straight? God allows anyone into the Celestial Kingdom who wants to go there, and who exercises faith in Christ. Part of faith is obedience to God's commandments, including the Law of Chastity. The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual conduct (and adultery, and fornication, and so on). I reject your premise that same-sex attraction is an immutable, eternal trait. I likewise reject the notion that people with same-sex attraction should be excused from adhering to the same code of conduct that is applicable to everyone else in the Church. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2016 by smac97 2
california boy Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Salvation is fully available to all of God's children, regardless of the particular struggles they face in this life. Unless you are gay. Evidently you could be perfect and live every commandment perfectly. But if you are gay, you must become straight before you could be admitted into the Celestial Kingdom. Even though being gay is not a sin, it still must be overcome. There is a big sign out in front. No gay people allowed. Quote I reject your premise that same-sex attraction is an immutable, eternal trait. It is not about whether it is immutable or not, it is about choice. If having same sex attraction is not a sin, why must someone be straight in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Why can't a gay person enter heaven?. Why must you become straight. Why can't being gay be ok with God. Quote No, that's not the message you are getting. You are fabricating it out of whole cloth. If I am wrong on this point, then CFR. Good luck! Are you now claiming that the church teaches that you can still be gay in the Celestial Kingdom?? I can certainly dig up the words of Elder Oaks if you need them. Isn't that what all of this speculation of no gays allowed comes from? Has his words now become a revelation as well? Quote You have to have faith in Christ and keep His commandments in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I know you believe that same-sex attraction is an eternal, immutable trait. I respect that, but we need to be honest enough to characterize it as your belief, not a tenet of the LDS Church. Within the LDS paradigm, anyone who desires to attain the Celestial Kingdom can do so through faith and obedience. For some, that involves resisting a desire to engage in sexual conduct prohibited by God (adultery, fornication, homosexual conduct, etc.). A person can have absolute faith in Christ and keep all of His commandments. He is still not getting into the Celestial Kingdom until he becomes straight. God does not allow gay people into heaven. A requirement of getting in is to become straight. Quote You are free to believe or assume as you like regarding homosexuality as an immutable trait, but you are not free to import those incompatible beliefs/assumptions onto the LDS Church and then complaint about the resulting totally-saw-it-coming incompatibility. In all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, he taught that who we are in this life rises with us in the next. There is no magic abrra cadabra moment where we suddenly become a different person with different wants and desires. There is no basis in Mormon theology for this concept. You would have to believe that being gay is some kind of sickness that you need to be cured from to believe that you are somehow magically transformed into being what you always should have been,,,,straight. Being gay is not like having cancer. Or is that also a Mormon belief? Quote Again, the concept of "being" immutably, eternally "gay" is foreign to the LDS paradigm. You can believe that if you like, but you cannot falsely attribute such things to us and then proceed to make false characterizations of our faith based on it ("God rejects them for being gay"). I can certainly say without any contradiction that the Mormon church believes a person has to magically become straight in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. No gays allowed here. You must become straight. That is what is taught. Your magical transformation HAS to take place or you are out. Quote I know of a person who in the past committed adultery and fornication many, many times. This person, after much effort and prayer and fasting and counseling with priesthood authorities, repented of this sinful conduct, sought and obtained re-admission to the Church through baptism, and has had the blessings of the temple restored. God did not "reject" this person for "being" something, for having an immutable, eternal trait. This person's previous acts violated some of God's most important commandments. However, this person now has an opportunity to inherit the Celestial Kingdom because of repentance, because of faith in Christ, because of the Atonement. If this person had continued to engage in adultery, if this person had remained in a state of rebellion and sin by refusing to repent, then it would be my understanding that God would "reject" this person and not allow entry to the Celestial Kingdom (of course, I would never presume to actually declare an individual's eschatological destiny, as such a thing is not within my stewardship) (and in the LDS paradigm, the lesser kingdoms of glory - where the unrepentant go - are still unimaginably wonderful places, so the LDS belief about God's mercy toward His children is encouraging). I know you really, really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity. While you are certainly at liberty to believe such a thing for yourself, I would reject any attempt to characterize such conduct as being allowed in the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church. That would simply be a false characterization of our beliefs. Yes. Yes I am. I note you are not actually, you know, quoting the "message" of the LDS Church regarding the Law of Chastity and gays (available at mormonsandgays.org), and are instead resorting to your own hostile, laden-with-assumptions interpretation of it. What the heck does any of this have to do with what I have stated. I am not being hostile to the church. I am presenting the teachings of the church. If you find them negative, can you imagine how a gay teen feels about them? Where have I stated that the church doesn't believe homosexual relations were not sinful. Where in this discussion am I asking for someone who has sinned to enter the Celestial Kingdom. I am talking about in the event that someone is gay and does EXACTLY what the church asks them to do, live a completely celibate life, never sharing their life with any companionship and eternal mate, and then finding out that wasn't good enough. They still have to become straight, something they never wanted on earth or even had a hope of becoming while on earth magically is forced upon them as a requirement to enter heaven. If they don;t want to become straight, then they are out. No matter how good of life you have lived. No gays allowed in heaven. Period. Quote God allows anyone into the Celestial Kingdom who wants to go there, and who exercises faith in Christ. Part of faith is obedience to God's commandments, including the Law of Chastity. The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual conduct (and adultery, and fornication, and so on). I reject your premise that same-sex attraction is an immutable, eternal trait. I likewise reject the notion that people with same-sex attraction should be excused from adhering to the same code of conduct that is applicable to everyone else in the Church. Thanks, -Smac Yeah God allows anyone into the Celestial Kingdom who wants to go there and who exercises faith in Christ and no matter how obedient they are to all the commandments, as long as they are straight. There is no place for someone who is gay in the plan of salvation. You gotta be "fixed" first. That is the message I get. That is the message that Mormon kids get. That is the doctrine of the church. And people can't understand why a gay teenage Mormon feels that no matter what they do, no matter what choices they make in this life, they will still never be good enough for the church or God until they become straight. Edited July 13, 2016 by california boy
Thinking Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 7 hours ago, smac97 said: The Church does not restrict or allow sexual activity based on whether Person A is "attracted" to Person B. Person A can only have sex with Person B if they are married and of opposite genders. This holds true regardless of the "orientation" of either individual. Last time I checked attraction was an important part of sexual activity.
Thinking Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 8 hours ago, SteveO said: Except there are plenty of single sisters in the church who were never given that opportunity and most likely will never be given that opportunity in this life--who have committed to staying true to the standards regarding sex outside of marriage. I doubt being made to feel you weren't/aren't good enough to marry is any less painful or difficult to cope with. What about the single men? 8 hours ago, SteveO said: And that's why I have trouble with the LGBT movement within the church...you'd think they are the only ones with problems, and that everyone should drop what they're doing to make sure the attention and efforts are focused exclusively on them. It's the Church who keeps the focus on them by frequently making statements and policies. 1
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 40 minutes ago, Thinking said: Last time I checked attraction was an important part of sexual activity. For most people, yes. But attraction, or feelings, or preferences, whatever you want to call it, are not the determinative factor for sexual activity under the Law of Chastity. If they were, if the Law of Chastity allowed sexual activity anytime a person felt like it, then we wouldn't really need that law at all. This is, perhaps, the fundamental disconnect between the two camps in this discussion. Latter-day Saints believe that the Law of Chastity has been set by God, and that within it sexual activity is only authorized between a husband and wife. Other folks think want to disregard these constraints pretty much altogether, saying that any sexual activity is fine provided the parties feel like it have given informed consent. That would make fornication acceptable. And swinging. And adultery. And incest. And so on. In other words, using the "I feel like it and I have given consent" yardstick, most forms of sexual activity are allowed. This is inherently problematic for most religious people and groups, including the LDS Church and its members. So we're left with what I must frankly confess is an odd proposal: Some folks associated with the LDS Church (members, former members, critics) propose that the Church change its teachings about the Law of Chastity to privilege homosexual conduct. And this privilege should be granted, it is said, because some people feel like it. Because they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. But again, this reasoning does not work well. People who engage in adultery are also sexually attracted to their extra-marital sexual partners. So are those who engage in fornication. This is, I think, why attraction/feelings/preferences, although important, are not the determinative factor vis-à-vis the Law of Chastity. Hence the counsel we are given in Galatians 5: Quote 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. We have ample counsel on this point from prophets and apostles, including Pres. David O. McKay: Quote “… man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. … “Man’s body, therefore, is but the tabernacle in which his spirit dwells. Too many, far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man, and consequently to direct their efforts to the gratifying of the body’s pleasures, its appetites, its desires, its passions.” (David O. McKay, “The Abundant Life in a Selfish World,” Improvement Era, Sept. 1949, p. 558.) Also consider these remarks by H. Burke Peterson (then a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric): Quote I’ve used the example before that the moment we come to the earth—the moment our spiritual body entered the physical body and we were born on the earth—that very moment a conflict began between the spiritual body and the physical body. The conflict, of course, is for the physical to try to overcome the spiritual, and the spiritual to try to rise above the physical. We all have things we’d like to do that aren’t good for us. Our bodies want to do them. We all have appetites, passions, and desires. Every day there is a conflict that goes on when our physical body says, “I want to do this,” and the spiritual body says, “no, we shouldn’t do it. We won’t do it.” The physical body says, “Yes, we will.” This argument goes on and on, as you’ve all experienced. I recognize that "Because I feel like it" is an overly-glib characterization for many who have same-sex attraction. My intent is not to be dismissive of these circumstances. Rather, my point is that the Law of Chastity was crafted to help us all clarify when our "appetites, passions, and desires" can be appropriately expressed and acted upon, and when they cannot. It is that law, it is God's will, not personal feelings or preferences - however powerful they may be, that is determinative. Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2016 Author Posted July 13, 2016 16 hours ago, Danzo said: Actually, the breakdown is expected. We would only expect it to be evenly distributed if being active LDS had no effect on suicides. Data show that Active LDS are seven less likely to commit suicide. Sadly, that's old data. If true, though, we have another problem on our hands--why are so many not active LDS and non LDS teens committing suicide in Utah? What is the cause? Because if Utah has such a high teen suicide rate, and a huge population of Utah teens are not the ones committing suicide (active LDS teens), then that means the smaller population (inactive LDS and non LDS) are committing suicide at a rate even more staggering than anyone has noted. Of course no one has noted it because it simply is a premature conclusion. We don't know the activity rate, nor the religion, nor the sexual orientation of the 37 teens who commit suicide in Utah each year. And that's too bad. 16 hours ago, Danzo said: Given that correlation alone, we would expect behavior that go against what the church teaches to increase suicide. That's a stretch though. Even active LDS kids go against what the Church teaches at times. And as it is, some inactive kids support what the Church teaches. We'd really have to figure out how to get nuanced with the data to conclude as you have--and keep in mind the data you allude to is from 15 years ago. We don't know if times have changed. 16 hours ago, Danzo said: the data bears that out. Substance is one of the biggest correlators with suicide as well as lack of family connectivity. And, it would seem LGTB behavior also correlates as well. This is tough because you're playing fast and loose with different data sets. When you say, "substance is one fo the biggest correlators" you aren't sure if that's true in the case of Utah teens. That is a general indicator. Same with LBGT. We still do not know how many gay LDS teens have committed suicide each year. 16 hours ago, Danzo said: I just don't understand why many people want the LDS Church to prevent suicide by having it stop pushing for the things that are actually proven to prevent suicide. Proof is a tough thing to claim here. You have a study as per religion from years ago and are trying to conclude that the 37 teen suicides in Utah per year bear out that old study. we don't know that there is any reason to conclude as you have done. What we've been told from others, though, is there have been active LDS gay teens who have committed suicide. If more than one in a year--well that itself would prove your theory wrong, and would bring into question any notion that gay teens that are LDS are better off remaining active. Based on the numbers we should see only 1 active LDS gay teen commit suicide in Utah per year.
Recommended Posts