An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[ALarson]

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

Quote

The following is an open letter to the First Presidency of the Mormon Church. A year ago, I sent this letter directly to the First Presidency, but never received a reply.

Quote

Harry was a student in his final year at Brigham Young University and he was a gospel doctrine teacher in his singles ward. He served a mission for the Mormon church in New York state and he was a believing Mormon most of his life. One month before his suicide, Harry posted on Facebook that he was gay.

Quote

At Harry’s funeral in Orem, a woman came and held my hand a long, long time before telling me that her lesbian LDS niece had taken her life the day before we found Harry’s body. Her niece shared the pain my son shared. Her family shares the pain my family shares. But not us alone.

Quote

On Facebook, Harry posted that “Being gay in Utah and while being a Latter-day Saint can be hard … every couple of Sundays I have to go out to my car to keep from crying at church.”

 

[Bob Crockett]

And, so, what should the Church do?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And, so, what should the Church do?

For starters...eliminate the 2015 policy.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And, so, what should the Church do?

I think the parents would have liked to have received some response (or even just a condolence).  Their letter is heartfelt and heartbreaking.  

Maybe they are just looking for some support or some answers?  We can't deny the fact that these suicides are happening and that the current teachings are at least a part of some of the pain that led to suicide (we have the writings left from those who actually did commit suicide and why they felt as they did....).

Are there any changes that could be made which would help stop at least some of the suicides occurring among the gay members of the church?

I'm not accusing anyone here, just asking others to be open minded and discuss.  Maybe that's impossible to do on this topic.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For starters...eliminate the 2015 policy.

And what else?

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

And what else?

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  Talk to your members and see where they stand and why...ask what the spirit has told them.  Don't tell a gay person you love them...and then try to change them. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what else?

I think the elimination of the policy (that has caused a great deal of pain for gay members and their families from my own personal observations and experience), would be a huge step towards healing and towards opening up more communication and acceptance.

I also believe that the leaders should acknowledge a SSM as a "real marriage" (an actual commitment to be exclusive and faithful to the person you love and a desire to spend your life with them and have a family).  

I'm not asking for the leaders to allow temple sealings for those in SSM.  I really doubt that will ever happen.  

But, allow gay members to marry and continue attending (not excommunicate them, but welcome them) and allow them to be a part of the church with the families they may have (children, etc.).   Right now, I personally know of a gay couple (not married) who are welcomed in their ward and greatly loved.  But, if they marry....they risk excommunication.  How does that make sense?

I know you disagree....but you asked.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church.

Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

And stop with the efforts to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

And stop putting the worst possible spin on the policy.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

And also give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

I genuinely question the sincerity and good faith of some critics and opponents of the Church who resort to overheated and caustic rhetoric.  I question this because these are the same folks who despise the Church and its teachings, and thefore would not seem to have a legitimate basis for complaining about people not joining it. 

I question these things because these critics apparently don't give two figs about the children from polygamous families who have faced a similar policy for years. 

I question these things because critics like to position themselves as being concerned about the welfare of children, and yet they then proceed to move heaven and earth to alienate those children from the LDS Church, and to publish declarations that the LDS Church hates their parents. 

Both the parents and their children are encountering this "overheated and caustic rhetoric," and are understandably perturbed thereby.  So I attribute much of the emotional pain and aggravation these folks face to the critics and opponents who have been screaming about it, and using "overheated and caustic rhetoric" about it, and instilling and maintaining and inflaming fear and suspicion and anger in children.

It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed.  No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest.  Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community" (as Brother Bear once put it) and so on.

In other words, is there ever going to come a cime when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  Talk to your members and see where they stand and why...ask what the spirit has told them.  Don't tell a gay person you love them...and then try to change them. 

And what else?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the elimination of the policy (that has caused a great deal of pain for gay members and their families from my own personal observations and experience), would be a huge step towards healing and towards opening up more communication and acceptance.

But still merely a "step."  So what else?

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also believe that the leaders should acknowledge a SSM as a "real marriage" (an actual commitment to be exclusive and faithful to the person you love and a desire to spend your life with them and have a family).  

The Church recognizes SSMs as being recognized by the laws of the land in many countries.  So what else is there to "acknowledge?"

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not asking for the leaders to allow temple sealings for those in SSM.  I really doubt that will ever happen.  

But I think you'd surmise, as I do, that plenty of folks are asking for this.  Dan Reynolds, for example.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, allow gay members to marry and continue attending (not excommunicate them, but welcome them) and allow them to be a part of the church with the families they may have (children, etc.).   Right now, I personally know of a gay couple (not married) who are welcomed in their ward and greatly loved.  But, if they marry....they risk excommunication.  How does that make sense?

What are your thoughts about polygamists?  Should the Church likewise welcome them into the Church?

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know you disagree....but you asked.

I appreciate your response.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And what else?

Prayerfully seek repentance for the lives that have been lost.  Then inquire of God as to a interpretation of what is meant by family..what is it?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Prayerfully seek repentance for the lives that have been lost.  Then inquire of God as to a interpretation of what is meant by family..what is it?

And what else?  Why don't you just lay all of it out, rather then bit by bit?  What, in your view, should be the end result of changes in the Church?

[bluebell]

The church is in between a rock and a hard place. 

What can they do that does not include teaching that God condones SSM? 

Anything less than that and people will continue to blame the church for these tragic deaths. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about polygamists?  Should the Church likewise welcome them into the Church?

I really don't want this to get derailed with a discussion regarding polygamists.  I think that's a more complicated topic because it involves living with many women who are not your legal wives and also it involves their children.  In order for them to "repent", the church leaders would have to advise dissolving or splitting up families.  I honestly do not believe they should be excommunicated though.

We are talking about marriages between just two committed people who want to be completely faithful to each other.

Can we please keep this discussion focused on that and also on the information in the OP?  I don't want a derail with a discussion on polygamists.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Sky]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And what else?

Talk more openly about this topic in General Conference and in church meetings in general.  

Tell certain members to stop being judgmental, know-it-all a**holes.  

Be wiiling to listen and emphasize with a gay person when they tell you their story, instead of trying to correct them or say why the church is always right.  

Poster removed: language

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church is in between a rock and a hard place. 

What can they do that does not include teaching that God condones SSM? 

Anything less than that and people will continue to blame the church for these tragic deaths. 

I agree, bluebell.

So what is wrong with the church accepting families involved in a SSM as a part of their congregations?  (Honest question).

As I posted above, I know of at least one active gay couple who is greatly welcomed and loved in their ward and who contribute greatly.  But, if they marry....they risk being excommunicated. 

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the parents would have liked to have received some response (or even just a condolence).  Their letter is heartfelt and heartbreaking.  

Maybe they are just looking for some support or some answers?  We can't deny the fact that these suicides are happening and that the current teachings are at least a part of some of the pain that led to suicide (we have the writings left from those who actually did commit suicide and why they felt as they did....).

Are there any changes that could be made which would help stop at least some of the suicides occurring among the gay members of the church?

I'm not accusing anyone here, just asking others to be open minded and discuss.  Maybe that's impossible to do on this topic.

(Speaking as a person who was suicidal most of my life)

Suicide is a complicated issue, and doesn't have just one cause even for a single person.  To attribute it to just was one cause is a great disservice to the real complicated person and issue.  Denying pain also doesn't do any good.  Neither does denying that some things are bad and inherently harmful.    A person/group/sufferer can't just waive a magic wand with a single move and make that pain/complicated issue go away.  No, it takes lots of unraveling on that person's behalf: getting to know yourself, know the Lord, and know the world.  A person needs to reach out, preferably looooooong before issues get super bad.  

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

.....................................But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/ .............................

We would probably need to know what the per capita rates of suicide are for various states and compare that to Utah (with youth demographics figured into it). Just being young is hard enough, without having additional problems thrown into the mix -- such as being different in some way.  Absent the normalization of virtually all differences, and hence the diminution of bullying, isolating, etc., some of those problems are going to be exacerbated.  That is only natural.  For a boundary-setting religious organization, that may present great difficulties.  The question of sin and guilt enters in, and may not get resolved to  everyone's satisfaction.  The Brethren are on the horns of a dilemma.  What to do?

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church is in between a rock and a hard place. 

What can they do that does not include teaching that God condones SSM? 

Anything less than that and people will continue to blame the church for these tragic deaths. 

You sister are one of my all time favorite posters. I think the church has always been "between a rock and a hard place."

For example; when only 8 people survived the flood I'm sure the non-survivors would be first in line at the SL Tribune whining about how their wickedness had the popular vote, was the common practice of the community, was accepted, and for crying out loud isn't it time Noah and his family caught up with the times?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I really don't want this to get derailed with a discussion regarding polygamists.  I think that's a more complicated topic because it involves living with many women who are not your legal wives and also it involves their children.  In order for them to "repent", the church leaders would have to advise dissolving or splitting up families.  I honestly do not believe they should be excommunicated though.

We are talking about marriages between just two committed people who want to be completely faithful to each other.

Can we please keep this discussion focused on that and also on the information in the OP?  I don't want a derail with a discussion on polygamists.

Spencer is reasoning by analogy, which is entirely legitimate.  Moreover, we have problems here of non-traditional marriage in both cases.  Would it make advocates of same gender marriage happy if the LDS Church agreed publicly that all forms of non-traditional marriage should be permitted, while still maintaining the right not to practice them inside the LDS Church?  Or must the LDS Church accept all forms of non-traditional marriage in order to make everybody happy?  And should this be true for all religious and fraternal organizations?

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Speaking as a person who was suicidal most of my life)

Suicide is a complicated issue, and doesn't have just one cause even for a single person. 

I completely agree, Jane (and I'm sorry for anything you've been through and know that it is complicated).

I know many factors are involved when someone takes their own life.  But, we have enough notes left behind by those gay members of the church who have committed suicide (along with first hand statements from those who were personally working with them), to at least discuss how the church's teachings and policies contributed to their depression and suicide.

Let's at least try to be honest here about that.  

I would never accuse the leaders (or the church) of killing gays or of murder.....just to be clear.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Or must the LDS Church accept all forms of non-traditional marriage in order to make everybody happy?

I think the church should accept legal marriages between two people who are committed to being faithful, loyal and loving to each other.  Acceptance of those who are in marriages that are committed to having a family together and being responsible parents to any children involved.  If they are unfaithful to each other (cheat on their spouse with another person), they should be treated just as any member of the church would be if they did the same to their spouse.

But, they should not be labeled apostates and excommunicated for their desire to commit to one person for life and to love them and be loyal to them.  They should not be punished for a desire to form a family together.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what else?  Why don't you just lay all of it out, rather then bit by bit?  What, in your view, should be the end result of changes in the Church?

smac...you are trying to trap me and make me and my feelings about all of this a joke and invalid.  This is how I feel anyway.  I have lots of reasons,,but they will be snubbed and shamed with how you feel and other posters will add on.  I don't want to feel lesser than.  A Larson above has stated pretty much what I think the church should do...and what I think God wants them to do.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Jeanne

[ksfisher]

36 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then inquire of God as to a interpretation of what is meant by family..what is it?

This has already been done.

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

[rongo]

Reading this letter (one of these "open" letters published in an unfriendly newspaper) made me think that ignoring it was the best choice. 

And, for the sake of argument, if God really does direct the First Presidency, why is it so hard for the "heartless and callous" crows to conceive of the possibility that God told them not to? I've had God hold me back from what seemed the common sense and most prudent thing, for reasons unknown to me, and it turns out there were things I didn't know about and it was best to follow the impression. 

I think the sequel and aftermath of not answering the letter show that this was wise. I think Brother Fisher would have paraded around whatever "polite, kind, sensible" letter had been sent.