An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it's pretty standard procedure for the leaders to no longer respond to letters that members write them (with a few exceptions that I've heard of over the last few years). 

An eminently understandable and reasonable policy, given the size of the Church.

Strange, then, that Mr. Fisher - who presumably knows about this well-established policy - chose to ignore it.  Rather than address his concerns with his local leaders, he "sent this letter directly to the First Presidency," knowing that a response was not forthcoming, but nevertheless publicly complained about having "never received a reply."  He then published his letter to the world.  

He's a grieving father.  I'll let it be.

Quote

But at least an acknowledgement of the pain these parents are in or a condolence for their loss would have been nice for them to receive.

Perhaps.  But then the preamble may have just been something like "I sent this letter directly to the First Presidency, but all I got in response was a message of condolences."

His letter asks puts the Brethren in an intractable situation.  Essentially, his message is, "My son killed himself, ergo I want you to radically upend the doctrines of the Church."

Mr. Fisher is treating the Church like a political construct.  It isn't.  

Mr. Fisher is using the tragic suicide of his son to leverage public pressure against the Church, to coerce it to disregard the revelations of God, and to instead alter the doctrines of the Church to suit his (Mr. Fisher's) opinions.

Mr. Fisher is contravening the counsel of the Brethren, such as was articulated more than thirty years ago in this Ensign article by then-Elder Oaks.

I remember some years ago when Cindy Sheehan was a big deal.  Her son, a soldier, was killed in combat in Iraq.  Ms. Sheehan was thereafter heralded by the opponents of the Bush Administration (in power at the time), with the New York Times declaring that "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

Except, as Christopher Hitchens later noted, that is simply not so:

Quote

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

We are seeing a similar phenomenon as regarding a controversy (the LDS Church's teachings regarding homosexual behavior and marriage), and a grieving parent (Mr. Fisher) making facially unreasonable public demands that his personal opinions be given something like "absolute moral authority."  

Putting aside (as Hitchens did) the merits of the controversy at issue, I find Mr. Fisher's letter to be an analysis of the issues facing the Church and its members as facile, and as not succeeding it making his position "one atom more elegant or persuasive."

Nobody wants to (or should) attack Mr. Fisher because of his loss.  But nor should we give his opinion any "absolute" moral weight or privilege.

Quote

Your questions are good though.  

How do members here believe that Jesus would respond to some of the questions asked or to a heartfelt letter such as the one in the OP?

I think Jesus organized His Church on the earth, and endowed its leaders with priesthood authority and keys, who in turn have organized the Lord's Church in such a way as to enable individual members to function as a part of our community.

I think Jesus does not want us to seek ways to foment public opinion against His Church, or to try to coerce the Church into altering the doctrines to suit our personal preferences and opinion.

I think Jesus wants us to use this organization the way He intends it to be used.  When Jesus cured the leper, he immediately insructed him to "tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." 

Observance of the commandments, then, is what Jesus wants us to do.  Listening to and following the counsel of the Lord's prophets and apostles is what Jesus wants us to do.

In this particular circumstance, we have counsel from Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

...

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

This counsel is wise.  And was manifestly not followed by Mr. Fisher.

Again, he is a grieving father.  But the course of action taken by Mr. Fisher is neither helpful, nor wise, nor appropriate, nor in accordance with how God wants the members of the Church to address their grievances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Strange, then, that Mr. Fisher - who presumably knows about this well-established policy - chose to ignore it.  Rather than address his concerns with his local leaders, he "sent this letter directly to the First Presidency," knowing that a response was not forthcoming, but nevertheless publicly complained about having "never received a reply."  He then published his letter to the world.  

There have been exceptions made (responses) from church leaders.  He was obviously hopeful he would hear something from the leaders when lives are being lost and one of them is his son.  It's also obvious why he'd address his concerns to the leaders in Salt Lake rather than to his local leaders.  No change occurs on a local level and I'm sure you know that.

He gave his reasons for writing them:

Quote

 

Why am I writing you? I am not writing for Harry because he won’t be coming back. I am not writing for my family because we are healing. I am writing for every LGBT Mormon who is suffering and is dealing with the same choices Harry dealt with. The more faithful they are to the church, the more impossible these choices become.

Many LDS children grow up to be gay or lesbian. When young, these children learn to sing that they are children of God; they go to church every Sunday; and they are immersed in Mormon culture. When they reach puberty, they suddenly find they are different and are presented with struggles and choices that heterosexual Mormons never face.

I ask you to give a place in your church for your LGBT children. I ask you to give them the same choices you give yourself, to have love, to marry and to share their life in the faith they believe in.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

The comments are worth reading through regarding this article (comments on the Salt Lake Tribune page).

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

I feel that what this person writes is becoming more and more obvious to parents of gay children:

Quote

 

Great letter. Knowing what we know about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth, parents now bear a responsibility: If you are the parent of a gay youth, and you are keeping him active in the LDS Church, you are not looking out for his best interests; you are willfully increasing the risk of him committing suicide.

As soon as your child comes out, you have to make the decision whether remaining active in the LDS Church is more important than taking that risk. The fact that you are a bishop/active member/believer is NO excuse. Your child’s safety comes first ... that is your most important calling.

Even if your child is not out — for many reasons, maybe out of fear — but you suspect he is gay, you as an LDS parent bear a responsibility to find out if he is gay: Because statistically you are increasing the risks that he might take his life if you don’t immediately pull him out of Church or if you don’t encourage him to leave the Church (if he has become a young adult).

With the information available about gay suicide in LDS communities, parents can no longer hide behind the Church. They MUST take responsibility of the danger their putting their child through. LGBTQ friendly organizations should not waste their time trying to change the Church, but rather spend time educating parents about the risks involved if they keep their gay kids in the Church. Give parents power through fact-based knowledge and education.

I’m thankful for the author of this letter as he is further raising awareness of the risk of keeping a gay son in the Church. Today, parents should no longer plead ignorance.

 

I have to agree and I honestly feel that this is the route I would go if I had a child who was gay.  Until the church changes more of its teachings and at the very least, eliminates the most recent policy, I absolutely would not feel that staying active in the church was best for them.  

I also love this comment:

Quote

This story breaks my heart...because I know it is the reality for many of my brothers and sisters and their families. ANY Alternative is better than suicide and certainly the church which bears Christ's name should be doing everything it can to respond...productively. If their struggle is not just as valid as any other, then we have lost our way as disciples of Christ. In my mind's eye, I see the Savior holding these brothers and sisters in a loving embrace until all their pain has gone away. And that love transcends church policy.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Jane_Doe]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There have been exceptions made (responses) from church leaders.  He was obviously hopeful he would hear something from the leaders when lives are being lost and one of them is his son.  It's also obvious why he'd address his concerns to the leaders in Salt Lake rather than to his local leaders.  No change occurs on a local level and I'm sure you know that.

He gave his reasons for writing them:

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why am I writing you? I am not writing for Harry because he won’t be coming back. I am not writing for my family because we are healing. I am writing for every LGBT Mormon who is suffering and is dealing with the same choices Harry dealt with. The more faithful they are to the church, the more impossible these choices become.

Many LDS children grow up to be gay or lesbian. When young, these children learn to sing that they are children of God; they go to church every Sunday; and they are immersed in Mormon culture. When they reach puberty, they suddenly find they are different and are presented with struggles and choices that heterosexual Mormons never face.

I ask you to give a place in your church for your LGBT children. I ask you to give them the same choices you give yourself, to have love, to marry and to share their life in the faith they believe in.

 

He's writing because he's hurting.  And he knows full well that nothing the 1st Presidency can say will make that better.  He also knows full well that revelation doesn't come him or his letter.  

As to "I ask you to give them the same choices you give yourself, to have love, to marry and to share their life in the faith they believe in.": that is already given.  Every person has the opportunity to love the Gospel, love each other, find a good opposite sex spouse, etc.  Now obviously not everyone is going to find that spouse-- and some of those will they don't find such a spouse they are attracted to and have no opportunity to marry because of that.  Both gays and straights have ended up in that boat.

Now, what do we do about it?  Do we change the Gospel?  Do we do political stunts?  Or do we reach out to those individuals in that boat, and still let them know that they are loved-- listening to them, holding them, etc?   

Again: suicide is NOT a uniquely gay thing.  Likewise it exists for all sorts of people going through mental illness and other struggles.  We need to quit making this about categories of "gay or straight" or "LDS or not", and reach out to INDIVIDUALS who are struggling, regardless of sexual orientation or faith.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to agree and I honestly feel that this is the route I would go if I had a child who was gay.  Until the church changes more of its teachings and at the very least, eliminates the most recent policy, I absolutely would not feel that staying active in the church was best for them.  

Wait. You have to agree with this?

Quote

As soon as your child comes out, you have to make the decision whether remaining active in the LDS Church is more important than taking that risk. The fact that you are a bishop/active member/believer is NO excuse. Your child’s safety comes first ... that is your most important calling.

The only responsible thing for a parent of gay youth to do is to cease being active in the LDS Church? 

You really think that?

Edited January 29, 2018 by rongo

[Jane_Doe]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The comments are worth reading through regarding this article (comments on the Salt Lake Tribune page).

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

I feel that what this person writes is becoming more and more obvious to parents of gay children:

I have to agree and I honestly feel that this is the route I would go if I had a child who was gay.  Until the church changes more of its teachings and at the very least, eliminates the most recent policy, I absolutely would not feel that staying active in the church was best for them.  

I also love this comment:

 

ALarson, I went suicidal for the first time at age 7 because due to sexual abuse from a school teacher (and the subsequent scars, including those from being at school).   This changed me and made me VERY different than other people- I face unique challenges and will for the rest of my life.   Do you believe my parents should have instantly withdrawn me from all schooling forever?  Or would you have chosen a different path?

( I'm asking to see if you logic here is consistent )

[Tacenda]

I happen to see on FB a post by a poster on this board. He mentioned a Riverton, Utah ward on Sunday I believe, that had a combined SS, RS and PH meeting where they invited different gay members to share their experiences. Amazing, hope this is true! Here is the post below:

"We attended a Riverton ward today (don't remember the name.) They combined the SS and RS/PH, so the meeting was 1:45 long. I took a rough count. About 250 - 300 people. There were two cameras recording the meeting. The bishop started out by saying they were going to talk about loving and accepting LGBTQ people. A member of the SP gave the opening prayer.

First speaker: A gay man who had married a woman and has a child. They are now divorced. He tried to make it work, but he is gay. Did everything he could, but he is gay. Loves the church and its teachings, (but he is gay and that is never going to change.) In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen (ItNoJC,A)

Second speaker: A gay man. Teaches at BYU. Did everything he cold to not be gay. Dated women for 10 years, attended temple weekly, read scriptures, prayed, wrote in journal, but he is gay. He is the happy gay mormon (for now) who is content to remain single (for now) and help gay people accept themselves and help family members and friends accept them. (ItNoJC,A).

Next speaker, the mother of a gay teen who took his life. His struggles and the unkind ways he was treated. (ItNoJC,A).

Next speaker, the husband of the above woman. Same basic thing. Very raw and gut wrenching. (ItNoJC,A).

Next speaker, a gay woman married to a woman. Her wife was also there and she made 3 or 4 references to her wife. Talked about her amazing mother who rejects her wife and their marriage. Read several letters to her mother (some of them not sent) seeking to re-establish their previously close relationship. (ItNoJC,A).

Musical number by two gay men.

Next speaker: A lesbian woman married to a woman. Told of her upbringing and her struggles with prescription drugs and her self loathing because -- she is gay. Now clean, happily married to a woman and has a child. (ItNoJC,A).

Next speaker: The mother of the above woman. She was TBM but has come to love and understand and accept her child. Talked about her faith journey. She is still in the church. (ItNoJC,A).

Last speaker: Bishop. We are out of time, but he gives some scripture references about loving and accepting. The meeting ends 4 minutes overtime.

Just wanted to get this on the record. This will happen more and more in the future in more places. Bottom up revelation is what is going to change the church. Of course many people will not change, but some will. Since I knew more than 90% of the LGBTQ people and their allies, I payed attention to who I thought were the regular ward members. Many of them thanked the speakers and offered encouragement or positive comments.

I talked to one of the videographers. When the video is available, I will post a link to where you can view it.

All the best, Mannheim Steamroller."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

An eminently understandable and reasonable policy, given the size of the Church.

Strange, then, that Mr. Fisher - who presumably knows about this well-established policy - chose to ignore it.  Rather than address his concerns with his local leaders, he "sent this letter directly to the First Presidency," knowing that a response was not forthcoming, but nevertheless publicly complained about having "never received a reply."  He then published his letter to the world.  

He's a grieving father.  I'll let it be.

Perhaps.  But then the preamble may have just been something like "I sent this letter directly to the First Presidency, but all I got in response was a message of condolences."

His letter asks puts the Brethren in an intractable situation.  Essentially, his message is, "My son killed himself, ergo I want you to radically upend the doctrines of the Church."

Mr. Fisher is treating the Church like a political construct.  It isn't.  

Mr. Fisher is using the tragic suicide of his son to leverage public pressure against the Church, to coerce it to disregard the revelations of God, and to instead alter the doctrines of the Church to suit his (Mr. Fisher's) opinions.

Mr. Fisher is contravening the counsel of the Brethren, such as was articulated more than thirty years ago in this Ensign article by then-Elder Oaks.

I remember some years ago when Cindy Sheehan was a big deal.  Her son, a soldier, was killed in combat in Iraq.  Ms. Sheehan was thereafter heralded by the opponents of the Bush Administration (in power at the time), with the New York Times declaring that "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

Except, as Christopher Hitchens later noted, that is simply not so:

We are seeing a similar phenomenon as regarding a controversy (the LDS Church's teachings regarding homosexual behavior and marriage), and a grieving parent (Mr. Fisher) making facially unreasonable public demands that his person opinions be given something like "absolute moral authority."  

Putting aside (as Hitchens did) the merits of the controversy at issue, I find Mr. Fisher's letter to be an analysis of the issues facing the Church and its members as facile, and as not succeeding it making his position "one atom more elegant or persuasive."

Nobody wants to (or should) attack Mr. Fisher because of his loss.  But nor should we give his opinion any "absolute" moral weight or privilege.

I think Jesus organized His Church on the earth, and endowed its leaders with priesthood authority and keys, who in turn have organized the Lord's Church in such a way as to enable individual members to function as a part of our community.

I think Jesus does not want us to seek ways to foment public opinion against His Church, or to try to coerce the Church into altering the doctrines to suit our personal preferences and opinion.

I think Jesus wants us to use this organization the way He intends it to be used.  When Jesus cured the leper, he immediately insructed him to "tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." 

Observance of the commandments, then, is what Jesus wants us to do.  Listening to and following the counsel of the Lord's prophets and apostles is what Jesus wants us to do.

In this particular circumstance, we have counsel from Elder Oaks (emphases added):

This counsel is wise.  And was manifestly not followed by Mr. Fisher.

Again, he is a grieving father.  But the course of action taken by Mr. Fisher is neither helpful, nor wise, nor appropriate, nor in accordance with how God wants the members of the Church to address their grievances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm. First time I've seen a quote from Christopher Hitchens that I agreed with.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

ALarson, I went suicidal for the first time at age 7 because due to sexual abuse from a school teacher (and the subsequent scars, including those from being at school).   This changed me and made me VERY different than other people- I face unique challenges and will for the rest of my life.   Do you believe my parents should have instantly withdrawn me from all schooling forever?  Or would you have chosen a different path?

( I'm asking to see if you logic here is consistent )

I don't believe there is any definite advise to give across the board.  Of course I would not withdraw you from schooling forever.  But I would immediately withdraw you from being near whoever it was that abused you.  I would definitely be more aware of where the harm came from and what I could do in the future to keep you from ever being physically abused and hurt again.  I would do all I could to protect you as a parent.

If I had a child who was gay, I would not withdraw them from being close to the Savior or from spiritual love and guidance and acceptance.  But I would keep them away from anything that is causing them to go into a deeper depression or that is contributing to their suicidal thoughts in ANY way.  Being active in the church is all consuming and is a way of life.  That's quite different from temporarily being in a classroom of an abusive teacher, IMO.

I don't see them as being the same as being an active member of the church is a commitment for life and not temporary.  

I'm very sorry for any abuse you endured....that is a topic that is very close to my heart that I've had personal experience with as well.  So, I don't want any of my comments to give the impression that I don't believe physical abuse is serious, horrible and painful for anyone to go through.  I just know as a parent, I would immediately remove my child from harm's way if I learned this was taking place.

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There have been exceptions made (responses) from church leaders.  He was obviously hopeful he would hear something from the leaders when lives are being lost and one of them is his son.  It's also obvious why he'd address his concerns to the leaders in Salt Lake rather than to his local leaders.  No change occurs on a local level and I'm sure you know that.

He gave his reasons for writing them:

 

Is it really fair to write a letter that essentially says, "i'm not writing because I want your condolences or your sympathy" and then be upset because you don't get condolences or sympathy though?  

[Calm]

"Knowing what we know about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth..."

What do we actually know?  We don't even have numbers to know rates, we don't have analyses that tell us of actual causes...we have a number of anecdotes that can point us into research directions to find answers, imo.  Making decisions on what to do at this stage just might end up hurting more than help, especially given one of the few statistics we know is that an LGBT who leaves their faith is at greater risk of suicide than those who stay (I believe pogi listed the info).

So if you as a parent take your child out, you could possibly be doing the opposite of what they need.

I am not suggesting you remove it as an option, but I would not have it as a given or close to top of the list myself.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is it really fair to write a letter that essentially says, "i'm not writing because I want your condolences or your sympathy" and then be upset because you don't get condolences or sympathy though?  

Where did he state that? (part in bold above...is that a quote from the letter?).  I read nothing in his letter that was "essentially" saying that.  (I'll read it again...) 

He closed with:

Quote

Please accept a request to fast and pray with me. I humbly wait for an answer.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wait. You have to agree with this?

The only responsible thing for a parent of gay youth to do is to cease being active in the LDS Church? 

You really think that?

I'd at the very least consider advising them to not continue to attend if they were coming home more and more depressed and with more thoughts of suicide after attending.

I said nothing about my own attendance.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Your second great post in this thread.  Too bad your first post didn't get much discussion.  I thought it was something worth talking about and added my thoughts to it.  

Thank you!  I really appreciated your comment and completely agree with you about the support groups for gay youth and their families.

As someone who is gay and grew up in the LDS church and culture, I am curious as to what your thoughts are regarding internalized homophobia in the study that I posted.

Here is what it said:

Quote

 

Further it appears that religious conflict, as indicated through parental beliefs, has a limited direct impact on chronic suicidal thoughts, as internalized homophobia fully mediated this relationship. This finding suggests that although parental religious beliefs are independently associated with suicidal thoughts when taking into account internalized homophobia, the relationship between parental beliefs and chronic suicidal thoughts are best accounted for by the level of internalized homophobia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

 

I don't like the term "homophobia" for many reasons mentioned in this article, and prefer either homonegativism or heterosexism.  But because most research uses the term internalized homophobia, that is what I will use.  Internalized homophobia is described in this way:

Quote

A number of definitions of internalized homophobia have been suggested. Meyer and Dean [(Meyer and Dean, 1998), p. 161] offer `the gay person's direction of negative social attitudes toward the self, leading to a devaluation of the self and resultant internal conflicts and poor self-regard'. Whilst Locke [(Locke, 1998), p. 202] suggests `the self-hatred that occurs as a result of being a socially stigmatized person'.
Plumer [(Plumer, 1996), p. 89] also highlights the impact of stigma upon an evolving identity: `The awareness of stigma that surrounds homosexuality leads the experience to become an extremely negative one; shame and secrecy, silence and self-awareness, a strong sense of differentness—and of peculiarity—pervades the consciousness'.

Not only is internalized homophobia associated with suicide, but other health consequences as well, including more risky sexual behaviors and increased HIV, alcohol and substance abuse, eating disorders, and self-mutilation. This is tragic! My heart hurts for these youth. 

The study clearly shows that suicide is more closely associated with internalized homophobia then to church doctrines and beliefs.  My question is this, what interventions can be taken to address this issue?  This is a delicate issue, because the problem arises from institutionalized and cultural heterosexism, so to further pathologize gay people might wrongly take our focus from the source (heterosexist culture), and place it on the victim.  I feel that a two pronged approach would be most effective.  First we need to combat cultural heterosexism in society and the church, where I happily see great progress.  But what measures can the church take to reduce heterosexism or homonegativism without altering church doctrines?  I personally see the brethren taking strides in this area, but heterosexism is so ingrained in society that I don't see their efforts being terribly effective with the membership in general.  What can we do better, or more of, to bust this culture once and for all?

But second, we can't trust or rely on culture to make this go away, we have to intervene at the victim level too.  What are your thoughts there?  How can one remain a member of the church (as we know that leaving a faith increases risk of suicide), and maintain a healthy self-perception despite any heterosexism they might encounter?  As the studies bear out, it is not the faith conflict that leads to suicide as much as it is the internalized homophobia, so trying to change the doctrines is going to be less effective. 

 

[kllindley]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:11 AM, ALarson said:

This is a great example of the type of statement that needs to stop if we want to open up communication and actually work on solving the hurt and damage.

 A couple in a SSM, and raising children, are very much a family. 

Would you really tell the children involved that they are not part of a family unit?

 

 

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  It’s very sad that there are some who still feel this way.

I think stood a good example of what I was talking about regarding unhelpful efforts to create change. I disagree with the idea that same-sex families are not families. It does seem unnecessarily hurtful to say anything like this. But what good does it do to respond this way? I believe it would be more effective to acknowledge that a fundamental belief for some people is that these types of families cannot last in eternity. Whether I disagree or agree, I can respect that belief. Then I am free to point out the harm that comes from saying same-sex marriages are not families. I think even fairly "conservative" members would be open to changing how they talk about other family configurations in the interest of reducing harm and not giving offense. That is as long as there is respectful acceptance of the belief that the families will not continue after death. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd at the very least consider advising them to not continue to attend if they were coming home more and more depressed and with more thoughts of suicide after attending.

I said nothing about my own attendance.

Of course not. You were saying that about others, though. 

Given the gay members I know who are active and faithful in the Church, I could not disagree more with the sentiment that all gay youth and their families should be encouraged to go inactive or leave the Church. 

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I found this to be timely - just 11 days ago, Governor Herbert announced a task force addressing the issue of teen suicide.  He set a hard deadline of February 15 for recommendations from the task force to be ready for consideration at the 2018 Utah Legislative Session. 

Quote

The task force will be chaired by Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah State Rep. Steven Eliason and will include, among others, Sen. Stuart Adams of the Utah State Senate; Sydnee ****son, Utah State superintendent of public instruction; Dr. Doug Gray from the University of Utah; A. Marc Harrison, CEO and president of Intermountain Healthcare; Taryn Aiken Hiatt, area director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; Gail Miller, owner and chair of the Larry H. Miller Group; Kim Myers, suicide prevention coordinator, Utah Department of Human Services; Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Tanya Vea, vice president and general manager of KSL; Ross Van Vraken, executive director of Utah Neuropsychiatric Institute at the University of Utah; and Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah.

I found this to be very encouraging, Calm.

I don't know the exact statistics either, but it's obviously a concern now (teen suicides).  Of course these are not all gay teens, but this is so promising to see.

(Sorry, Calm....this is in response to this comment of yours):

Quote

 

Knowing what we know about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth..."

What do we actually know? 

 

I couldn't get it to copy above for some reason!

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course not. You were saying that about others, though. 

Not sure what you mean here.  I was speaking for myself regarding what I would personally do if I had a child who was gay and was becoming more depressed and suicidal.

I think I was pretty clear regarding that:

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to agree and I honestly feel that this is the route I would go if I had a child who was gay.  Until the church changes more of its teachings and at the very least, eliminates the most recent policy, I absolutely would not feel that staying active in the church was best for them.  

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I happen to see on FB a post by a poster on this board. He mentioned a Riverton, Utah ward on Sunday I believe, that had a combined SS, RS and PH meeting where they invited different gay members to share their experiences. Amazing, hope this is true! Here is the post below:

"We attended a Riverton ward today (don't remember the name.) They combined the SS and RS/PH, so the meeting was 1:45 long. I took a rough count. About 250 - 300 people. There were two cameras recording the meeting. The bishop started out by saying they were going to talk about loving and accepting LGBTQ people. A member of the SP gave the opening prayer....

Next speaker, a gay woman married to a woman. Her wife was also there and she made 3 or 4 references to her wife. Talked about her amazing mother who rejects her wife and their marriage. Read several letters to her mother (some of them not sent) seeking to re-establish their previously close relationship. (ItNoJC,A)....

Next speaker: A lesbian woman married to a woman. Told of her upbringing and her struggles with prescription drugs and her self loathing because -- she is gay. Now clean, happily married to a woman and has a child. (ItNoJC,A).

Next speaker: The mother of the above woman. She was TBM but has come to love and understand and accept her child. Talked about her faith journey. She is still in the church. (ItNoJC,A)....

 

"There were two cameras recording the meeting."

Just out of curiosity to those familiar with all of the Handbook...is this allowed according to the Handbook for part of a Sunday meeting?  Perhaps if it was not in the chapel, because I know SM tapings are not allowed.

The married speakers make me doubt the veracity of the account if this was an actual Sunday meeting.  Generally one doesn't have what amounts in our doctrine to unrepentant sinners of any kind speaking and if the summary is accurate, apparently saying in this case the gay marriage is an acceptable choice for church members.

If the summary was not accurate, and it was presented in accordance with church doctrines or was not a Sunday church meeting and instead similar to an interfaith gathering where differing beliefs were shared to get to know one's neighbour, that would make sense to me including the inclusion of cameras.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think stood a good example of what I was talking about regarding unhelpful efforts to create change. I disagree with the idea that same-sex families are not families. It does seem unnecessarily hurtful to say anything like this. But what good does it do to respond this way? I believe it would be more effective to acknowledge that a fundamental belief for some people is that these types of families cannot last in eternity. Whether I disagree or agree, I can respect that belief. Then I am free to point out the harm that comes from saying same-sex marriages are not families. I think even fairly "conservative" members would be open to changing how they talk about other family configurations in the interest of reducing harm and not giving offense. That is as long as there is respectful acceptance of the belief that the families will not continue after death. 

I'm with you all the way up until the last 5 words.  None of us know that is true.  We know what the leaders currently teach (and teachings change) and we can believe this.  But we do not know their families will dissolve upon death.  I am respectful that others may believe this will be the case, but I do not accept that as the truth.

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

Where did he state that? (part in bold above...is that a quote from the letter?)

He closed with:

 

He didn't say it, but his list of reasons for writing seemed to suggest it (which is why i said essentially, sorry if i was confusing).  He specifically gives the reason that he's writing and includes that he's not writing for his family because they are healing, neither for his son, but that he's writing to get them to change their policies and doctrines.

If he doesn't need healing but only wants changes, it's hard to know what there is left for leaders to say back to him.  I'm not saying that condolences would have been wrong or odd to offer, but the letter seems to present a very narrow window of what kind of response would be acceptable to him.

I don't say that as a judgment against him, his reaction and what he says in the letter seem like a pretty normal emotional response to what he's been through (and a much better response than most of us could probably make in the same situation).  It's just that sometimes I think if we (as in humans) need something from someone, then we need to ask for it and not be upset if we don't get things we didn't ever ask for, especially if we make it seem like they aren't what we are looking to get.

Neither am I saying that he didn't get a response of sympathy because the leaders didn't think he wanted one. I have no idea why leaders didn't respond at all.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm with you all the way up until the last 5 words.  None of us know that is true.  We know what the leaders currently teach (and teachings change) and we can believe this.  But we do not know their families will dissolve upon death.  I am respectful that others may believe this will be the case, but I do not accept that as the truth.

Which is why I just asked that we respect the "belief." I know we don't <know>. We don't really <know> anything. Which is all the more reason in my mind to avoid getting caught up on the differences of belief and focus on common ground that we can do something about. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not sure what you mean here.  I was speaking for myself regarding what I would personally do if I had a child who was gay and was becoming more depressed and suicidal.

I think I was pretty clear regarding that.

As far as you, yes. But when you said that you "have to agree with this:"

As soon as your child comes out, you have to make the decision whether remaining active in the LDS Church is more important than taking that risk. The fact that you are a bishop/active member/believer is NO excuse. Your child’s safety comes first ... that is your most important calling.

That sounded to me like you were agreeing that that is the only thing a good parent could reasonably do. I'll take you at your word that you are not saying this, then. 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd at the very least consider advising them to not continue to attend if they were coming home more and more depressed and with more thoughts of suicide after attending.

I said nothing about my own attendance.

That seems intuitive, but the evidence shows that it can actually make things worse for gay youth:

Quote

 

After consideration of internalized homophobia, the relationship between leaving one’s religion and suicidal thoughts was significant. In our analysis, leaving one’s religion is associated with a decrease in internalized homophobia. However, while this expected relationship emerged, we also found that leaving one’s religion was associated with a higher risk of suicidal thoughts. Thus, a dual relationship was found where leaving the religion was related to lower internalized homophobia, leading to a lower odds of suicidal thoughts, but also an increase in the odds of suicidal thoughts directly. Further, the strength of the direct effect and indirect effect suggests that leaving one’s religion of origin has a sum impact of increasing the odds of suicidal thoughts, a potentially important clinical implication for those working with LGBT persons who are struggling to come to terms with both religious and LGBT identities. 

There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one’s religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

 

 

 

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He didn't say it, but his list of reasons for writing seemed to suggest it (which is why i said essentially, sorry if i was confusing).  He specifically gives the reason that he's writing and includes that he's not writing for his family because they are healing, neither for his son, but that he's writing to get them to change their policies and doctrines.

If he doesn't need healing but only wants changes, it's hard to know what there is left for leaders to say back to him.  I'm not saying that condolences would have been wrong or odd to offer, but the letter seems to present a very narrow window of what kind of response would be acceptable to him.

I don't say that as a judgment against him, his reaction and what he says in the letter seem like a pretty normal emotional response to what he's been through (and a much better response than most of us could probably make in the same situation).  It's just that sometimes I think if we (as in humans) need something from someone, then we need to ask for it and not be upset if we don't get things we didn't ever ask for, especially if we make it seem like they aren't what we are looking to get.

Neither am I saying that he didn't get a response of sympathy because the leaders didn't think he wanted one. I have no idea why leaders didn't respond at all.

I agree (and thanks for clarifying).

I think that any response would have been nice for him to receive (even if just an acknowledgement that they received his letter).

We are taught that God responds to and answers all of our prayers.....even if it's not the answer we want.  I know the changes he's asking for may not happen at all or even anytime soon.  But a response and answer would have probably meant a lot to the family.